Cheryl Sullenger

Evidence shows notorious late-term abortionist George Tiller did iIlegal abortions for years

Cheryl Sullenger
By Cheryl Sullenger
Image

Topeka, KS, Feburary 27, 2012 (OperationRescue.org) – An Initial Order released by the Kansas State Board of Healing Arts on February 21, 2012, revoking the medical license of abortionist Ann Kristin Neuhaus includes evidence showing that late-term abortionist George Tiller was doing illegal late-term abortions for at least seven years.

“If the evidence presented in Neuhaus’ case had been presented during Tiller’s criminal trial, there is no doubt that he would have been convicted of illegal late-term abortions,” said Troy Newman, president of Operation Rescue and Pro-Life Nation. “This shows that Tiller was doing illegal abortions based on phony mental health excuses for at least seven years.”

The revocation order is expected to be finalized by the full Board in April and is the result of a complaint filed in 2006 by this author.

Neuhaus provided the second referral that Tiller needed in order to legally justify the expensive post-viability abortions that were his specialty — and his bread and butter. Each referral issued by Neuhaus was based on a mental health diagnosis that she claimed justified the late-term abortions. She certified that each woman met the narrow legal exception to the Kansas law banning post-viability abortions, which allowed such abortions to be done only if there was the risk that the woman would suffer a “substantial and irreversible impairment of a major bodily function” if the pregnancy continued.

However, the records show that Neuhaus was incompetent. She failed to conduct proper mental health evaluations on eleven patients that she referred to Tiller for post-viability abortions. Her diagnoses were a sham.

(Click “like” if you want to end abortion! )

In fact, Administrative Judge Edward J. Gaschler indicated that there is no evidence that Neuhaus ever personally evaluated the women beyond having them answer yes or no questions that were plugged into a computer program called PsychManager Lite, which automatically generated a diagnosis. For Patient #8, there was no evidence that Neuhaus ever saw her at all. The only information about the individual circumstances of each woman in Neuhaus’ patient records came not from her own observations, but from intake forms generated by unlicensed workers at Tiller’s clinic.

“Based upon the evidence, the Licensee [Neuhaus] simply completed yes/no questions and answers and whatever diagnosis the computer gave, she assigned that diagnosis. This method of practicing medicine does not meet the applicable standard of care,” wrote Judge Gaschler.

He concluded, “The care and treatment of the 11 patients in question was seriously jeopardized by the Licensee’s care.”

Suspicious dates reveal illegal abortions

In addition, the dates on some of Neuhaus’ computer-generated reports were indicators that late-term abortions were being done illegally.

For example, Neuhaus’s reports for Patients #2, #6, #9, #10, and #11 were all generated and time-stamped after the dates that these women’s abortions already began. Tiller’s records showed that Patient #10 had her initial appointment on October 4, 2003, yet Neuhaus’ diagnosis report is dated November 13, 2003, nearly six weeks after the abortion would have taken place.

For one file, that of Patient #5, the computer diagnosis reports were generated on August 7, 2003, but that date was crossed out and changed on the forms to August 12 and 13, 2003. The date that Tiller’s office indicated that Neuhaus had an appointment with Patient #5 was August 12, 2003. No explanation for the discrepancies was ever given.

“It appears that diagnoses were being generated after the abortions had already begun, which would have constituted a violation of the law,” said Newman. “One was generated ahead of time before Neuhaus had any opportunity to interview the patient. This only confirms the long-held belief that Neuhaus was rubber-stamping late-term abortions for Tiller without any sound medical basis so he could collect on the huge fees he charged for such abortions, which ranged in price from $5,000 to in excess of $18,000 depending on the circumstances.”

No basis for mental health diagnoses

In all patients, Neuhaus failed to perform mental health evaluations, review the patient’s medical and social history, or make any kind of proper examination. She made no notations that indicated she ever spoke to the patients beyond the yes/no questions asked by her PsychManager Lite program, which was essentially meant to be a teaching tool for students of psychiatry. The program contained cautionary statements that the program should only be used in conjunction with proper mental health evaluations by skilled professionals. Facts in the Neuhaus case showed she was neither skilled nor did she conduct proper evaluations.

Discussion at Neuhaus’ disciplinary hearing showed that one problem with the computer-generated diagnoses was that some of the questions were compound, which gave no indication to the patient’s true condition or state of mind. An example of this was one question that asked if the patient had experienced any weight gain or loss. If the answer was “yes” there was no way to know if the weight was gained or lost. Weight gain is normal and healthy in pregnancy, yet the computer would count that as an indicator of possible mental health issues.

“These diagnoses amounted to quackery,” said Newman. “The computer program could make normal and healthy conditions of late-term pregnancy such as weight gain, trouble sleeping, and lack of interest in participating in aggressive sporting activities, appear to be symptoms of mental illness. This was all to give the appearance that the abortions were medically justified, when in fact they were not.”

When Neuhaus’ computer programs conflicted in their conclusions, or when her conclusions differed from that on Tiller’s intake forms, she never attempted to determine which conclusion was the correct one. She simply ignored them.

Alleged suicidal ideation ignored

Neuhaus’ computer reports indicated that some patients were suicidal, yet there was not one bit of information in the reports on which to base such a diagnosis. Neuhaus never referred these women for counseling of any kind. The only referral they received was for a late-term abortion.

“If the Licensee sincerely believed that the patients were seriously mentally ill, it would seem likely that a treating physician would recommend treatment for these rather serious mental illnesses. Yet, the Licensee ignored these alleged mental illnesses,” stated Judge Gaschler.

Patient #10: Unintended pregnancies cause mental health disease?

Patient #10 was an 18-year old woman who was approximately 25 weeks pregnant. According to Tiller’s records, Neuhaus’ appointment with her was October 4, 2003. However, the computerized forms that indicated her diagnosis of Acute Stress Disorder, Severe, was not generated until November 13, 2003, nearly six weeks after the abortion took place.

In order to qualify for that particular diagnosis, a patient must have “experienced witnessed, or was confronted with an event or events that involved actual or threatened death or serious injury, or a threat to physical integrity.” Neuhaus recorded no such event that could have been the basis of the diagnosis for Patient #10.

Under questioning at Neuhaus’ disciplinary hearing, Neuhaus testified that the traumatic event in the patient’s life was the unintended pregnancy.

“This would lead to a conclusion that any unintended pregnancy causes the mental health condition of the pregnant woman to be Acute Distress Disorder,” wrote Judge Gaschler. “There is nothing in the patient file to support this. The Licensee did not document this in Patient #10’s file.”

Stipulation blocked this evidence in Tiller’s trial

On March 23, 2009, Neuhaus’ employer, George Tiller, faced opening arguments in his criminal trial on 19 counts of violating K.S.A 65-6703, a state law that at that time banned post-viability abortions unless the abortionist “has a documented referral from another physician not legally or financially affiliated with the physician performing or inducing the abortion and both physicians determine that: (1) The abortion is necessary to preserve the life of the pregnant woman; or (2) a continuation of the pregnancy will cause a substantial and irreversible impairment of a major bodily function of the pregnant woman.”

On March 12, 2009, just 11 days before the trial, Asst. Attorney General Barry Disney entered into a stipulation agreement with Tiller’s lawyers that prevented the evidence from reaching the jury that was later presented in Neuhaus’ disciplinary case.

Disney stipulated that the medical necessity of the abortions was not in dispute because Neuhaus had given Tiller “documented referrals” after she determined that continuation of the pregnancy would cause “substantial and irreversible impairment” to the woman.

This effectively took Neuhaus’ incompetence and unsubstantiated, dubious diagnoses off the table, leaving only the matter of whether or not Neuhaus and Tiller enjoyed an improper financial or legal affiliation.

The jury never heard about the diagnoses made days or weeks after the abortions, or about the concerns that Neuhaus never reviewed patient histories or conducted proper mental health evaluations. They never knew about Patient #8, who was never seen by Neuhaus at all, yet was referred by her for an abortion without having made any recorded diagnosis. The term “PsychManager Lite” was never heard by the jury, nor the fact that the diagnoses used to justify otherwise illegal post-viability abortions were completely baseless and without proper documentation. They never heard Neuhaus’ outlandish theory that unintended pregnancies by default make women mentally ill.

In fact, Disney’s only witness for the prosecution was a very hostile and defiant Neuhaus who made sure everyone knew she resented being forced to testify against her friend Tiller.

It is no wonder that the jury found him “not guilty” in less than an hour. They were blocked from hearing the real evidence that crimes had been committed. Had the jury been allowed to hear the real facts in that case, which were heard by an Administrative Judge in the Neuhaus disciplinary hearings, there can be no doubt that guilty verdicts would have been reached, and history would have been altered.

“It is tragic to think that efforts to protect Tiller from legal accountability for his actions may have ultimately led to his demise,” said Newman.

Operation Rescue complaint placed Tiller’s license in jeopardy

Just moments after the jury read the “not guilty” verdicts in Tiller’s criminal trial, the Kansas State Board of Healing Arts announced that an 11-count petition against Tiller had been filed by them and would proceed despite the criminal verdicts. That petition was based on the same complaint filed by Operation Rescue that led to Neuhaus’ recent disciplinary action.

“If the Board was willing to revoke Neuhaus’ medical license on counts nearly identical to Tiller’s charges, it would also have revoked Tiller’s license as well,” said Newman. “Tiller’s murder just two months after his trial tragically prevented him from being brought to proper justice. His killer was frustrated by the erroneous belief that the system was broken and could not work. In fact, the system was working, despite efforts to subvert it.”

LeRoy Carhart, an abortionist who worked for Tiller, publicly stated that Tiller had announced his retirement to his staff just two weeks before his death. It appeared that Tiller may have been planning to retire his license rather than submit to Board discipline.

Truth leads to victory

There can be no doubt now that the bogus mental health diagnoses that were used to justify late-term abortions on paper were without basis and were concocted by Neuhaus in order to help Tiller circumvent the law. The post-viability abortions that Neuhaus referred to Tiller were done illegally. It has finally been proven through peaceful, legal means.

“Thankfully, Neuhaus’ quackery has been exposed and she will never do another abortion. Her medical license is currently restricted and her revocation order will soon be finalized, bringing to close the final chapter in the Tiller abortion crime spree that spanned four decades and victimized thousands of viable babies whose mothers came to Wichita for late-term abortions from every state,” said Newman. “This is a victory for every pro-life supporter in the country.”


Advertisement
Featured Image
Thaddeus Baklinski Thaddeus Baklinski Follow Thaddeus

‘It’s a miracle’: Newborn girl survives two days after being abandoned in a field

Thaddeus Baklinski Thaddeus Baklinski Follow Thaddeus
By Thaddeus Baklinski

The survival of a baby who was abandoned by her mother and left in a field for two days has been described as "a miracle" by the doctor attending the newborn girl.

"She had been left alone naked, and weighed less than a kilogram, in part because she was so severely dehydrated," said Doctor Barbara Chomik at the hospital in the northern Polish city of Elblag, according to a report from Central European News.

"It is a miracle that she survived under those conditions for so long. It is simply a miracle," Dr. Chomik said.

The report said that the child's mother, Jolanta Czarnecka, 30, of Ilawa in northeastern Poland, had concealed her pregnancy from friends and fellow workers, and had given birth in a field during a lunch break, then returned to work.

When blood was noticed on her clothing, the woman at first claimed she had accidentally given birth in the toilet and the baby had gone down the drain.

However, when investigation found no evidence supporting her claims, Czarnecka admitted to having given birth to the child in a nearby field and leaving her there.

When searchers found the child, two days after her birth, the little girl was dehydrated and covered with insects.

Czarnecka is facing charges of attempted murder for allegedly abandoning her child.

Czarnecka, who has entered a not guilty plea to the charges against her, could be sentenced to five years in prison if she is convicted.


Advertisement
Featured Image
Because nothing says love quite like a whip and restraints, right? Shutterstock
Jonathon van Maren Jonathon van Maren Follow Jonathon

To the Christians who think 50 Shades is all sorts of awesome: Please, stop and THINK

Jonathon van Maren Jonathon van Maren Follow Jonathon
By Jonathon van Maren

It’s pretty depressing when you realize that, in 2014, many people seem to think that destruction of human dignity is a small price to pay for an orgasm.

I suppose when I write a column about a book that just sold its 100 millionth copy I shouldn’t be surprised when I get a bit of a kickback. But I have to say—I wasn’t expecting hundreds of commenters, many saying they were Christian, to come out loudly defending the porn novel 50 Shades of Grey, often tastelessly interspersed with details from their own sex lives.

People squawked that we “shouldn’t judge” those who practice bondage, domination, sadism and masochism (BDSM), and informed me that “no one gets hurt” and that it “isn’t abuse” and said that it was “just fantasy” (as if we have a separate brain and body for fantasy).

Meanwhile, not a single commenter addressed one of the main arguments I laid out—that with boys watching violent porn and girls being socialized to accept violence and torture inside of a sexual relationship, we have created a toxic situation in which people very much are being hurt.

In response to the defenders of this trash, let me make just a few points.

  1. Not all consent is equal.

People keep trumpeting this stupid idea that just because someone consents to something or allows something to happen, it isn’t abusive.

But if someone consents to being beaten up, punched, slapped, whipped, called disgusting and degrading names, and have other things done to them that I will choose not to describe here, does that make it any less abusive? It makes it legal (perhaps, but it certainly doesn’t make it any less disgusting or violent.

Would you want your daughter to be in a relationship with Christian Grey? Would you want your son to turn into Christian Grey? If the answer is yes to either of those, someone should call social services.

Anyone who works with victims of domestic and sexual assault will tell you that just because someone permits something to happen or doesn’t extricate themselves from a situation doesn’t mean it isn’t, in fact, abuse. Only when it comes to sex are people starting to make this argument, so that they can cling to their fetishes and justify their turn-ons. Those women who defend the book because they think it spiced up their sex life are being incredibly selfish and negligent, refusing to think about how this book could affect other women in different situations, as well as young and impressionable girls.

In the words of renowned porn researcher and sociologist Dr. Gail Dines:

In his book on batterers, Lundy Bancroft provides a list of potentially dangerous signs to watch out for from boyfriends. Needless to say, Christian [Grey of 50 Shades of Grey] is the poster boy of the list, not only with his jealous, controlling, stalking, sexually sadistic behavior, but his hypersensitivity to what he perceives as any slight against him, his whirlwind romancing of a younger, less powerful woman, and his Jekyll-and-Hyde mood swings. Any one of these is potentially dangerous, but a man who exhibits them all is lethal.

The most likely real-world ending of Fifty Shades of Grey is fifty shades of black and blue. The awful truth in the real world is that women who partner with a Christian Grey often end up hightailing it to a battered women's shelter with traumatized kids in tow. The less fortunate end up in graveyards.

  1. 50 Shades of Grey normalizes intimate partner violence…

…and sickeningly, even portrays it as romantic and erotic. Amy Bonomi, Lauren Altenburger, and Nicole Walton published an article on the impact of 50 Shades last year in the Journal of Women’s Health. Their conclusions are intuitive and horrifying:

While intimate partner violence (IPV) affects 25% of women and impairs health, current societal conditions—including the normalization of abuse in popular culture such as novels, film, and music—create the context to support such violence.

Emotional abuse is present in nearly every interaction, including: stalking (Christian deliberately follows Anastasia and appears in unusual places, uses a phone and computer to track Anastasia’s whereabouts, and delivers expensive gifts); intimidation (Christian uses intimidating verbal and nonverbal behaviors, such as routinely commanding Anastasia to eat and threatening to punish her); and isolation (Christian limits Anastasia’s social contact). Sexual violence is pervasive—including using alcohol to compromise Anastasia’s consent, as well as intimidation (Christian initiates sexual encounters when genuinely angry, dismisses Anastasia’s requests for boundaries, and threatens her). Anastasia experiences reactions typical of abused women, including: constant perceived threat (“my stomach churns from his threats”); altered identity (describes herself as a “pale, haunted ghost”); and stressful managing (engages in behaviors to “keep the peace,” such as withholding information about her social whereabouts to avoid Christian’s anger). Anastasia becomes disempowered and entrapped in the relationship as her behaviors become mechanized in response to Christian’s abuse.

Our analysis identified patterns in Fifty Shades that reflect pervasive intimate partner violence—one of the biggest problems of our time. Further, our analysis adds to a growing body of literature noting dangerous violence standards being perpetuated in popular culture.

  1. Really? Sadism?

I notice that commenters rarely break down what the acronym “BDSM” actually stands for: bondage, domination, sadism, and masochism. If they did, they could no longer make the repulsive claim that “love” or “intimacy” have anything to do with it.

Follow Jonathon van Maren on Facebook

The definition of sadism is “enjoyment that someone gets from being violent or cruel or from causing pain, especially sexual enjoyment from hurting or punishing someone…a sexual perversion in which gratification is obtained by the infliction of physical or mental pain on others.”

As one of my colleagues noted, we used to send sadists to a therapist or to prison, not to the bedroom. And 100 million copies of this porn novel have been unleashed on our society informing people that getting off on hurting someone is romantic and erotic. It is a brutal irony that people who scream about water-boarding terrorists are watching and experimenting with sexual practices far more brutal. As one porn researcher noted, some online BDSM porn promotes practices and behaviors that would be considered unlawful under the Geneva Convention if they were taking place in a wartime context.

It seems the Sexual Revolutionaries have gone from promoting “safe sex” to “safe words”—just in case the pain gets too rough. And none of them seem to be volunteering information on just how a woman is supposed to employ a safe word with a gag or bondage headgear on.

But who cares, right? Just one more casualty on our culture’s new Sexual Frontier.

  1. “It’s just fiction and fantasy and has no effect on the real world!”

That’s total garbage and they know it. I’ve met multiple girls who were abused like this inside of relationships. Hotels are offering “50 Shades of Grey” packages replete with the helicopter and private suites for the proceedings. According to the New York Post, sales of rope exploded tenfold after the release of the book. Babeland reported that visits to the bondage section of their website spiked 81%, with an almost 30% increase in the sale of things like riding crops and handcuffs.

I could go on, but I won’t. As Babeland co-founder Claire Cavanah noted, “It’s like a juggernaut. You’d be surprised to see how very ordinary these people are who are coming in. The book is just an explosion of permission for them to try something new in the bedroom.”

  1. What does this book and the BDSM movement say about the value of women and girls?

I’d like the defenders of this book to try stop thinking with their nether-regions for just a moment and ask themselves a few simple questions: What does sadism and sexual torture (consensual or not) say to our culture about the value of girls? What does it say to boys about how they should treat girls? The youth of today are inundated with porn and sexually violent material—is nobody—nobody—at all worried about the impact this has on them? On the girls who are being abused by boys who think this is normal behavior—and think it is normal themselves?

Dr. Gail Dines relates that when speaking to groups of women who loved the book, they all grow deathly silent when she asks them two simple questions: Would you want your daughter to be in a relationship with Christian Grey? Would you want your son to turn into Christian Grey?

If the answer is yes to either of those, someone should call social services.

__

This book and the sadism it promotes are an assault on human dignity, and most of all an assault on the worth and value of girls and women. Please consider the impact you will have on your daughters and the vulnerable and confused people around you when you read and promote this book. Anastasia Steele is, thankfully, a fictional character. But real girls are facing these expectations and demands from a culture that elevates a sexual sadist to the level of a romantic hero. Ask yourselves if you want their “love” and “intimacy” to include sadism and domination, or real respect.

Because you can’t have both.

Follow Jonathon van Maren on Facebook


Advertisement
Featured Image
Shutterstock.com
Ryan T. Anderson

,

New York Times reporter: ‘Anti-LGBT’ people ‘deserve’ incivility

Ryan T. Anderson
By Ryan Anderson

As I recounted Monday at The Daily Signal, The New York Times reporter Josh Barro thinks some people are “unworthy of respect.” Yesterday Barro doubled-down and tweeted back at me that “some people are deserving of incivility.” He argued that I am such a person because of my views about marriage policy. You can see the entire exchange on my twitter page.

What Josh Barro says or does doesn’t really affect me. I’m not a victim, and I’ll keep doing what I do. But incivility, accepted and entrenched, is toxic to a political community. Indeed, civility is essential for political life in a pluralistic society.

It also has deep roots.

The Hebrew Bible tells us that all people are made in the image and likeness of God and have a profound and inherent dignity. Sound philosophy comes to a similar conclusion: as rational beings capable of freedom and love, all human beings have intrinsic and inestimable worth. And so we should always treat people with respect and dignity—we should honor their basic humanity. We should always engage with civility—even when we sharply disagree with them. Faith and reason, the natural law and the divine law, both point to the same conclusion.

Just as I think the best of theology and philosophy point to the conclusion that we should always treat people with respect, so I think they show that marriage is the union of a man and a woman—and that redefining marriage will undermine the political common good.

The work that I’ve done for the past few years for The Heritage Foundation has been at the service of explaining why I think this to be the case. Bookish by nature, I thought the best contribution I could make to public life was to help us think about marriage. So while my early work after college was in philosophy and bioethics, and my graduate coursework was in the history of political philosophy, I put my dissertation about economic and social justice on hold so I could devote myself to this debate at this crucial time.

Along with my co-authors, a classmate of mine from Princeton and a professor of ours there, we set out to write a book making what we considered the best philosophical argument for what marriage is and why it matters. Our book seemed to help the Supreme Court think about the issue, as Justice Samuel Alito cited it twice. The reason I’ve written various and sundry policy papers for Heritage, and traveled across the country speaking on college campuses, and appeared on numerous news shows (including, of course, Piers Morgan) is that I know the only way forward in our national debate about marriage is to make the arguments in as reasonable and civil a spirit as possible.

Some people, like Barro, want to do everything they can to shut down this discussion. They want to demonize those who hold contrary viewpoints. They want to equate us with racists and claim we are unworthy of respect and ought to be treated with incivility. This is how bullies behave. In all of recorded history, ours is the first time where we can have open and honest conversations about same-sex attraction and marriage. This discussion is just beginning. It is nowhere near being over.

All our fellow citizens, including those identifying as LGBT, should enjoy the full panoply of civil rights—the free exercise of religion, freedoms of speech and press, the right to own property and enter into contracts, the right to vote and have a fair trial, and every other freedom to live as they choose, consistent with the common good.

Government redefinition of marriage, however, is not a civil right—nor will redefining marriage serve the common good. Indeed, redefining marriage will have negative consequences.

We make our arguments, in many fora, as transparently as possible. We welcome counterarguments. And we strive to treat all people with the dignity and respect they deserve as we carry on this conversation.

One of the most unfortunate parts of my exchange with Barro last night was his reaction toward those who identify as LGBT and aspire to lives of chastity. They freely choose to live by their conviction that sex is reserved for the marital bond of a husband and wife. Some of them also seek professional help in dealing with and perhaps even diminishing (not repressing) their same-sex sexual desires.

I have written in their defense and against government coercion that would prevent them from receiving the help they desire, as New Jersey and California have done. Barro describes my support for their freedom as “sowing misery…doing a bad thing to people…making the world worse.”

There really is anti-LGBT bigotry in the world. But Barro does a disservice to his cause when he lumps in reasonable debates about marriage policy and the pastoral care that some same-sex attracted persons voluntarily seek out as, in his words, “anti-LGBT.” If we can’t draw a line between real bigotry and reasonable disagreement, we’re not helping anyone.

This debate isn’t about restricting anyone’s personal freedom. However it goes, people will remain free to live their romantic lives as they choose. So too people who experience same-sex attraction but aspire to chastity should be free to lead their lives in line with their beliefs, and to seek out the help they desire. We can have a civil conversation about which course of action is best—but let’s leave aside the extremism.

Barro asks, “Why shouldn’t I call you names?” My answer is simple: you should not practice the disdain and contempt you claim to abhor.

All my life, I’ve been educated at left-leaning institutions. Most of my friends disagree with me about these issues. But they’re still friends. And their feedback has made me a better person.

My final tweet to Barro is where I still remain committed: “people on all sides of LGBT debates and marriage debates need to find a way to discuss these issues without demonizing anyone.”

Reprinted with permission from the Daily Signal, where you can find Ryan Anderson's Twitter exchange with Barro.


Advertisement

Customize your experience.

Login with Facebook