Showcasing yet another of the abortion industry’s best and brightest: Mila Means
Many pro-abortion ideologues are savvy people – Jodi Jacobson, Amanda Marcotte, and Cecile Richards, to name just three.
So I imagine they must internally gag when they hear an abortionist has been quoted by the media or worse, given an in-depth interview. How hard it must be to put on a supportive face when abortionists always appear so weird or scummy.
Here’s yet another example. The Wichita Eagle was apparently going for a puff piece of George Tiller wannabe Mila Means (pictured right) today, but it’s very hard to spin an abortionist into a hero or heroine, never mind someone who’s normal. Means wants to open an abortion mill in Wichita, where there have been none since Tiller’s closed after his murder. Some of the article’s highlights…
Means plans to form a nonprofit. She hopes to raise $800,000 to $1 million to buy and equip a clinic where she can provide early-term abortions….
Seated in her office in a chair she said was once owned by Tiller’s father – she bought it from Tiller’s clinic last year along with some of his abortion equipment – Means tries to draw a distinction between performing early- term abortions and Tiller’s work performing late-term abortions. Means said she is not comfortable doing those risky procedures.
“I don’t know if it will help or not in terms of security,” Means said, “but I’d like to just differentiate myself that way.”…
When her last group, Family Care Associates, broke up, she went out on her own.
The breakup was costly. In a 2009 arbitration, Means was ordered to pay $1,500 a month for the next 10 years in exit penalties to the only physician remaining in the practice….
Means also pays alimony to her first husband, who is a bar bouncer….
She said she was left with more than $100,000 in debts after they divorced in 2001.
The marriage “pretty much just put me into financial ruin that I probably won’t get out of,” she said.
Means calls herself one of the least financially secure family physicians around.
“I’m not good at making business decisions for financial reasons,” she said….
Her private life is unconventional.
Means, who has no children, is married to a gay man, but doesn’t live with him. She lives with a boyfriend, and her husband lives with another gay man….
The marriage led to trouble with the Kansas Board of Healing Arts in 2007. Means had been treating the man for bipolar depression since 2001….
When she married him and moved in with his family, the physician-patient relationship continued. Her husband’s mother reported the situation to the board as part of the fallout from a family feud, Means said.
The board ordered Means to end the physician-patient relationship with her husband and to complete education courses on professional boundaries and avoiding the pitfalls of diagnosing and managing major depression….
Never mind Means’ personal life, I thought it a bit odd for her to mention in one sentence she wants to raise $1 million to open an abortion biz and in the next admit she’s in a state of “financial ruin that I probably won’t get out of” because “I’m not good at making business decisions for financial reasons.” Those statements should really attract investors. Let’s see how quick pro-aborts jump on board to underwrite her endeavor.
I’m reminded of late-term abortionist LeRoy Carhart, who told the Associated Press in November 2009 he had launched a nonprofit to raise $1.5 million to open 3 mills. The officers of his nonprofit were himself, his wife, and his daughter. Shoore.
[Photo via The Wichita Eagle]
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
Maybe Tiller’s widow and Kathy Sebelius’s husband, and Mean’s husband’s lover will put up the dough. LOL
Also Marcotte is an idiot. Lately she is complaining that Hollywood casts somewhat older men with young new actresses. Her “work” is pathetic. Cecile Richards on the other hand is pretty shrewd.
Means, who has no children, is married to a gay man, but doesn’t live with him. She lives with a boyfriend, and her husband lives with another gay man….
Alrighty then.
Sounds like a job for 60 Minutes.
Ah, yes, the best and the brightest…
Carder: No, it sounds like The Onion or an SNL skit.
Homosexuality seems to closely follow abortion wherever it goes. This is not a coincidence either.
Means, who has no children, is married to a gay man, but doesn’t live with him. She lives with a boyfriend, and her husband lives with another gay man….
Alrighty then.
Sounds like a job for 60 Minutes.
JER-RY! JER-RY! JER-RY! JER-RY!
Jacobson and Richards are savvy. But Marcotte? No bleepin’ way. Totally disagree with that one, Jill.
Jill,
I sometimes sit back in my library at home and contemplate how long and hard Regina and I worked on our nursing and scientific/medical educations, respectively. The same with your long and arduous training in nursing school. Then I contemplate how these abortionists and their staff just throw it all away; the knowledge, the skill, the power to heal, save, and improve lives.
I simply cannot fathom what forces must drive these medical professionals to become butchers and liars, money-grubbing manipulators of women in crisis.
I think back to the endlessly long nights of study, and the fact that every student has some dream to sustain them, or else they would have quit. I wonder what sustained these people through the ordeal of school, and then I wonder where it all fell apart for them. I would love to know what her dreams once were, because this poor woman is a complete mess, a shipwreck. She is so lost, both personally and professionally that I can’t even muster anger or indignation for what she does. I just see her as an empty shell going through the motions.
Do you ever wonder these things?
“Means tries to draw a distinction between performing early- term abortions and Tiller’s work performing late-term abortions. Means said she is not comfortable doing those risky procedures.”
… risky procedures do not start at late term for the baby, all terms are risky in abortions. Means is trying to hard to make her procedures sound acceptable. Sad …
“Homosexuality seems to closely follow abortion wherever it goes. This is not a coincidence either.”
Um, what?
Late term abortions are risky, Mila??
I am pretty sure that they are just another simple medical procedure that women NEED. Like pulling a tooth. phhhtttt
Hippy, Cranky: Marcotte may be crude and make wild arguments, but she’s smart.
A favorite commentary of mine on hack Marcotte worth reading > WeinerGate Götterdämmerun.
Gerard,
I wonder that. When did the “turning” happen?? Where in all of their studying and learning did they come to believe that taking life would be more important than trying to save and heal?? TRUST WOMEN and all that.
I have read though that most abortionists are hacks that barely made it through med school.
Thoughts?
Carla and Dr. Gerard,
After reading some of the stories on the Pro-Life Action League’s Former Abortionists page I have to say it seems that it’s generally 1 of 2 things (or both)
1. They think that they are helping women. They want to help women in crisis and think abortion is the way.
2. Money. A lot of them have said when they quit doing abortions they took a significant pay cut.
Those seem to be the main “driving forces” for them.
Gerard: I am glad that you and your spouse use your education to help others. In the fall I am going back to school to get my MSW (Master of Social Work). I will probably be the oldest person in class, but so be it. I hope, like you, that I will be able to use my skills in the service of life.
Hey phillymiss so proud of you to hear you are going back to school for you MSW. I am sure you will find ways to use your skills in the service of life. God bless.
From my experience the only docs I knew who ended up performing abortions were the ”butchers” who could not stay in practice as a reputable OB/GYN. The patients complained so much when they were OBs that the hospital got rid of them (for example stitching up episiotomies without anesthesia and telling women to shut up when they yelled, terrible, botched forcep deliveries, I could say more but I don’t need to do I?). The other OBs shunned them, they never got invited to the social events. Kind of hard to have a dinner conversation about delivering, healthy babies and saving babies’ lives with someone who spent their day butchering and mutilating babies all day. Abortionist, usually the bottom of the barrel.
Phillymiss,
Congratulations!! In psychology, counseling and social work, the best students are the older students. That’s because older students bring a wealth of life experience to the training, so age is an asset for you. God knows that there is no shortage of work that needs to be done. Your degree will be put to very good use, just don’t bother worrying about where you’ll be doing that work. God sends that along when the degree is done.
Carla & MIT,
If money is the only motive, then it isn’t a very intelligent one. Physicians and scientists spend 12-15 years of their lives after high school in training, from college to post-doctoral training. That’s a ton of money in tuition, and over a decade of lost salary while in training.
Bruce: “Homosexuality seems to closely follow abortion wherever it goes. This is not a coincidence either.”
JackBorsch: “Um, what?”
You would think that homosexual activists would not care about abortion. Or perhaps homosexuals might even favor pro-life efforts, so that homosexuals will not be eugenically aborted when their coveted “gay gene” is discovered.
I think there are three main forces that cause homosexuals to ally with abortionists:
1) Sexual license: Homosexual activists appreciate that abortion industry shares their enthusiasm for tolerance and acceptance of all types of sexual activities, without responsibility for its consequences. “My child would interfere with my lifestyle.”
2) Culture of Death: Homosexuals and the abortion industry share an enthusiasm for unnatural, infertile sexual relationships. “Other people’s children are bad for the environment, and we have to support their poverty, ect.”
3) Shared Intolerance for Christians: Pro-life and pro-family activists often draw courage from our Christian faith. As a result, homosexuals and the abortion industry tend to blame Christianity for the conclusions of our common sense. Wherever we gather to pray, homosexuals and abortion-supporters may gather together to hate us. “Keep your rosaries off our ovaries!”
@Del, well, my sister is a lesbian, and she is pro-life, I am pretty sure. She adopted a gorgeous little girl with cerebral palsy. Most of the gay people I know are no more promiscuous than straights. I know that anecdotal evidence doesn’t = proof, but I think it is a mistake to tar all gay people with the same brush. People are just people, some good some bad. I understand a lot of people find homosexuality immoral, and that is their right to think so, but I don’t believe it is unnatural or wrong. I think you are characterizing gay people unfairly here. But that is simply my opinion.
Homosexuals who “adopt” children are deliberately and willfully denying the right that child has to a father and a mother. It is a violation of their human rights, and constitutes violence done to that child.
@Bruce, no nice straight couple wanted my niece. She was being poorly taken care in foster care, her birth mother is a crack head, and her stepfather was sexually abusing her. My sister saved her from a lifetime of being unwanted and abused. My niece is a happy healthy little girl now, due to my sister saving her from her horrible circumstances. I won’t argue with you about the morality of homosexuality, you can think it’s wrong and that is your right. But implying that my niece isn’t better off with my sister is just dead wrong.
I have to say Jack, though I disagree with you about the nature of homosexual actions, I find your reply very sober and level-headed. Thank you for discussing this in a civil manner.
Thank you Bobby. I may be a filthy liberal, but I think that people have a right to their opinions. ;) And I do agree that private adoption agencies have the right to make their own decisions on who gets to adopt (i.e., a Christian adoption agency should be allowed to only adopt our to married straight couples, they are a private agency and should be allowed to do what they see as moral, whether I agree or not). I disagree that gay people should be banned from adopting from public agencies, unless there is something other than the fact they are gay to disqualify them.
@Bruce, no nice straight couple wanted my niece. She was being poorly taken care in foster care, her birth mother is a crack head, and her stepfather was sexually abusing her. My sister saved her from a lifetime of being unwanted and abused.
That’s wonderful! I think I mentioned that I have found gay people more willing to adopt difficult to place children. I think that a child does best in a loving, two-parent home, but I would rather have a child placed with a loving, single straight or gay parent than in a foster home for the rest of his or her life. You are also right when you say that not all gay people act or think the same. Our opposition would like to paint us as a bunch of crazy clinic bombers, but we all know that’s not true.
@phillymiss, yeah that is the way I see it. It really doesn’t make sense to say that gay people cannot adopt when the other option is life in foster care or with abusive or neglectful parents. Even if a straight couple is preferable (and I am not sure there is any hard evidence supporting this, I haven’t found any yet), those hard-to-place children shouldn’t be denied the right to be safe from harm and be loved just because the people who want them aren’t straight. I don’t think that anyone has to give up their moral opposition to homosexuality to see that sometimes a less than ideal solution is better than the alternative.
You can’t stand up for the right of a child to live if you refuse to grant his or her right to a mother and a father. And the notion that homosexuals are willing to adopt hard cases is also bogus, given the fact that homosexuals only comprise roughly 1.7% of the population, and of these, a very small minority actually stays together long enough to contemplate children…often as a means of decoration. What needs to happen is that A.) We get rid of laws and practices that promote out-of-wedlock babies and B.) we make it easier for normal couples to adopt children. The fact is, homosexuals are violating children’s human rights. The child has a fundamental right to a mother and a father and to give a child to homosexuals is no different than killing his mom or his dad. Period. No man can be a mother, and no woman can be a father. A child deserves, and has a RIGHT to a mother and a father.
“You can’t stand up for the right of a child to live if you refuse to grant his or her right to a mother and a father. ”
Yes, actually I can. No offense, but I do not agree with you. You don’t have to agree with me, I understand you have your convictions. But I can respect the sanctity of life and still believe that homosexuals are capable of raising a child. Having two parents is probably superior, but having a loving parent of whatever orientation is superior from bouncing around in foster care. I don’t “refuse the right for the child to have a mother and father,” I just think that if a caring person wants to take care of a child that is better than leaving the kid alone and not cared for.
“The fact is, homosexuals are violating children’s human rights. The child has a fundamental right to a mother and a father and to give a child to homosexuals is no different than killing his mom or his dad. Period. No man can be a mother, and no woman can be a father. A child deserves, and has a RIGHT to a mother and a father.”
Well. My straight, married parents did a very, very poor job at taking care of me. I would have given anything for anyone, gay or straight, couple or single, to take me from them and care for me. Straight married couples are not automatically good parents, and a child having both parents doesn’t guarantee a good life. I would not be willing to let a child languish in foster care because some people don’t agree that homosexuals do not make good parents. I do wonder, do you think children should be taken away from their parents if they are single moms or dads?
I don’t think you answered the point of the conversation though. Do you think it is preferable that children stay in foster care rather than be placed with a gay couple? Do you really think my niece was better of being neglected in foster care, or even worse, placed back with her awful parents?
It is always a violation of a child’s human rights to deny him or her a father or a mother. A willful denial of a father or a mother. It is never allowable, and it does violence to the child. We are dealing with less than 1% of the population when it comes to homosexual friendships. There is no need to look to them when they are such a clear minority. In other words, what you have there is a strawman argument.
And to back that up, I would say that foster care with a foster father and foster mother is far better, and does not violate the rights of the child, than homosexual friends playing parents.
Well, a lot of foster parents are not straight couples, but that’s really beside the point. I see we aren’t going to agree, so I’ll leave it here. I don’t think there is anything wrong with gay people, and I don’t think there is anything wrong with them raising kids. And you disagree with me. I guess we will just have to agree to disagree. :)
Actually, no, that is not good enough Jack. What kind of human being would stand by and allow children to be exposed to violence? How could you stand idle while the human rights of children are violated? That doesn’t sound very pro-life, nor even humane.
Homosexual friends who attempt to “raise” children are purposely denying a child the right to a mother and a father. No man can be a mother and no woman can be a father, and the child has a human and civil right to both. To deny that does violence to the child.
This fight for truth is just beginning, and “agreeing to disagree” is not an answer.
The plight of children who need homes truly breaks my heart. They do need permanence. I think that a married mom and dad who love them is the best alternative. But if those parents can’t be found, giving the child a parent is more important than political correctness. I don’t think unmarried parents should be allowed to adopt a child together. I don’t think that fulfills a child’s need for permanency. I think they should be able to adopt as single parents when no married parents for the child can be found. (And I don’t think arrangements between any two people engaging in sexual activities should be considered marriage).
I agree with Bobby, Jack, that you seem eminently reasonable–thank you. I agree with Bruce that it should be easier for married couples to adopt. Background checks, home inspections, and training need to be part of the process, but I wish there were less financial barriers.
Preference to married couples over singles and unmarried couples is almost always the case in adoption already. It would take something like 10% of the Christian families in the world adopting to end the orphan crisis. With a finite number of Christians and a finite number of orphans, we can’t just throw up our hands and quit. I think that each Christian should ask themselves why not do it?
Bruce, you know my opinion. There is no violence committed on children adopted by gay couples. You are entitled to believe otherwise, and vote accordingly. As will I! I don’t believe there is anything more to be gained from this conversation, so I will leave it here.
Thank you ChristianHippie. I would be happy if every unwanted child found a home.
If you leave the discussion, that is your choice. It must continue, however, until the truth is recognized, whether it is popular or not. The absolute truth is that no child comes into this world without a father or a mother. Children are designed to have a father and a mother, without which they would not exist nor have a normal life. It is a violation of a child’s human rights to deny him or her a father or a mother. It does violence to that child, and homosexuals who do such things are abusing that child.
Bruce, the point here is that every child does not have a mommy and daddy. A mother and father are always involved in conception. But after that, the father may die. The mother may die young. She may not be sure who his father is; his father may be a rapist, or in jail. The baby may be relinquished because his mother has problems, or he has a disability, or his parents feel they can’t raise a child now. The baby’s mom may enter a lesbian relationship, or a woman in a lesbian relationship may intentionally (naturally or unnaturally) conceive a child. The presence of a biological parent in his or her life is so important to a child that while having a father is important, I don’t feel single moms or moms in a lesbian relationship should be forced to give up their children–and while a lesbian who conceives a child may be deliberately depriving her son or daughter of a father, in most of the other circumstances I mentioned a single parent would not be at fault.
In the case of adoption, that child has already lost his parents (by choice, state action, death, or chance). Biologically he has two parents. Legally, socially, emotionally he has none. He absolutely should be adopted by a mommy and daddy. I have no quarrrel with that; that would be my preference. But if a single mom is willing to adopt him, should he be denied a mom because he will not also get a dad?
Bruce, how do you support adoption? Have you and your wife adopted a child? This is Anthony: http://reecesrainbow.org/anthony-25
Anthony lives in Eastern Europe. His adoption will be fully funded, which means that his parents will only have to pay for a homestudy, and probably get it back in taxes. He has CP and needs a lot of therapy. Maybe you could adopt Anthony and give him a mommy and daddy. But it’s not most likely that a heterosexual married couple will adopt him. It’s not most likely that “homosexual friends” will adopt him (and his country does not allow that). It’s not likely a single mom will adopt him–right now that’s not legal either. Most likely no one will adopt Anthony, and he will die bedridden and alone in a mental institution. And that is not fair to him. As Christians, caring for children, especially orphans and the fatherless, is our sacred responsibility. Anthony is a blessing. I hope someone adopts him.