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.

Help us expose Planned Parenthood

$5 helps us reach 1,000 more people with the truth!


Share this article

Advertisement
Featured Image
Dr. Miriam Grossman speaks to large audience in Mississauga, Ontario Steve Jalsevac/LifeSite
Lianne Laurence

VIDEO: How DO you to talk to kids about sex? US sex-ed critic gives practical tips

Lianne Laurence
By Lianne Laurence

MISSISSAUGA, ON, August 27, 2015 (LifeSiteNews) – Talking to their children about sex is “anxiety provoking to say the least,” for parents, says American sex-ed expert, Dr. Miriam Grossman.

“Some people just can’t even do it, and that’s okay,” the New York-based psychiatrist told the crowd of 1,000 who packed a Mississauga conference hall August 18 to hear her critique of the Ontario Liberal government’s controversial sex-ed curriculum.

After Grossman explained how the Liberal sex-ed curriculum is dangerously flawed and ideologically driven, she used the question-and-answer session to give parents much appreciated and sometimes humorous practical advice on how to teach their children about “the birds and the bees.”

“If you feel you can’t do it, maybe there’s someone else in the family or in the constellation of people that you know you can trust that could do it,” said Grossman, author of “You’re teaching my child WHAT?” and an internationally sought-after speaker on sex education.

A child, adolescent and adult psychiatrist with 12 years’ clinical experience treating students at the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) clinic, Grossman said explaining sexuality and procreation to children is “a process,” that “shouldn’t ideally happen all at once. A child is not a miniature adult, and absorbs…new information differently than adults do.”

And parents need to be sure just what their child wants to know.

To illustrate this, Grossman referred to her earlier story about a father who gave his son every detail on human procreation after the boy asked him, “Dad, where do I come from?”

After the father finished, his son replied, “Well, that’s funny, because Johnny told me that he came from Montreal.”

“Try to find out what your child is really getting at, and, don’t give it all at once,” Grossman said. “You start with a little bit at a time…and you know, there’s so many variables here, and people have their own traditions and their own ways of explaining things, and something that might be right for my family might not be right for your family.”

She also advised that, when confronted with a four, five, six or seven-year-old asking about a pregnant woman, or where babies come, a parent can ask, “What a good question that is. What do you think?”

And parents can also legitimately put off the discussion when appropriate, telling the child, “That’s really not something you need to know about right now.”

“Wow, what a novel idea: Telling a child that they could wait until they’re older to discuss that subject,” Grossman said, adding that parents wouldn’t brook a six- or even fifteen-year-old child asking how much money they made or had in the bank. “Excuse me? Not every subject has to be an open book.”

However, the time will come when a child needs to know “about how her body’s going to change, about reproduction, about how a new life is created.”

That time, Grossman advised, is puberty, or “as puberty is beginning,” and this is especially so for girls, who, if unprepared for the surprise onset of menstruation “might think [they’re] dying.”

“The actual nitty-gritty about the birds and the bees and intercourse” can “be told in bits and pieces, or it can be told all at once, if you feel it’s necessary,” she said, adding that it’s beneficial if the parent acknowledges his or her awkwardness, because the child will think: “This must be such an important subject that my mother or my father is sitting there squirming, but he’s doing it anyway. I’m really loved.”

“And the children need to understand that as you grow up, you change a lot, not only physically but emotionally,” Grossman said, “and what may seem odd or disgusting when you’re ten years old, or whatever age, it becomes something very special and beautiful when you’re older and you’ll understand it later. You don’t have to understand it now.”


Know your child and guard your home

But as an essential foundation for this discussion, parents must both know their children and guard their home from the encroachments of a culture that Grossman described as “very, very sexualized” and “really horrible.”

“Children need parents who are loving but are also firm and authoritative,” she asserted.  “They don’t need best friends. They need us to guide them, to know what they’re doing, to be on top of what they’re doing.

So parents need to be aware of whom their child is “hanging around with, and what kind of movies are they watching…what’s going on with your child.”

“You need to know that anyway, even if it’s not about sex education,” she pointed out. “Try and know your child. Every child is different.”

And Grossman emphasized that it is “extremely important to be careful about what your child is exposed to in the home, in terms of television and Internet, obviously.”

Children need to understand that “just like you have garbage you take out of the house, you put it in the garbage bin, it’s dirty, it smells…there are other things that also don’t belong in the house.”

And children learn quickly what is, and is not, permissible inside the home, Grossman said. “Me, I keep kosher…If I go into a store, my kids know from a very young age, we don’t eat that.”

So they are used to the idea of “the world outside and the inside world, of inside your home, and inside your heart as well.”

Parents can also convey this by telling their children that “the world is an upside-down place, and sometimes the most special, holy subjects are…just thrown in the gutter. And that’s a bad thing. In our family, in our tradition, we don’t do that.”

“Sexuality is one of the subjects that in this upside-down world, it is sometimes just in the gutter,” she said. “And so I want you to tell your child to come to me when you have questions, I will give you the straight story about it.”

Grossman herself is “not even sure,” as she stated in her seminar, that sex education should be in the schools: “I believe sex education should be at home for those parents that want to do it.”

She also noted that parents “can make mistakes. We all make lots of mistakes but it’s okay, you can always come back and do it differently,” adding that this is “another wonderful message for your child. You know what, it’s okay to make mistakes, you can always go back and try and fix it.”

Grossman urged parents to visit her Facebook page, website and blog. “I have so much information you can get there that you’ll find useful,” and added that she will be publishing books for children, and has posted her critique of New York City’s sex-ed curriculum, which is similar to Ontario’s.

The parental backlash to that sex-ed curriculum, set to roll out in the province’s publicly funded schools this September, has been “amazing” Grossman noted.

Grossman’s seminar was sponsored by Mississauga-based HOWA Voice of Change along with the Canadian Families Alliance, an umbrella group representing more than 25 associations and 200,000 Ontarians opposed to the curriculum. The report on her devastating critique of the sex-ed curriculum can be found here, and the video here.

Ontario readers may find information and sign up for a September 2 province-wide protests at MPPs offices here. So far, there are protests planned for 92 of Ontario’s 107 constituencies. The parents’ movement seeking removal of the curriculum is urging all concerned citizens to join this special effort to influence individual Ontario legislators.

See related reports:

Ontario’s dangerous sex-ed is indoctrination not science says U.S. psychiatrist to large audience

Videos: US psychiatrist tells parents “stand firm” against dangerous sex-ed

See the LifeSiteNews feature page on the Ontario sex-ed curriculum containing nearly 100 LifeSite articles related to the issue

Share this article

Advertisement
Featured Image
Giulio Napolitano / Shutterstock.com
Pete Baklinski Pete Baklinski Follow Pete

,

Did the pope just endorse a gay children’s book? Of course not, says Vatican

Pete Baklinski Pete Baklinski Follow Pete
By Pete Baklinski

ROME, August 28, 2015 (LifeSiteNews) -- While mainstream media is gushing with news today that Pope Francis allegedly praised a children’s book that promotes gender theory, the Vatican is decrying what they called the "manipulation" of a cordial letter from an official in the Secretariat of State to suggest that the Vatican is promoting teachings contrary to the Gospel.

Italian children’s author Francesca Pardi was reported by The Guardian to have submitted a parcel of children’s books promoting the acceptance of homosexuality and gender theory to Pope Francis in June after Venice’s mayor Luigi Brugnaro publicly banned the author’s newest book, Piccolo Uovo (Little Egg), from children’s schools. The book was criticized by pro-family leaders for promoting non-natural family structures of two men and two women.

In a letter accompanying the books, Pardi wrote: “Many parishes across the country are in this period sullying our name and telling falsehoods about our work which deeply offends us. We have respect for Catholics. ... A lot of Catholics give back the same respect, why can’t we have the whole hierarchy of the church behind us?”

The Guardian is reporting that Pardi has now “found an unlikely supporter in Pope Francis,” who through his staff has responded to the author and is presented as “praising her work.” It quotes the following from a July 9 letter to Pardi from the Vatican.

“His holiness is grateful for the thoughtful gesture and for the feelings which it evoked, hoping for an always more fruitful activity in the service of young generations and the spread of genuine human and Christian values,” wrote Peter B. Wells, a senior official at the Vatican Secretariat of State, in a the letter The Guardian is reporting it has seen.  

While the letter gently calls the author to use her talents to spread “genuine human and Christian values,” The Guardian takes it as the pope’s endorsement of gender theory.

“Pope Francis sends letter praising gay children's book,” the paper’s headline states. “Italian book that explores different family types including same sex was banned by mayor of Venice, but pontiff becomes unlikely supporter,” reads the subtitle.

In a press release that Vatican spokesman Fr. Federico Lombardi sent to LifeSiteNews on Friday, the vice speaker of the Vatican, Ciro Benedettini, made clear that the friendly reply letter to the author in no way approves of attitudes or positions that are contrary to Catholic teaching and the Gospels.

The Vatican's statement also says that in the original letter from the secretariat of state Wells merely "acknowledged receipt" of the materials sent by Pardi, and also made clear that the letter was private and not meant for publication. 

"In no way does a letter from the Secretary of State intend to endorse behaviors and teachings not in keeping with the Gospel," says the statement, decrying the "manipulation" of the letter.

Benedettini said the blessing of the pope at the end of the letter was meant to be for the author herself, and not to affirm positions concerning gender theory that are contrary to the Church's teaching. Using the letter to this end is erroneous, he said.

Pope Francis has strongly condemned the notion of “gender theory” on numerous occasions, saying that it is an “error of the human mind that leads to so much confusion.”

Share this article

Advertisement
Featured Image
Shutterstock
Lisa Bourne

,

Poll suggests most US Catholics wrongly believe Pope Francis backs gay ‘marriage’

Lisa Bourne
By Lisa Bourne

August 28, 2015 (LifeSiteNews) -- A considerable majority of U.S. Catholics are in conflict with Church teaching on abortion and marriage, a new study says, and a startling number of those also believe Pope Francis backs homosexual “marriage.”

Despite Church teachings, Catholics in America also closely parallel the general populace in their support for abortion and homosexual “marriage,” falling short in the Biblical call to be “in the world but not of the world.”

The findings suggest what many Catholics have said is a climate of confusion in the midst of the Francis pontificate. Concerns over that confusion prompted a coalition of pro-family groups to respond with an international petition effort asking the pope to reaffirm Church teaching, drawing more than a half-million signatures.

The survey, conducted by Public Religions Research Institute, found that 60 percent of all U.S. Catholics favor legalized homosexual “marriage,” compared to 55 percent of all Americans. Likewise, 51 percent of Catholics think that abortion should be legal in all or most cases, with 53 percent of the general population holding this view.

The Catholic Church teaches that marriage is a sacramental union between one man and one woman, mirroring Christ and the Church respectively as bridegroom and bride.

The Church also teaches that life begins at conception, that each human life possesses dignity as a child of God and is to be afforded protection, making abortion an intrinsic evil.

Catholics, accounting for 22 percent of adults in the U.S. population, have a favorable view of Pope Francis, the study said, but they are very confused about his take on homosexual “marriage.”

Of the Catholics who back homosexual “marriage,” 49-percent also think the leader of the Catholic Church backs it along with them. Fifteen percent of those Catholics who oppose homosexual “marriage” also mistakenly believe Pope Francis supports it.

Pope Francis has made numerous statements in support of life, marriage and family, but the confusion remains.

Click "like" to support Catholics Restoring the Culture!

"After Ireland and the U.S. Supreme Court both approved same-sex 'marriage,' a strong reaffirmation of Church teaching could save the sacred institution of marriage, strengthen the family and dispel the lies of the homosexual revolution," TFP Student Action Director John Ritchie stated.  "Young Catholics -- even non-Catholics -- look to the Church as a beacon of morality and stability in our Godless culture, but some of our shepherds have issued confusing statements."

TFP Student Action is a part of the lay Catholic organization American Society for the Defense of Tradition, Family and Property, and is part of the alliance behind the Filial Appeal, the petition asking the Holy Father to reinforce Catholic teaching at the Vatican’s upcoming Synod on the Family in October.

Ritchie explained how the confusion was aiding the Church’s enemies, and warned of the potential consequences.

"This prayerful petition asks Pope Francis to clear up the moral confusion that's been spreading against Natural and Divine Law," he said. "If the enemies of the family continue to chip away at holy matrimony, the future of the family and civilization itself will be in even more serious peril."

At press time more than 500,000 signature had been gathered for the appeal, including five cardinals, 117 bishops and hundreds of well-known civic leaders.

Share this article

Advertisement

Customize your experience.

Login with Facebook