Kirsten Andersen

Michigan abortionist: 'It’s too late for me, I’m possessed'

Kirsten Andersen
Kirsten Andersen
Image

ANN ARBOR, MI, February 21, 2013, (LifeSiteNews.com) – The sidewalk counselor watched with concern as the abortionist escorted his patient out of the clinic. The woman didn’t seem ready to go. Still woozy from the effects of anesthesia and seemingly in pain, she wobbled to and fro, barely able to walk.

The woman clung to the abortionist for support as they crossed the street in front of his abortion center. There was no one to take her home. The abortionist left her alone on the sidewalk and returned to his grim work.

Worried about the woman’s safety, the sidewalk counselor sent someone after her. They found her sitting on the pavement of a parking lot two blocks away next to a puddle of fresh vomit. When they asked if they could help, she couldn’t speak. The police were called, and an ambulance took her away.

When the sidewalk counselor called the abortionist the next day to tell him his patient had been taken to the hospital, he said it was the woman’s own fault for not bringing a driver.

This and other harrowing stories comprise 17 pages of notarized affidavits filed against Michigan abortionist Robert Alexander with the Michigan Board of Medicine and obtained by LifeSiteNews.com.

The complaint paints a picture of a troubled man, often under the influence of alcohol or other substances, behaving erratically and often dangerously, with stunning disregard for safety, ethics, and state law.

The carefully documented complaint levels serious accusations against Alexander, including:

  • Running an unlicensed abortion clinic in violation of state law;

  • Performing abortions in unsafe and unsanitary environments, at least one of which lacked running water;

  • Lying to property owners about how he intended to use the spaces he would rent from them;

  • Stealing from his patients;

  • Routinely releasing post-abortive women who were still under the effects of sedation;

  • Violating Michigan’s informed consent laws; and

  • Possible drug abuse.

The complaint covers a two-year period from 2004 to 2006, and contains testimony from witnesses, mostly sidewalk counselors, at two of Alexander’s abortion clinics – one in Ann Arbor, which was closed down in 2005 after he was evicted for failure to pay rent, and another in neighboring Ypsilanti which closed down about two years ago for unknown reasons.

Click "like" if you want to end abortion!

One sidewalk counselor took two-and-a-half pages to recount her often strange experiences at the Ann Arbor clinic. She said that even when working, the abortionist frequently behaved as if he was drunk or on drugs, and that he once told them he was possessed.

According to the counselor, in August of 2005, Alexander came out of the clinic to talk to the pro-life activists standing on the sidewalk. “We approached him and told him to stop killing children, to leave the place,” the counselor wrote.

We told him that we could help him. He answered that it was too late for that, he was possessed, and he proceeded to give us a number…50,000. We don’t know what this number meant. He had a stack of cash, about four inches wide in his pocket, and his scrubs all dirty and stained in blood. His speech was very slow, and not very clear. When walking, Alexander seemed not very coordinated, almost like if he had been drinking.

The counselor wrote that he often seemed to be in an altered state during their interactions. In October 2005, the abortionist invited the pro-lifers in to talk. They took him up on his offer. “We talked for 30 min [sic] and then we prayed over him,” the counselor wrote. “After that, we had the opportunity to pray over him every Friday for the next couple of months, and interact with him more. During these times, we always noticed how he walked slow and almost in a state of sleep, or confusion. His speech was also impaired and he would say things that were not clear.”

In November, a former clinic worker who had been laid off came to the facility to get a recommendation from Alexander for a job she was applying for. She spoke to the counselor about what she believed led to her termination. “[S]he said that Robert Alexander laid her off when she overheard him talking to somebody on the phone,” wrote the counselor. “She said that he was explaining why his blood showed some high level of a particular drug in it.” According to the former clinic worker, Alexander claimed he had pricked himself when getting ready to give the drug to a patient. The caller said the levels were too high to be just a prick. When he got off the phone, Alexander told the clinic worker he could no longer afford her, but she thought he just didn’t want her to learn more than she had already heard about the situation.

Another former clinic worker came to see the counselor right after quitting her job.

“Women’s Choice was a busy and hostile clinic to do counseling at,” the counselor wrote. “There was a clinic worker, who we believe was the clinic coordinator.…She was very hostile with us all the time. One day…a friend of mine who counsels with me went to the clinic, and this lady was in her car waiting for us. She said that she had just quit her job there. She said that Robert Alexander was particularly confused that day. That he had asked her to signed [sic] false papers and she refused, and that he had tried to do an abortion on a 7 month old baby and charge $3000 for it. She said she was getting out of there before it got too bad.”

Not long after that, the Ann Arbor clinic closed because Alexander stopped paying the rent.

Monica Miller, who heads the group Citizens for a Pro-Life Society, was able to enter the facility a few days after the eviction with a realtor and a few other pro-life activists. In her notarized affidavit, she describes the hastily abandoned facility as “exceptionally unkempt and dirty.”

“Several piles of garbage bags occupied one room along with containers of blood-material,” she wrote. “There was a small area of blood spattering on the wall of this room…In another room I observed open syringes with exposed hypodermic needles.”

Another affidavit from someone who searched the facility with Miller guessed the room was full of trash because the dumpster behind the facility had been removed a month prior. “Apparently, in the last month of business,” he wrote, “Woman’s Choice received no garbage service; the garbage was being stored in a spare room.”

Suspicious that Alexander may have left the remains of aborted babies in those bags, he opened one to look. He found a plastic bag with formalin inside labeled “Abortion – 13 weeks.” The bag had been sliced open. Elsewhere in the clinic, he found trash cans spattered with blood. One had an open cup set on top of it. The cup was filled with what appeared to be blood.

Over the next few weeks, as Alexander searched for a new location for his abortion mill, Miller and other pro-life activists called him several times posing as women seeking abortions to find out where he would set up shop next. Miller noted that each time they made an appointment, Alexander told them to print informed consent paperwork off the Michigan.gov website, sign it and bring it with them, but to just “skip the right-to-life questions” and “go to the end of the form,” in clear violation of Michigan’s informed consent law.

When Alexander offered to schedule an abortion for one of them at a small office suite in Ann Arbor, Miller met with the landlord and asked if he knew the space would be used as an abortion mill. The landlord was surprised. Alexander had told him he would be running a medical referral service, not performing surgery.

“Both [the landlord and his assistant] told me that this space was not set up as a doctor’s office,” Miller wrote. “There was no sink or running water, for instance, of any kind on the premises.”

That landlord decided not to rent to Alexander after all, but another landlord, this one in Ypsilanti, had allowed Alexander to store abortion equipment and furniture on his property in a small office space after his eviction. While the two were still negotiating over a possible lease arrangement, with no paperwork signed and no permits filed, Alexander began arranging abortion appointments at that makeshift ‘office,’ which also lacked running water or a toilet. Again, Miller contacted the landlord, and once again Alexander was denied a lease.

Finally, Alexander managed to secure a space in Ypsilanti. City statues require a building inspection to be performed and occupancy permits to be issued before business can take place on any property, but she says Alexander started scheduling abortions before he ever asked for an inspection or applied for any permits.

Miller went to the facility to confront him.

“I opened the door to the office and walked in,” Miller wrote. “Alexander asked me, ‘Do you have an appointment?’ I said, ‘No, I just want to talk with you.’ He answered, ‘I can’t talk with you, I’m seeing a patient right now.’” Through the veiled window to the back room, Miller could see the outline of a person waiting. Both Alexander and his assistant were wearing scrubs.

Miller reminded Alexander that he was not supposed to conduct business without an inspection or permits, then left the building. She stood on the sidewalk outside for a while, long enough to see Alexander remove the pink and orange “Woman’s Choice” sign advertising his abortion services from the window.

That afternoon, he did apply for permits, but he continued his practice in the meantime, Miller said.

When Miller called later that same afternoon to ask for an abortion, the assistant scheduled her for the following day.

As for the woman taken by ambulance from the parking lot where sidewalk counselors found her, dazed and vomiting? She survived. She called the sidewalk counselor who had helped her (and provided her phone number) later that same night and asked to be picked up from the hospital. She wanted a ride back to the parking lot to pick up her car. When the counselor picked her up, she told her a little about what had happened.

Dr. Alexander, she said, had told her an abortion would cost $250. When she arrived at his office, he raised the price. She protested, telling him she had only $270 in her wallet, but needed the last $20 to buy gas for her car so she could get to work. After the procedure, she checked her purse. The $20 she had withheld from him was gone. She confronted him about it, but he denied taking the money. Then he walked her across the street and left her there alone, still drugged, with a wallet as empty as her womb.

All of these troubling allegations are in 17 pages of notarized affidavits obtained by LifeSiteNews – but only after they were rejected out of hand by officials in the state of Michigan. Because the evidence was collected by pro-life advocates, Michigan Board of Medicine chairman Dr. George Shade dismissed it, accusing the pro-lifers of a conspiracy to discredit his former protégé.

Alexander, whose filthy Muskegon clinic was shut down by local authorities as a threat to public health in late 2012, has a long history of trouble with the law. His medical license was revoked in 1990 and he served time in federal prison for selling illegal prescriptions for controlled substances out of a weight loss clinic. Dr. Shade was the one who helped Alexander get his license back upon his release, writing a letter on his behalf and hiring the ex-con into a training program under his supervision.

Shade is now facing tough questions about an investigation he blocked into botched abortions at Alexander’s Muskegon clinic in 2010, but the complaint obtained by LifeSiteNews indicates he may have been covering up Alexander’s misdeeds for a lot longer than that.

Alexander recently abruptly left his job at an abortion mill in Detroit and reportedly now works at a public STD clinic in the same city. An attempt by LifeSiteNews to reach Alexander for comment at his place of employment was unsuccessful.

Red alert! Only 2 days left.

Support pro-life news. Help us reach our critical spring fundraising goal by April 1!


Share this article

Advertisement
Featured Image
Newsbusters Staff

,

Disney ABC embraces X-rated anti-Christian bigot Dan Savage in new prime time show

Newsbusters Staff
By

March 30, 2015 (NewsBusters.org) -- Media Research Center (MRC) and Family Research Council (FRC) are launching a joint national campaign to educate the public about a Disney ABC sitcom pilot based on the life of bigoted activist Dan Savage. MRC and FRC contacted Ben Sherwood, president of Disney/ABC Television Group, more than two weeks ago urging him to put a stop to this atrocity but received no response. [Read the full letter]

A perusal of Dan Savage’s work reveals a career built on advocating violence — even murder — and spewing hatred against people of faith. Savage has spared no one with whom he disagrees from his vitriolic hate speech. Despite his extremism, vulgarity, and unabashed encouragement of dangerous sexual practices, Disney ABC is moving forward with this show, disgustingly titled “Family of the Year.”

Media Research Center President Brent Bozell reacts:

“Disney ABC’s decision to effectively advance Dan Savage’s calls for violence against conservatives and his extremist attacks against people of faith, particularly evangelicals and Catholics, is appalling and outrageous. If hate speech were a crime, this man would be charged with a felony. Disney ABC giving Dan Savage a platform for his anti-religious bigotry is mind-boggling and their silence is deafening.

“By creating a pilot based on the life of this hatemonger and bringing him on as a producer, Disney ABC is sending a signal that they endorse Dan Savage’s wish that a man be murdered. He has stated, ‘Carl Romanelli should be dragged behind a pickup truck until there’s nothing left but the rope.’ ABC knows this. We told them explicitly.

“If the production of ‘Family of the Year’ is allowed to continue, not just Christians but all people of goodwill can only surmise that the company Walt Disney created is endorsing violence.”

Family Research Council President Tony Perkins reacts:

“Does ABC really want to produce a pilot show based on a vile bully like Dan Savage?  Do Dan Savage’s over-the top-obscenity, intimidation of teenagers and even violent rhetoric reflect the values of Disney?  Partnering with Dan Savage and endorsing his x-rated message will be abandoning the wholesome values that have attracted millions of families to Walt Disney.”

Dan Savage has made numerous comments about conservatives, evangelicals, and Catholics that offend basic standards of decency. They include:

  • Proclaiming that he sometimes thinks about “f****ing the shit out of” Senator Rick Santorum

  • Calling for Christians at a high school conference to “ignore the bull**** in the Bible”

  • Saying that “the only thing that stands between my d*** and Brad Pitt’s mouth is a piece of paper” when expressing his feelings on Pope Benedict’s opposition to gay marriage

  • Promoting marital infidelity

  • Saying “Carl Romanelli should be dragged behind a pickup truck until there’s nothing left but the rope.”

  • Telling Bill Maher that he wished Republicans “were all f***ing dead”

  • Telling Dr. Ben Carson to “suck my d***. Name the time and place and I’ll bring my d*** and a camera crew and you can s*** me off and win the argument.”

Reprinted with permission from Newsbusters

Share this article

Advertisement
Featured Image
Shutterstock.com
Jacqueline Harvey

Ending the end-of-life impasse: Texas is poised to ban doctor-imposed death by starvation

Jacqueline Harvey
By Jacqueline Harvey

AUSTIN, Texas, March 30, 2015 (TexasInsider.org)  After five consecutive sessions of bitter battles over end-of-life bills, the Texas Legislature is finally poised to pass the first reform to the Texas Advance Directives Act (TADA) in 12 years. An issue that created uncanny adversaries out of natural allies, and equally odd bedfellows, has finally found common ground in H.B. 3074 by State Rep. Drew Springer.  

H.B. 3074 simply prohibits doctor-imposed euthanasia by starvation and dehydration.

Since H.B. 3074 includes only those provisions and language that all major organizations are on record as having deemed acceptable in previous legislative sessions, there is finally hope of ending the end-of-life impasse in the Texas Capitol.

Many would be surprised to learn that Texas law allows physicians to forcibly remove a feeding tube against the will of the patient and their family. In fact, there is a greater legal penalty for failing to feed or water an animal than for a hospital to deny a human being food and water through a tube.

This is because there is no penalty whatsoever for a healthcare provider who wishes to deny artificially-administered nutrition and hydration (AANH). According to Texas Health and Safety Code, “every living dumb creature” is legally entitled access to suitable food and water.

Denying an animal food and water, like in this January case in San Antonio, is punishable by civil fines up to $10,000 and criminal penalties up to two years in jail per offense. Yet Texas law allows health care providers to forcibly deny food and water from human beings – what they would not be able to legally do to their housecat. And healthcare providers are immune from civil and criminal penalties for denial of food and water to human beings as long as they follow the current statutory process which is sorely lacking in safeguards.

Therefore, while it is surprising that Texas has the only state law that explicitly mentions food and water delivered artificially for the purpose of completely permitting its forced denial (the other six states mention AANH explicitly for the opposite purpose, to limit or prohibit its refusal), it is not at all surprising that the issue of protecting a patient’s right to food and water is perhaps the one point of consensus across all major stakeholders.

H.B. 3074 is the first TADA reform bill to include only this provision that is agreed upon across all major players in previous legislative sessions.

There are irreconcilable ideological differences between two major right-to-life organizations that should supposedly be like-minded: Texas Alliance for Life and Texas Right to Life. Each faction (along with their respective allies) have previously sponsored broad and ambitious bills to either preserve but reform the current law (Texas Alliance for Life’s position) or overturn it altogether as Texas Right to Life aims to do.

Prior to H.B. 3074, bills filed by major advocacy organizations have often included AANH, but also a host of other provisions that were so contentious and unacceptable to other organizations that each bill ultimately died, and this mutually-agreed-upon and vital reform always died along with it.

2011 & 2013 Legislative Sessions present prime example

This 2011 media report shows the clear consensus on need for legislation to simply address the need to protect patients’ rights to food and water:

“Hughes [bill sponsor for Texas Right to Life] has widespread support for one of his bill’s goals: making food and water a necessary part of treatment and not something that can be discontinued, unless providing it would harm the patient.”

Nonetheless, in 2013, both organizations and their allies filed complicated, contentious opposing bills, both of which would have protected a patient’s right to food and water but each bill also included provisions the rival group saw as contrary to their goals. Both bills were ultimately defeated and neither group was able to achieve protections for patients at risk of forced starvation and dehydration – a mutual goal that could have been met through a third, narrow bill like H.B. 3074.

H.B. 3074 finally focuses on what unites the organizations involved rather than what divides them, since these differences have resulted in a 12 year standoff with no progress whatsoever.

H.B. 3074 is progress that is pre-negotiated and pre-approved.

It is not a fertile springboard for negotiations on an area of mutual agreement. Rather it is the culmination of years of previous negotiations on bills that all came too late, either due to the complexnature of rival bills, the controversy involved, or even both.

On the contrary, H.B. 3074 is not just simply an area of agreement; moreover, it is has already been negotiated. It should not be stymied by disagreements on language, since Texas Alliance for Life and Texas Right to Life (along with their allies) were able to agree on language in 2007 with C.S.S.B. 439. C.S.S.B. 439 reads that, unlike the status quo that places no legal conditions on when food and water may be withdrawn, it would be permitted for those in a terminal condition if,

“reasonable medical evidence indicates the provision of artificial nutrition and hydration may hasten the patient’s death or seriously exacerbate other major medical problems and the risk of serious medical pain or discomfort that cannot be alleviated based on reasonable medical judgment outweighs the benefit of continued artificial nutrition and hydration.”

This language is strikingly similar to H.B. 3074 which states, “except that artificially administered nutrition and hydration must be provided unless, based on reasonable medical judgment, providingartificially administered nutrition and hydration would:

  1. Hasten the patient’s death;
  2. Seriously exacerbate other major medical problems not outweighed by the benefit of the provision of the treatment;
  3. Result in substantial irremediable physical pain, suffering, or discomfort not outweighed by the benefit of the provision of the treatment;
  4. Be medically ineffective; or
  5. Be contrary to the patient’s clearly stated desire not to receive artificially administered nutrition or hydration.”

With minimal exceptions (the explicit mention of the word terminal, the issue of medical effectiveness and the patient’s right to refuse), the language is virtually identical, and in 2007 Texas Right to Life affirmed this language as clarifying that “ANH can only be withdrawn if the risk of providing ANH is greater than the benefit of continuing it.”

Texas Right to Life would support the language in H.B. 3074 that already has Texas Alliance for Life’s endorsement. Any reconciliation on the minor differences in language would therefore be minimal and could be made by either side, but ultimately, both sides and their allies would gain a huge victory – the first victory in 12 years on this vital issue.

It seems that the Texas Advance Directive Act, even among its sympathizers, has something for everyone to oppose.

The passage of H.B. 3074 and the legal restoration of rights to feeding tubes for Texas patients will not begin to satisfy critics of the Texas Advance Directives Act who desire much greater changes to the law and will assuredly continue to pursue them. H.B. 3074 in no way marks the end for healthcare reform, but perhaps a shift from the belief that anything short of sweeping changes is an endorsement of the status quo.

Rather, we can look at H.B. 3074 as breaking a barrier and indicating larger changes are possible.

And if nothing else, by passing H.B. 3074 introduced by State Rep. Drew Springer, we afford human beings in Texas the same legal access to food and water that we give to our horses. What is cruel to do to an animal remains legal to do to humans in Texas if organizations continue to insist on the whole of their agenda rather than agreeing to smaller bills like H.B. 3074.

The question is, can twelve years of bad blood and bickering be set aside for even this most noble of causes?

Reprinted from TexasInsider.org with the author's permission. 

Share this article

Advertisement
Featured Image
Only 3 Days Left!
John-Henry Westen John-Henry Westen Follow John-Henry

Only 3 Days Left!

John-Henry Westen John-Henry Westen Follow John-Henry
By John-Henry Westen

I can’t believe how quickly our annual Spring campaign has flown by. Now,with only 3 days remaining, we still have $96,000 left to raise to meet our absolute minimum goal.

That’s why I must challenge you to stop everything, right now, and make a donation of whatever amount you can afford to support the pro-life and pro-family investigative reporting of LifeSite!

I simply cannot overemphasize how important your donation, no matter how large or small, is to the continued existence of LifeSite. 

For 17 years, we have relied almost exclusively on the donations of our growing army of everyday readers like you: readers who are tired of the anti-life and anti-family bias of the mainstream media, and who are looking for a different kind of news agency.

We at LifeSite have always striven to be that news agency, and your ever-faithful support has encouraged us to forge ahead fearlessly in this mission to promote the Culture of Life through investigative news reporting.

You will find our donation page is incredibly simple and easy to use. Making your donation will take less than two minutes, and then you can get back to the pressing duties scheduled for your day. But those two minutes means the world to us!

If you have not had the opportunity to see the video message from the Benham Brothers to all of our readers, I encourage you to do so (click here to view).

The Benham Brothers are only one of many, many pro-life and family leaders, media personalities, politicians, and activists around the world who rely on LifeSite on a daily basis!

Since our humble beginnings in the late 90s, LifeSite has gone from a small non-profit to an international force in the battle for life and family, read by over 5 million people every month

This is thanks only to the leaders, activists, and ordinary readers just like you who have recognized the importance truth plays in turning the tides of the Culture.

I want to thank the many readers who helped bring us within striking distance of our minimum goal with their donations over the weekend. 

But though we have made great strides in the past few days, we still need many more donations if we are going to have any hope of making it all the way by April 1st.

In these final, anxious days of our quarterly campaigns, I am always tempted to give in to fear, imagining what will happen if we don’t reach our goal.

In these moments, however, I instead turn to prayer, remembering that God in his providence has never yet let us down. With His help we have always been given precisely what we need to carry on!

You can also donate by phone or mail. We would love to hear from you!

Thank you so much for your support. 

Share this article

Advertisement

Customize your experience.

Login with Facebook