New Stanek WND column, “Abortionists’ dirty e-mails”


The pro-abortion medical establishment in Madison, WI, encountered a problem last summer.
Their community’s late-late-term abortionist, Dennis Christensen, announced he was retiring at year’s end, and Planned Parenthood of WI would be taking over his mill.
In reality, according to e-mails obtained… Christensen wasn’t retiring at all….

Christensen had some sort of contract to abort with PPWI, which shared space with him. The two simply hit a dead end resolving “issues and negotiations,” according to an e-mail written by PPWI associate medical director Dr. Caryn Dutton to Dr. Laurel Rice, chair of ob/gyn at the University of WI medical school.
It appears Christensen wanted more money. Pro-lifers have spotted him entering abortion mills in Rockford, IL, and Milwaukee since “retiring.”
But sans an association with late-late-term abortion aficionado Christensen, PPWI in Madison couldn’t commit abortions past 18 weeks. And with Dutton solo at the helm, an extension to 24 weeks wasn’t going to happen.
Why was Dutton e-mailing Rice? She was making a pitch for UW Madison Hospital and its affiliate Meriter Hospital to launch their own late-late-term abortion practice, with her as the lead teaching abortionist.
Bearing this in mind, Dutton’s explanation to Rice as to why PPWI Madison couldn’t expand services was remarkable….

Continue reading my column today, “Abortionists’ dirty e-mails,” at
Also read an op ed in today’s Milwaukee Journal Sentinel by Barbara Lyons, executive director of WI Right to Life. It dovetails with my column nicely, even pulling many of the same email quotes as I did, although Barb and I have never spoken with one another about the UW situation.
And an interesting aside: While researching this story I found that Teri Huyck of PP Chicago infamy is now the CEO of PPWI. She must have been promoted for her help with the Aurora scam, her prowess needed elsewhere.

53 thoughts on “New Stanek WND column, “Abortionists’ dirty e-mails””

  1. The conclusions Ms. Stanek reaches don’t quite follow or perhaps could use some clarification. One thing we don’t know from either column is WHY Planned Parenthood’s confidence in her clinic’s abortion services was low. There is no statement that the issue related to Dr. Dutton’s abilities or qualifications. It may have had to do with the number of available staff (Dr. Christensen had just left) or other resources available to that branch of PP.
    It is also worth noting the following:
    — Dr. Dutton disclosed the confidence issues Planned Parenthood had with its branch in Madison to the hospital.
    — Planned Parenthood was considered by members of its staff to be unlikely to permit late term abortions at its Madison branch. So much for the theory that PP is all about churning out abortions no matter what.
    — A member of PP (Frank somebody) is noted to have supported the institution of late term abortions at the hospital. If profit-motive is really so the be-all and end-all for PP employees, then why is this guy supporting the institution of services at a rival entity? Or could it be that he honestly (even if wrongly) believes that this is a service that should be made available to women?
    — The Dr. Christensen bit that took up much of the beginning of the column seemed strange. So what if he couldn’t reach an agreement with PP about the terms and conditions of his work? So what if he is continuing to work after his retirement? I don’t understand why this is seen to be so nefarious.

  2. Prochoicer, all: If anyone wants the pdfs of these emails, email me at and I’ll forward them to you.
    Dutton had to disclose because there were repeated questions from various medical personnel/administration as to why the late-late-term abortions couldn’t continue at the facility PPWI shared with Christensen.
    And Dutton, as the abortionist in charge at PPWI Madison, was responsible for the “LOW” – caps hers – “confidence” PPFA had in PPWI Madison, for whatever reason that was.
    The string of emails also made clear extra staff and equipment would be needed at the PPWI Madison mill to commit late-late-term abortions. I don’t know what was missing from the same facility Christensen was ok committing late-late-term abortions, but that is what the emails said. There was talk of donating equipment.
    I can’t imagine that if Christensen were so dedicated to the medical profession of abortion he would leave Madison high and dry… that something couldn’t be worked out with PP. Nor can I believe Madison considered itself high and dry, for that matter, with the departure of a sole abortionist. As I stated in my column, I think the Madison pro-abortion medical community took advantage of the situation to make a move.

  3. It has been mentioned here and elsewhere that Planned Parenthood’s business model has shifted to fewer, yet larger and newer facilities capable of handling large volumes of abortions under one roof. One of the things they take great pains to design into their new facilities is to keep pro-lifers as far away as possible from their clients. “Choice” does not include having someone offer a real choice.
    The PP facility in Madison offers great opportunities for sidewalk counselors to reach abortion bound women. From the PP standpoint it is not an optimum location for neither clients nor staff. Also, another factor they may be considering is that a location closer to the amenities that Madison has to offer might help to attract and keep doctors and staff. Lastly, when performing late term abortions, the closer one is to a hospital, the better. I’d wager that perhaps these are some reasons that the current location is seen as not inspiring “confidence.”

  4. Jill,
    I am a slow study so the problem may be and probably is with me, but I could not track where your column was going.
    I do know this, in Washington State abortionists are required to have admitting privelges at a hospital within a minimum distance of the abortuary, in case there are complications that would require hospitalization.
    That information is dated, but as the number of abortionists has dwindled, pressure has mounted to relax restrictions like to make abortion more accessible.
    Abortionists are at the bottom of the food chain in the medical community. They are pariahs, even to physicians who support unfettered access to elective abortion. As the number of available abortionists has abated, the competence and ‘professionalism’ of the remaining practitioners has slipped as well.
    The result is that the class of physicians who used to perform the illegal ‘back alley abortions’ are now plying their trade from store fronts on main street, but this has not improved their bed side manner nor their skill. Contrary to popular myth, practice does not make perfect nor proficient. It only makes permanent. They just make more of the same old mistakes. The only thing that has changed is they are no longer subject to criminal charges associated with the formerly illegal procedure.
    I do know that these abortionists, are not health care proffessionals, they are opportunistic predators and profiteers preying on vulnerable females of all ages.
    It should come as no surprise that they are cheats and liars as well. One good thing that may come out of the downturn in the economy and the accompanying decreasing revenues to the state and federal government is that the respective agencies concerned with collecting revenue may be more inclined to go after these butchers who are ‘evading income tax’.
    yor bro ken

  5. As you read this letter, you may feel confused at points. If you do, keep reading. The rationale underlying Ms. Jill Stanek’s scare tactics is confusing. Fortunately, as you read the superfluity of examples about how Ms. Stanek has been trying to sugarcoat the past and dispense false optimism for the future, this letter will slowly begin to make some sense. I realize that some of you may not know the particular background details of the events I’m referring to. I’m not going to go into those details here, but you can read up on them elsewhere.
    If you read between the lines of Ms. Stanek’s antics, you’ll indubitably find that Ms. Stanek’s myrmidons claim to have no choice but to court an uninformed minority of the worst sorts of overweening leeches there are. I wish there were some way to help these miserable, batty fanatics. They are outcasts, lost in a world they didn’t make and don’t understand. Fabianism and collectivism are not synonymous. In fact, they are so frequently in opposition and so universally irreconcilable that Ms. Stanek’s conjectures are utterly otiose. In fact, I have said that to Ms. Stanek on many occasions and I will keep on saying it until she stops trying to retain an institution which, twist and turn as you like, is and remains a disgrace to humanity.
    We must deal stiffly with obtrusive rabble-rousers who crush people to the earth and then claim the right to trample on them forever because they are prostrate. If we fail then all of our sacrifices and all of the dreams and sacrifices of our ancestors will have been in vain. The key is to realize that Ms. Stanek likes thinking thoughts that aren’t burdensome and that feel good. That’s why she has repeatedly threatened to inflict more death and destruction than Genghis Khan’s hordes. Maybe that’s just for maximum scaremongering effect. Or maybe it’s because Ms. Stanek contends that her perorations prevent smallpox and that, therefore, it is sex-crazed to question her overgeneralizations. This bizarre pattern of thinking leads to strange conclusions. For example, it convinces balmy gutter-dwellers (as distinct from the self-indulgent Neanderthals who prefer to chirrup while hopping from cloud to cloud in Nephelococcygia) that Ms. Stanek should encourage the most witless fribbles you’ll ever see to see themselves as victims and, therefore, live by alibis rather than by honest effort because “it’s the right thing to do”. In reality, contrariwise, either she has no real conception of the sweep of history, or she is merely intent on winning some debating pin by trying to pierce a hole in my logic with “facts” that are taken out of context.
    Ms. Stanek wants all of us to believe that one can understand the elements of a scientific theory only by reference to the social condition and personal histories of the scientists involved. That’s why she sponsors brainwashing in the schools, brainwashing by the government, brainwashing statements made to us by politicians, entertainers, and sports stars, and brainwashing by the big advertisers and the news media. Although the destructiveness of her refrains has been chronicled elsewhere in great and tedious detail it fits too neatly into my thesis to overlook. Hence, I shall chronicle it here as well but only as a quick comment that Ms. Stanek has, on a number of occasions, expressed a desire to meddle in everyone else’s affairs. On all of these occasions, I submitted to the advice of my friends, who assured me that what we’re seeing is a domino effect of events that started with her stating that everyone who scrambles aboard the Jill Stanek bandwagon is guaranteed a smooth ride. That prevarication incited her lickspittles to create a climate of intimidation. Self-aggrandizing agitators reacted, in turn, by plaguing our minds. The next domino to fall, not surprisingly, was a widespread increase in Maoism, and that’s the event that galvanized me to tell everyone that Ms. Stanek has a problem not only with civil rights but also with the legal responsibility and accountability as to what is considered appropriate behavior. Don’t make the mistake of thinking otherwise. Ms. Stanek does, and that’s why I myself am worried about a new physiognomy of servitude, a compliant citizenry relieved of its burdens by a “compassionate” Jill Stanek. It’s hard to spot the compassion when you notice that her purpose is not to enlighten, but to deceive. Get that straight, please. Any other thinking is blame-shoving or responsibility-dodging. Furthermore, there is a format Ms. Stanek should follow for her next literary endeavor. It involves a topic sentence and supporting facts.
    I know more about materialism than most people. You might even say that I’m an expert on the subject. I can therefore state with confidence that Ms. Stanek’s quips are not witty satire, as she would have you believe. They’re simply the pea-brained, oleaginous ramblings of someone who has no idea or appreciation of what she’s mocking. Let me close where I began: History has once again proved me right.

  6. Anna, I believe you are ascribing motives to Jill far beyond those she actually holds.
    Perhaps I’m coming late to the party on this one, but I honestly haven’t the foggiest clue about your interactions with Jill.
    Perhaps a bit of evidence would better serve your cause than flowery accusation.

  7. There are a few more Mary..
    overweening leeches
    batty fanatics
    utterly otiose
    obtrusive rabble-rousers
    balmy gutter-dwellers
    witless fribbles

  8. With a single casting of her deadly diarrhea dictionary spell, Anna, drives the helpless commentators of Jill first to great confusion (as promised) then uproarious laughter.
    Yet – unbeknownst to Anna (and much to her chagrin), the endorphins released have proven a great tonic against her desired negative impact.

  9. Most illustrious Anna,
    I would suggest replacing the name “Jill Stanek” with “Obama”. Then we would know what you’re talking about.

  10. I’ll get right to the point. You can hear the crwth’s fremescent clangor every time Mr. HisMan tries to legitimize the fear and hatred of the privileged for the oppressed. For openers, it is our responsibility to ensure that he doesn’t turn a deaf ear to need and suffering. Disguised in this drollery is an important message: He has long wanted to prevent anyone from stating publicly that he would have us believe that drossy, snooty couch potatoes should be given absolute authority to force us to do things or take stands against our will. Why do I bring that up? Because by studying his repression of ideas in its extreme, unambiguous form one may more clearly understand why one of HisMan’s apparatchiks keeps throwing “scientific” studies at me, claiming they prove that individual worth is defined by race, ethnicity, religion, or national origin. The studies are full of “if”s, “possible”s, “maybe”s, and various exceptions and admissions of their limitations. This leaves the studies inconclusive at best and works of fiction at worst. The only thing these studies can possibly prove is that we should stand as a witness in the divine court of the eternal judge and proclaim that HisMan’s unwillingness or inability to adopt a position external to the world he fights results in an attempt to destroy this world from the inside. (Goodness knows, our elected officials aren’t going to.)
    Honest people will admit that mudslinging pillocks, more than any other segment of the population, like to install a puppet government that pledges allegiance to HisMan’s hideous junta. Concerned people are not afraid to take a proactive, rather than a reactive, stance. And sensible people know that we must remove our chains and move towards the light. (In case you didn’t understand that analogy, the chains symbolize HisMan’s out-of-touch ipse dixits and the light represents the goal of getting all of us to make pretentiousness unfashionable.) Before you declare me homophobic, let me assert that HisMan has been trying hard to protect what has become a lucrative racket for him. Unfortunately, that lucrative racket has a hard-to-overlook consequence: it will turn us into easy prey for domineering derelicts sometime soon. Most other satanic, poxy inaniloquent-types are not as unprincipled as they seem. That’s the sort of statement that some people warrant is predatory but which I believe is merely a statement of fact. And it’s a statement that needs to be made because in order to convince us that all it takes to solve our social woes are shotgun marriages, heavy-handed divorce laws, and a return to some mythical 1950s Shangri-la, HisMan often turns to the old propagandist trick of comparing results brought about by entirely dissimilar causes.
    HisMan lives for one reason and for one reason only: to consign our traditional values to the rubbish heap of jujuism. I will not say what is right and what is wrong when it comes to his announcements. But I will say one thing: He occasionally writes letters accusing me and my friends of being lubricious, supercilious weirdos of one sort or another. These letters are typically couched in gutter language (which is doubtless the language in which he habitually thinks) and serve no purpose other than to convince me that he reads magazines that feature the disrespect, degradation, dehumanization, and exploitation of women and their bodies. And that’s why I’m writing this letter; this is my manifesto, if you will, on how to operate on today’s real—not tomorrow’s ideal—political terrain. There’s no way I can do that alone, and there’s no way I can do it without first stating that as our society continues to unravel, more and more people will be grasping for straws, grasping for something to hold onto, grasping for something that promises to give them the sense of security and certainty that they so desperately need. These are the classes of people HisMan preys upon. While some of HisMan’s projects are very attractive on the surface and are truly entertaining, they ultimately serve to brainwash the masses into submission.
    Let’s just ignore HisMan and see what he does. He, already oppressive with his exploitative, mean-spirited methods of interpretation, will perhaps be the ultimate exterminator of our human species—if separate species we be—for his reserve of unguessed horrors could never be borne by mortal brains if loosed upon the world. If you think that that’s a frightening thought then consider that some people I know say that the hostility and boredom HisMan is experiencing internally is quite evident externally. Others argue that he personifies our nation’s short attention span and penchant for apathy. At this point the distinction is largely academic given that I admit I have a tendency to become a bit insensitive whenever I rebuke HisMan for trying to place our children at imminent risk of serious harm. While I am desirous of mending this tiny personality flaw, I want to unify our community. HisMan, in contrast, wants to drive divisive ideological wedges through it.
    Though HisMan’s demands be madness, yet there is method to them. Step by step, they make it easier for him to anesthetize the human spirit. HisMan predicted long ago that he’d go straight to Heaven after he dies. I see a different, warmer eternity for him, especially when you consider that I’ve known some windbags who were impressively mingy. However, HisMan is grotty and that trumps mingy every time. The take-away message of this letter is that those who stand too close to the canvas of history while it is being woven may erroneously conclude that Mr. HisMan’s bons mots are good for the environment, human rights, and baby seals. Think about it. I don’t want to have to write another letter a few years from now, in the wake of a society torn apart by HisMan’s passive-aggressive, malignant expedients, reminding you that you were warned.

  11. Anna is (was?) a frequent visitor here under a different pseudonym/handle/alternative personality.
    Actually, she’s just having some fun. I wouldn’t read too much into what she has to say…. ;-)

  12. I’ve tried to keep quiet, but I just can’t hold it in any longer. I have to tell everyone that violence, mayhem, and insanity are the inevitable consequences of Mr. Chris Arsenault’s cop-outs. For the sake of review, by Mr. Arsenault’s standards, if you have morals, believe that character counts, and actually raise your own children—let alone teach them to be morally fit—you’re definitely a morbid, vindictive blackguard. My standards—and I suspect yours as well—are quite different from his. For instance, I aver that I cannot promise not to be angry at Mr. Arsenault. I do promise, however, to try to keep my anger under control, to keep it from leading me—as it leads Mr. Arsenault—to put sordid thoughts in our children’s minds.
    Some people think that Mr. Arsenault manipulates public opinion through raw emotion, sexual desire, “family values”, comedy, music, entertainment, false religion, social engineering, journalistic propaganda, and junk science. Others believe that he is laughing up his sleeve at us. The truth lies somewhere in between, namely, that if he truly believes that mediocrity is a worthwhile goal, then maybe he should enroll in Introduction to Reality 101. I am undeniably horrified by his devotion to the idea of a benevolent dictatorship of a self-appointed elite. If you find that fact distressing then you should help me admonish him not seven times, but seventy times seven. Either that, or you can crawl into a corner and lament that you got yourself born in the wrong universe. Don’t expect your sobbing to do much good, however, because the Mr. Arsenault-ization of our political and spiritual lives will seize control over where we eat, sleep, socialize, and associate with others one day. You may have detected a hint of sarcasm in the way I phrased that last statement but I assure you that I am not exaggerating the situation.
    Mr. Arsenault has already been able to intensify or perpetuate egotism. What worries me more than that, however, is that if Mr. Arsenault ever manages to make a mockery of the term “conventionalization”, that’s when the defecation will really hit the air conditioning. No amount of opinion or innuendo nor any string of unrelated pronouncements can change the fact that to get even the simplest message into the consciousness of mindless, contumelious wiseacres it has to be repeated at least fifty times. Now, I don’t want to insult your intelligence by telling you the following fifty times, but he may have access to weapons of mass destruction. Then again, I consider Mr. Arsenault to be a weapon of mass destruction himself.
    I have some advice for Mr. Arsenault. He should keep his mouth shut until he stops being such a spleeny upstart and starts being at least one of informative, agreeable, creative, or entertaining. He contends that his obloquies enhance performance standards, productivity, and competitiveness. What planet is he from? The planet Fatuitous? That’s not a rhetorical question. What’s more, the answer is so stunning that you may want to put down that cereal spoon before reading. You see, there is no excuse for the innumerable errors of fact, the slovenly and philistine artistic judgments, the historical ineptitude, the internal contradictions, and the various half-truths, untruths, and gussied-up truths that litter every one of Mr. Arsenault’s essays from the first word to the last.
    When we tease apart the associations necessary to Mr. Arsenault’s dangerous prophecies, we see that the ultimate aim of Mr. Arsenault’s comments is to restructure society as a pyramid with Mr. Arsenault at the top, Mr. Arsenault’s cat’s-paws directly underneath, grotty clowns beneath them, and the rest of at the bottom. This new societal structure will enable Mr. Arsenault to send shabby cozeners on safari holidays instead of publicly birching them, which makes me realize that he avers that he is a model citizen. As you can no doubt determine from comments like that, facts and Chris Arsenault are like oil and water. Sure, he may have a right to make my worst nightmares come true but we certainly don’t have to stand idly by while he exercises that right.
    In point of fact, Mr. Arsenault alleges that his crusades are not worth getting outraged about. Naturally, this is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing. Sometime soon, he might be diagnosed with a special type of mental illness that is not yet recognized. But for now, be aware that he eats the substance out of any organization he attacks, destroys its moral virility, throws down its reverence, saps its respect for authority, and casts a shadow on every one of its basic principles. But you knew that already. So let me add that if you read his writings while mentally out of focus, you may get the sense that you and I are inferior to perfidious sots. But if you read Mr. Arsenault’s writings while mentally in focus and weigh each point carefully, it’s clear that the costs of his holier-than-thou attitudes outweigh their benefits. That’s something you won’t find in your local newspaper because it’s the news that just doesn’t fit.
    My goal is to get Mr. Arsenault to realize that he speaks with such certainty and self-confidence that his vicegerents are completely convinced that Mr. Arsenault is a refined gentleman with the soundest education and morals you can imagine. Of course, if Mr. Arsenault insists on remaining an ignorant, uninformed, and ill-informed pillock, that’s his prerogative. We are becoming a nation of wanton-to-the-core, self-absorbed agitators. I always catch hell whenever I say something like that so let me assure you that we can divide his policies into three categories: passive-aggressive, patronizing, and demented. I am convinced that there will be a strong effort on Mr. Arsenault’s part to make our lives a living hell in a lustrum or two. This effort will be disguised, of course. It will be cloaked in deceit, as such efforts always are. That’s why I’m informing you that it’s irrelevant that my allegations are 100% true. Mr. Arsenault distrusts my information and arguments and will forever maintain his current opinions.
    It’s Mr. Arsenault’s deep-seated belief that he never engages in ornery, insensitive, or gormless politics. Sure, he might be able to justify conclusions like that—using biased or one-sided information, of course—but I prefer to know the whole story. In this case, the whole story is that at this point in the letter I had planned to tell you that I cannot think of any satisfactory rationale Mr. Arsenault could put forward that would justify his decision to boss others around. However, one of my colleagues pointed out that Mr. Arsenault is all too typical of the sort of sophomoric spongers who drag everything that is truly great into the gutter. Hence, I discarded the discourse I had previously prepared and substituted the following discussion in which I argue that Mr. Arsenault has written more than his fair share of lengthy, over-worded, pseudo-intellectual tripe. In all such instances he conveniently overlooks the fact that his tricks are a load of bunk. I use this delightfully pejorative term, “bunk”—an alternative from the same page of my criminal-slang lexicon would serve just as well—because I wonder what would happen if he really did overthrow all concepts of beauty and sublimity, of the noble and the good, and instead drag people down into the sphere of his own base nature. There’s a spooky thought.
    As a consistently mortified observer of Mr. Arsenault’s conjectures, I, not being one of the many impudent, illogical ragamuffins of this world, can’t help but want to stop the Huns at the gate. While the question of who is right and who is wrong in this case is an interesting one, it is also something that I cannot and will not comment on, and not just because if you look soberly and carefully at the evidence all around you, you will really find that you may make the comment, “What does this have to do with slaphappy, destructive serpents?” Well, once you begin to see the light you’ll realize that Mr. Arsenault pompously claims that repressive used-car salesmen have dramatically lower incidences of cancer, heart attacks, heart disease, and many other illnesses than the rest of us. That sort of nonsense impresses many people, unfortunately. In that respect, we can say that Mr. Arsenault insists that an open party with unlimited access to alcohol can’t possibly outgrow the host’s ability to manage the crowd. In the long run, however, he’s only fooling himself. Mr. Arsenault would be better off if he just admitted to himself that if it turns out that there’s unequivocally no way to prevent him from leading to the destruction of the human race then I guess it’ll be time to throw my cards on the table and call it quits. I’ll just have to give up trying to demand a thoughtful analysis and resolution of our problems with Mr. Arsenault and accept the fact that when I observe his emissaries’ behavior, I can’t help but recall the proverbial expression, “monkey see, monkey do”. That’s because, like Mr. Arsenault, they all want to impose ideology, control thought, and punish virtually any behavior he disapproves of. Also, while a monkey might think that the ideas of “freedom” and “priggism” are Siamese twins, the fact remains that he will probably respond to this letter just like he responds to all criticism. He will put me down as “impolitic” or “uncontrollable”. That’s his standard answer to everyone who says or writes anything about him except the most fawning praise.
    I assume that Mr. Arsenault is unaware of his obligation not to put political correctness ahead of scientific rigor, as this unawareness would be consistent with his prior displays of ignorance. If you can make any sense out his antidisestablishmentarianism-oriented claims then you must have gotten higher marks in school than I did. What do we owe him? Nothing, absolutely nothing. If Mr. Arsenault claims otherwise, we have to stand firm and point out that far too many people tolerate his fibs as long as they’re presented in small, seemingly harmless doses. What these people fail to realize, however, is that Mr. Arsenault is out to vandalize our neighborhoods. And when we play his game, we become accomplices. Anyway, that’s it for this letter. Let Mr. Chris Arsenault read it and weep.

  13. Damned – Anna must be the one behind the “Porkulus” bill (or bull).
    And speaking of bull, if you haven’t used software to generate that, then obviously you’ve had too many Red Bulls.
    G’Night Rae. :0

  14. G’nite Chris! Thanks for letting me have my fun!
    “Damned – Anna must be the one behind the “Porkulus” bill (or bull).”
    *gasp* HOW DID YOU KNOW!?

  15. Jill at 11:49 AM and Ken at 6:14 PM,
    There is no such thing as the “medical profession of abortion”. They are killers.
    And Hal,
    The “legitimate” doctors that perform abortions are doing it only for SEVERE medical health issues of the mother, so don’t bother mentioning that again.

  16. Oh, thank heavens… I was worried somebody actually thought that was coherent writing!!!
    Nice to meet you Anna… hopefully I’ll get used to your sense of humor!

  17. Anna,
    Do you believe pregnant woman should be made aware of what a baby looks like at the gestational stage of developement of her fetus? Not neceessarily an ultrasound of her baby but at least a picture of an ultrasound of a baby at the same gestational age as hers? Why or why not?

  18. And Hal,
    The “legitimate” doctors that perform abortions are doing it only for SEVERE medical health issues of the mother, so don’t bother mentioning that again.
    Posted by: truthseeker at February 18, 2009 10:39 PM
    Not true. Our ob/gyn delivered both our babies and performed both our abortions. He’s a Fellow of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, a cum laud graduate of the University of Michigan Medical School, and a terrific person.

  19. Prochoicer, where do you stand on the issue I asked Anna about. I am assuming you are for informed choice. Do you think women should be shown a picture a baby at the gestational stage of her baby as part of her abortion decision-making process? Maybe included as part of the literature that is handed out?

  20. Lauren, I’ll always be grateful for his kindness, skill and compassion. My oldest daughter had a difficult birth, this man performed confidently and skillfully, and made sure everything worked out okay. He doesn’t fit truthseeker’s stereotype of an abortion doctor. It doesn’t change anything, I suppose, but that’s part of the reality of abortion. Not every abortion is performed by a greedy, unskilled, doctor who couldn’t find “honest work.” Some are at the top of their field, and are just trying to serve their patients’ interests.

  21. Hal,
    No liberal mind-bending can deny the truth. If the abortions were done for reasons other then health reasons of the mother; then the abortionist is also a Fellow of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, a cum laud graduate of the University of Michigan Medical School, and a killer for hire. A virtual Dr. Kevorkian of the fetus I’m sure.
    He delivered some of babies alive for you so that means he is does not always kill babies. He is more then “just” a hired killer for his profession. But you paid him to kill your fetus so you were hiring him to kill, so he was both your delievry man and your killer for hire. Sounds schizophrenic.

  22. I don’t trust killers or the people who hire them. They would just as easily kill you if/when it serves their purpose.

  23. Truthseeker, I found out that my high-risk OB was the abortionist for my hospital. Apparantly she actually spear-headed the campaign to make sure that an abortionist is ALWAYS on call at the hospital.
    She seemed like the nicest person you’d ever want to meet. In fact, during my stay at the hospital she came to visit me every day beyond just making rounds and went on a mission trip to Central America with her church.
    I was shocked when my mother told me that she was the speaker at a Planned Parenthood luncheon. Honestly, it still shocks me. She is a late term abortionist, who also delivers very sick little babies and helps them fight for their lives. I would imagine she goes through quite the mental gymnastics at night.

  24. Lauren,
    Can you imagine knowing someone like that personally. That same “nice” doctor you are talking about, if she lived in an environment like China, would just as easily perform late term abortions for the government in China and convince herself it was for the mother’s good. Nice people do not kill. A person like that finds it necessary to avoid the truth in these kinds of discussions. I think she would avoid me after our first couple conversations.

  25. Maybe you could get her to come on Jill’s blog and explain how she convinces herself that it is o.k. while she is killing the late-term baby. I’d love to have discourse with her about it. lol

  26. Truthseeker, I totally agree. I guess my point is that someone can seem completely wonderful and be covering something very dark.

  27. Anna, does it make you feel superior and intelligent to use big words and a splattering of insults, hmm? Rae is Anna? Nah, Rae is too bright of a young lady to be putting out such mindless, non-sensicle dribble.

  28. Anna, does it make you feel superior and intelligent to use big words and a splattering of insults, hmm? Rae is Anna? Nah, Rae is too bright of a young lady to be putting out such mindless, non-sensicle dribble.

  29. I realize that everyone is entitled to her opinion, and I respect this. I also hope that you will all respect mine as you read this letter. I realize that some of you may not know the particular background details of the events I’m referring to. I’m not going to go into those details here, but you can read up on them elsewhere. You may not understand this now, and I don’t fault you for that, but over the years, I’ve enjoyed a number of genuinely pleasurable (and pleasurably genuine) conversations with a variety of people who understand that this is a very real and serious concern. In one such conversation, someone pointed out to me that I hate it when people get their facts wrong. For instance, whenever I hear some corporate fat cat make noises about how we should derive moral guidance from Miss Anna’s glitzy, multi-culti, hip-hop, consumption-oriented theatrics, I can’t help but think that the gloss that Anna’s lapdogs put on Anna’s musings unfortunately does little to act honorably.
    This, of itself, is prima facie evidence that we must hold not only Anna, but also Anna’s allies, accountable for their froward, oppressive perorations, and everyone with half a brain understands that. She motivates people to join her band by using words like “humanity”, “compassion”, and “unity”. This is a great deception. What Anna really wants to do is create catchy, new terms for boring, old issues. That’s why some people think I’m exaggerating when I say that Anna offers nothing but cheap insults and banal rhetoric. But I’m not exaggerating; if anything, I’m understating the situation. I hate to say this, but her adages do not hold under close moral scrutiny. In fact, I have said that to Anna on many occasions and I will keep on saying it until she stops trying to deploy enormous resources in a war of attrition against helpless citizens.
    The really interesting thing about all this is not that there have been reports of rampant drunkenness, performances by strippers, public nudity, and other licentious and anti-democratic behavior at every gathering of Anna’s vassals. The interesting thing is that it is hardly surprising that she wants to feed us a diet of robbery, murder, violence, and all other manner of trials and tribulations. After all, this is the same paltry, ill-bred sluggard whose psychotic prattle informed us that discourteous heresiarchs aren’t ever grotty. Anna says that everyone would be a lot safer if she were to monitor all of our personal communications and financial transactions—even our library records. Why on Earth does Anna need to monitor our library records? Let me give you a hint: Anna writes a lot of long statements that mean practically nothing. What’s sneaky is that she constructs those statements in such a way that it never occurs to her readers to analyze them. Analysis would almost certainly indicate that if you don’t think that all of the foregoing information has been served up as a necessary prelude to understanding the motive and force behind the current mad rush by Anna and her cat’s-paws to censor any incomplicitous claims, then you’ve missed the whole point of this letter.
    Ask Anna about any of her cringers who prepare the ground for an ever-more vicious and brutal campaign of terror, and the grumpy bum will say, “I never meant they should go that far.” Yeah, right. The truth is that execrable, hypocritical phonies are more susceptible to Anna’s brainwashing tactics than are any other group. Like water, their minds take the form of whatever receptacle she puts them in. They then lose all recollection that Anna’s ploys are indistinguishable from the ones she condemns. End of story. Actually, I should add that everything I’ve said so far is by way of introduction to the key point I want to make in this letter. My key point is that I am worried about a new physiognomy of servitude, a compliant citizenry relieved of its burdens by a “compassionate” Anna. It’s hard to spot the compassion when you notice that she utilizes a narrow and static view of human nature. So let her call me bleeding-heart. I call her barbaric.
    Given the tenor of our times, if Anna got her way, she’d be able to create a world sunk in the most abject superstition, fanaticism, and ignorance. Brrrr! It sends chills down my spine just thinking about that. This is a lesson for those with eyes to see. It is a lesson not so much about her closed-minded behavior but about the way that what I find frightening is that some academics actually believe her line that taxpayers are a magic purse that never runs out of gold. In this case, “academics” refers to a stratum of the residual intelligentsia surviving the recession of its demotic base, not to those seekers of truth who understand that Anna’s obdurate dream is starting to come true. Liberties are being killed by attrition. Escapism is being installed by accretion. The only way that we can reverse these ornery trends is to balkanize Anna’s egocentric, shameless camp into an etiolated and sapless agglomeration. To be precise, the baneful nature of her self-fulfilling prophecies is not just a rumor. It is a fact to which I can testify.
    Anna’s goals are a hotbed of Stalinism. Yet the media consistently ignores, downplays, or marginalizes this fact. Even if Anna’s facts were reliable, they were gathered selectively and then manipulated towards favored conclusions. Granted, antinomianism advances Anna’s long-term goal of plutocratic global dictatorship. But if I recall correctly, Anna apparently believes that might makes right. You and I know better than that. You and I know that Anna’s a psychologically defective person. She’s what the psychiatrists call a constitutional psychopath or a sociopath.
    Instead of taking the easy path in life, the downward path, we must choose the upward path regardless of the pain, suffering, and sacrifice that this choice entails. Only then can we finally think outside the box. Yes, Anna will try to stop us by causing riots in the streets, but if I had my druthers, she would never have had the opportunity to sell us fibs and fear mixed with a generous dollop of isolationism. As it stands, Anna uses big words like “phytopaleontological” to make herself sound important. For that matter, benevolent Nature has equipped another puny creature, the skunk, with a means of making itself seem important, too. Although Anna’s nostrums may reek like a skunk, Anna wants to be the one who determines what information we have access to. Yet she is also a big proponent of a particularly odious form of egotism. Do you see something wrong with that picture? What I see is that Anna is unable to remove her mental shackles. That concept can be extended, mutatis mutandis, to the way that she has hatched all sorts of parasitic plans. Remember Anna’s attempt to focus too much on one side of the equation and not enough on the broader perspective of things? No? That’s because Anna’s so good at concealing her pestiferous activities.
    There are many roads leading to the defeat of Anna’s plans to shake belief in all existing institutions through the systematic perversion of both contemporary and historical facts. I claim that all of these roads must eventually pass through the same set of gates: the ability to help others to see through the empty and meaningless statements uttered by Anna and her disciples. Anyone the least bit knowledgeable about her pestilential background would know that her attitudes, opinions, and aspirations are forged by a desire to cast ordinary consumption and investment decisions in the light of high religious purpose. That’s pretty transparent. What’s not so transparent is the answer to the following question: What will be the next object of attack from her club? A clue might be that a great many of us don’t want her to lead me down a path of pain and suffering. But we feel a prodigious societal pressure to smile, to be nice, and not to object to her boisterous, semi-intelligible stratagems.
    Anna has recently been going around claiming that she would sooner give up money, fame, power, and happiness than perform a caustic act. You really have to tie your brain in knots to be gullible enough to believe that junk. Her criticisms of my letters have never successfully disproved a single fact I ever presented. Instead, Anna’s criticisms are based solely on her emotions and gut reactions. Well, I refuse to get caught up in her “I think … I believe … I feel” game. This is a free country, and I aver we ought to keep it that way. Anna’s opposition to pessimism has been more rhetorical than substantive. Let me express that same thought in slightly different terms: Once you understand Anna’s drug-induced ravings, you have a responsibility to do something about them. To know, to understand, and not to act, is an egregious sin of omission. It is the sin of silence. It is the sin of letting Anna keep a close eye on those who look like they might think an unapproved thought.
    I want to keep this brief: My long-term goal is to kick butt and take names. Unfortunately, much remains to be done. As you may have noticed, if Anna’s thinking were cerebral rather than glandular, she wouldn’t consider it such a good idea to glorify vindictive, uninformed skinflints. Anna’s understrappers portray themselves as fervent believers in freedom of speech and expression but are loath to reveal that if you’ve read any of the predaceous slop that Anna has concocted, you’ll indeed recall Anna’s description of her plan to put increased disruptive powers in the hands of rabid hideous-types. If you haven’t read any of it, well, all you really need to know is that if Anna were as bright as she thinks she is, she’d know that if you read her writings while mentally out of focus, you may get the sense that her expostulations are Holy Writ. But if you read Anna’s writings while mentally in focus and weigh each point carefully, it’s clear that she cannot be tamed by “tolerance” and “accommodation” but is actually spurred on by such gestures. Anna sees such gestures as a sign of weakness on our part and is thereby encouraged to continue bombarding me with insults. Anna has never been a big fan of freedom of speech. She supports pogroms on speech, thought, academic license, scientific perspective, journalistic integrity, and any other form of expression that gives people the freedom to state that Anna’s scribblings are not our only concern. To state the matter in a few words, Anna should not sow the seeds of discord. Not now, not ever. Miss Anna does not play nice with others. Do give that some thought.

  30. Hey all – my guess is Anna is a software app that takes a string of keywords or a sentence, including a specific subject – like “Mr. Chris Arsenault”, and does a lexical analysis. It then pulls sentences from a pre-configured parse tree and substitutes the name, as well as plugging in the keywords here and there.
    Clever, but predictable after several responses.
    Scary is grabbing how someone comments on topic threads, scanning it to build a keyword lexicon, creating a personal logic rules-set based on grammar and a fault frequency tree and then feed that app an argument (either valid or invalid). The result would look a lot like how that person would respond. (There’s some AI techniques in there. NLP, machine learning, fuzzy logic, etc.)
    I’d probably tweak the app to throw in some humor.
    Don’t worry, human behavior patterns are incredibly complex and at times almost unpredictable, or in the case of greedy abortionists – all too predictable.

  31. @Bethany and Chris: Yup, I used a “rant generator” program at this website: (which I’m sure Bethany already knows as she seems to have found it).
    It’s fun…confuses crap out of people. ^_^
    *dashes away into the morning mist*

  32. Posted by: Anna at February 18, 2009 7:37 PM
    Wow Anna,
    That was ‘Unabomberesque’ in breadth, and depth, and heighth.
    And as equally mindnumbingly loquacious.
    This my favorite passage becauses it includes my favorite class of ‘humanity’. Neanderthals.
    ‘For example, it convinces balmy gutter-dwellers (as distinct from the self-indulgent Neanderthals who prefer to chirrup while hopping from cloud to cloud in Nephelococcygia) that Ms. Stanek should encourage the most witless fribbles you’ll ever see to see themselves as victims and, therefore, live by alibis rather than by honest effort because “it’s the right thing to do”.’
    yor bro ken

  33. Posted by: Lauren at February 18, 2009 11:41 PM
    ‘She seemed like the nicest person you’d ever want to meet. In fact, during my stay at the hospital she came to visit me every day beyond just making rounds and went on a mission trip to Central America with her church.’
    ‘I was shocked when my mother told me that she was the speaker at a Planned Parenthood luncheon. Honestly, it still shocks me. She is a late term abortionist, who also delivers very sick little babies and helps them fight for their lives. I would imagine she goes through quite the mental gymnastics at night.’
    The ‘nicest person you would NEVER want to meet’ does not advertise or publicize the fact that she is an abortionist, particularly a late term abortionist, because it would due damage to her carefully constructed facade.
    There have been some psychological case studies on people who practice ‘torture’ as a livelihood.
    Compartmentalization, and blaming the ‘object’ of their cruelty are two common themes. They are angry because the misguided victim has done or not done something that required someone like the torturer to have to do what he/she does. The torturer becomes the ‘victim’ in his own mind because his sense of duty and honor compels him to sacrifice his own self worth for the greater good.
    The abortionist becomes a saint, a martyr, a self sacrificing victim. Look for his/her likenesses to be prominently displayed in the stain glassed pantheon of the heroes of humanism.
    yor bro ken

  34. ‘That’s why she (Jill) has repeatedly threatened to inflict more death and destruction than Genghis Khan’s hordes.’
    Didn’t John Kerry say something like that?
    yor bro ken

  35. Posted by: Lauren at February 18, 2009 11:41 PM
    ‘She seemed like the nicest person you’d ever want to meet. In fact, during my stay at the hospital she came to visit me every day beyond just making rounds and went on a mission trip to Central America with her church.’
    ‘I was shocked when my mother told me that she was the speaker at a Planned Parenthood luncheon. Honestly, it still shocks me. She is a late term abortionist, who also delivers very sick little babies and helps them fight for their lives. I would imagine she goes through quite the mental gymnastics at night.’
    Wow! If that isn’t diabolical! It seems like she has a “god” complex.

Comments are closed.