Pot/kettle: Creep abortionist claims DE Planned P’hood “in disarray”
When the creep slapping women during abortions accuses you of dysfunction, you are in pretty bad shape.
~ Kirsten Powers, responding to remarks made by former Planned Parenthood of Delaware abortionist Timothy Liveright, who says the facility was “disorganized, in disarray,” Washington Post, August 2.
Whistleblower nurse Jayne Mitchell-Werbrich has testified that Liveright “slapp[ed] a patient,” refused to properly sterilize equipment or wear sterilized gloves during abortions, and played “peek-a-boo” with patients, among other inappropriate behavior.
[HT: Susie Allen; photos via themorningafter.us, LifeNews.com]
Aug.06, 2013 1:00 am |
Abortionist quacks & pervs |
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.
How ironic that his name is Liveright.
I have always said doing abortions makes you mad.
Slapping a patient?
Not sterilizing equipment?
Not wearing gloves?
Playing peek a boo?
No way. This can’t be true. I don’t believe it!
ABORTIONISTS ARE ALL HEROES!!!
Right Reality, Blue Velvet, Joan, CC????? Stand by your man!!
C’mon Carla. How can you believe those crazy little women who weren’t willing to stand by him and be proud of him!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DwBirf4BWew
Inappropriate creep abortionist. Hmm, that’s a little redundant, isn’t it? I’m pretty sure all abortionists are inappropriate creeps.
An abortionist kills children by the dozens, every day. I have no idea what goes on in the head of a serial killing mass murderer, but at some point I suppose that the monster must dissociate himself from his humanity. He comes to see himself as a natural predator and these women are his prey — or perhaps she is a god or goddess, with the power of life-and-death over the mere humans in her power. Or maybe some other phantasm plays through the mind of the abortionist — it’s very hard for a normal person to understand the sociopath.
In any case, the abortionist begins his/her career by denying the humanity of the child — and it is the abortion who ultimately ceases to be human.
This is also true of paranoid Ohio abortionist Martin Ruddock….I have had many run ins with him personally. He jumps out of his car flipping the bird to pro lifers and targets one pastor always calling him a pu***! He even stands on the roof of his shoddy mill to shout profanity at pro lifers. You can’t make this stuff up. An abortionist is a madman!
Heather please video this guy and post here.
Karen I know a man with plenty of footage of this. I personally have never recorded him..but I’m sure my male friend won’t mind posting some of his antics….meanwhile engine search Martin Ruddock Cleveland OH abortionist…he has left many women butchered and sterile. He has been cited for multiple health code violations.
“Right Reality, Blue Velvet, Joan, CC????? Stand by your man!!” – why would I feel the need to defend him against spurious claims made by disgruntled former employees who have probably observed how lucrative being a relator is.
I’ve been chased by Bigfoot Heather, more than once. I didn’t film it but I know people with plenty of footage of similar scenarios. Engine search it and you’ll see just how much footage there is!
Google facts reality ..facts!
I’m waiting for them Heather. All I hear are your claims. You don’t expect me to be the one to deliver up a raft of baseless allegations from various anti-choice groups do you? Anyone can do that.
Might want to read the article in question, Reality.
Vasikonis describes herself as “pro-choice” – as do Mitchell-Werbrich and Meanor – and underlined in her written testimony that, “My testimony is not presented to decrease access to, decrease the number performed or eliminate any abortions but to make abortion a safe procedure at Planned Parenthood of Delaware.”
[…]
Vasikonis told me, “I am a liberal, and I have been shocked that liberal Democrats, who I thought had supported women, would turn their backs on women’s health safety just to support abortion rights.”
Why would three individual pro-choice, Democrat women quit their jobs at PP and then lie about the conditions there, Reality?
Maybe if I had access to the whole article you cite from I could answer your question JoAnna, although you could start with what I said – “disgruntled former employees who have probably observed how lucrative being a relator is” :-)
I mean the whole transcript, not the whole article. The whole article you cite from is there but only selected quotes are included in the article.
Why would you need the transcript? You would need to contact Kirsten Powers and see if she would be willing to let you read it, as she conducted the interview for her piece.
Joyce Vasikonis’ written testimony is available here: http://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/705668/joyce-vasikonis-testimony.txt
Ah, something loaded to documentcloud. Quite a few question question marks, why is that? Any accreditation?
Like I said “disgruntled former employees who have probably observed how lucrative being a relator is”
Please provide evidence that the testimony is not Joyce Vasikonis’.
Also, please provide evidence to document your assertion regarding this lucrative source of income that would entice three separate pro-choice, Democrat women to not only quit their jobs but also conspire to present corroborated (but, as you assert, false) testimony before government authorities (risking possible perjury charges).
Also please provide evidence to support your assertion that these women are lying about what they witnessed and experienced, because the Delaware legislature would be very interested in seeing this iron-clad evidence you claim to possess.
“Please provide evidence that the testimony is not Joyce Vasikonis’.” – that was not my contention. Although I did ask why some sections consisted of scrolls of question marks and where there was any accreditation. My contention related to motive.
“Also, please provide evidence to document your assertion regarding this lucrative source of income that would entice three separate pro-choice, Democrat women to not only quit their jobs but also conspire to present corroborated (but, as you assert, false) testimony before government authorities (risking possible perjury charges).” – have you seen the money some relators are getting? I note that Joyce is currently studying.
Please provide evidence to document your denial of this being a possibility.
Also please provide evidence to support your assertion that these women aren’t lying about what they witnessed and experienced, because the Delaware legislature would be very interested in seeing this iron-clad evidence you claim to possess.
YouTube video of testimony by all three witnesses: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mzt8u-LC34w
News report of testimony, including an interview with Vasikonis: http://www.delawareonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2013307310025
You’re the one claiming that this lucrative source of income exists, Reality, so the burden of proof is on you to prove that it does. I absolutely deny that these pro-choice, Democrat women are being bribed or paid to lie about Planned Parenthood before a committee of the state legislature. If you have proof to the contrary, I’m interested to see it. So please, produce it.
The burden of proof is also on you to produce evidence that these women lied to a congressional committee of the Delaware legislature. I accept their sworn testimony as truthful. If you dispute this, please provide evidence that they are lying and perjured themselves.
You can provide as many sources for their claims and statements as you like, it doesn’t change the status of their claims.
The evidence of how lucrative being a relator can be is on this very site. $1.2M or $1,4M or something I think it was.
“I absolutely deny that these pro-choice, Democrat women are being bribed or paid to lie about Planned Parenthood before a committee of the state legislature.” – oh that’s ok then, what else could be needed. Let’s start locking people up and throwing away the key because you want to believe stuff that’s claimed. Pesky legal processes, pffft.
“If you have proof to the contrary, I’m interested to see it. So please, produce it.” – If you have proof to support your denial, I’m interested to see it. So please, produce it.
“The burden of proof is also on you to produce evidence that these women lied to a congressional committee of the Delaware legislature.” – no its not, it’s up to a court to decide.
“I accept their sworn testimony as truthful.” – and I don’t. If you dispute this, please provide evidence that they aren’t lying and haven’t perjured themselves.
Care for another round of supporting unconfirmed claims versus questioning the veracity of unconfirmed claims? ;-)
“The evidence of how lucrative being a relator can be is on this very site. $1.2M or $1,4M or something I think it was.”
When did Jill or anyone on this site claim that these women were being paid $1.2M or $1.4M for their testimony? Again, evidence?
“no its not, it’s up to a court to decide.” – no, you’re making the claim, you need to support the claim.
If you can’t, then just say so.
Again, what is your evidence that their testimony is not truthful or accurate? Three pro-choice, Democrat former employees of PP vs. you. Why should I believe your claims over theirs? Are you a former or current employee of PP of DE?
“When did Jill or anyone on this site claim that these women were being paid $1.2M or $1.4M for their testimony? Again, evidence?” – that is not what I said. I pointed out that they may have observed that being a relator can be quite lucrative. You asked how I knew that “this lucrative source of income exists.” I responded that one report on this site mentioned the figure I identified. At no stage did I claim that they “are being bribed or paid to lie about Planned Parenthood before a committee of the state legislature.”
“no, you’re making the claim, you need to support the claim.” – the inverse of this: “I absolutely deny that these pro-choice, Democrat women are being bribed or paid to lie about Planned Parenthood before a committee of the state legislature.”
“If you can’t, then just say so.” – ditto.
“Again, what is your evidence that their testimony is not truthful or accurate?” – again, what is your proof that their testimony is truthful or accurate?
“Three pro-choice, Democrat former employees of PP vs. you.” – I’m the only person on the planet questioning the veracity of their claims? Wow!
“Why should I believe your claims over theirs?” – you don’t have to. Why should I believe your claim their claims are true. Why should I believe their claims over those of anyone else?
“Are you a former or current employee of PP of DE?” – no, nor will I be in the future. How about you?
Claims, statements, even testimony, do not constitute proof. They form part of an amalgam of evidence which is assessed and tested to determine if something is adequately proven or not.
The ladies have made certain claims which you want to believe, you want to be true. They have not been proven. There may or may not be reasons why the ladies might choose to make less than totally accurate statements. We don’t know.
I have no idea where you’re getting this $1.2-1.4M figure from. Link?
Here’s what you don’t seem to get about reality, “Reality.” If you make a claim, you back it up. You claim these women are filthy liars who are being paid by nefarious organizations to perjure themselves. If you have evidence, provide it. If you can’t, say so.
My evidence is the testimony itself. It is logical, coherent, and corroborated by other employees, the fact that the abortionist has had his license suspended, the fact that the DE DoH neglected to inspect the clinic for years, the fact that when they finally did inspect the clinic they noted various and egregious violations, etc. I also have the evidence given by my good friend Nicole Collins, President of DE Right to Life, who has worked tirelessly for years to bring the questionable practices of this facility to the attention of legitimate authorities.
The evidence to the contrary is some anonymous dude on the Internet who can’t provide so much as a link to prove his claim that the testimony from these pro-choice, Democrat women is both false and the result of a bribe or payoff from some mysterious conglomerate of billionaire pro-lifers. (Better get that tinfoil hat ready!)
https://www.jillstanek.com/?s=ppgc
And here’s what you don’t seem to get about reality, JoAnna. If you make a claim, you back it up. You claim these women are 100% accurate and honest in their claims and that they haven’t noticed how much relators can receive. If you have proof, provide it. If you can’t, say so. While their claims and motives are unproven I can question their claims and their motives.
“My evidence is the testimony itself.” – I explained the whole evidence/proof thing.
“It is logical, coherent, and corroborated by other employees,” – so what, others dispute it.
“the fact that the abortionist has had his license suspended,” – ‘claims have been made’ 101.
“the fact that the DE DoH neglected to inspect the clinic for years, the fact that when they finally did inspect the clinic they noted various and egregious violations” – this still doesn’t support all their claims.
“I also have the evidence given by my good friend Nicole Collins, President of DE Right to Life, who has worked tirelessly for years to bring the questionable practices of this facility to the attention of legitimate authorities.” – well wacky do.
“The evidence to the contrary is some anonymous dude on the Internet who can’t provide so much as a link to prove his claim that the testimony from these pro-choice, Democrat women is both false and the result of a bribe or payoff from some mysterious conglomerate of billionaire pro-lifers.” – compared to what? You wanting to believe unproven claims based on who knows what motives? Where’s your link to prove your claim that their testimony is true? And I repeat, I have not claimed any ‘bribe or payoff from some mysterious conglomerate of billionaire pro-lifers.’
“(Better get that tinfoil hat ready!)”- now you believe in UFO’s??
Oh reality its not my job to post a video for you. I have seen the behavior of Ruddock aka murdering Marty….I’ve seen it. Plenty of info on line about this butcher. You’re a troll not concerned with facts. Why would I waste my time on you?
The link you provided makes no sense, Reality. How are these DE women benefiting from PPGC reimbursing the TX state government for the money PPGC stole via Medicaid fraud…?
Thanks for admitting you have no evidence against these women, btw.
Disgruntled former employee — another name for a whistle blower. It just depends on whose side you are on. If you don’t like the exposure or the revelation, the informant is a disgruntled employee. Thus, you will find ways to discredit her testimony. If you dislike the target business, the person is a heroic whistle blower.
I just saw a headline about cancer doctors perpetrating some kind of malfeasance. Let me say for the record (in case Merit checks in) that any kind of fraud, purposeful misdiagnosis, or purposeful overcharging and/or double charging for services is a criminal offense, whether it’s a dentist, an oncologist, an abortionists, or anyone else. I don’t give anyone a free pass just because they aren’t an abortionist.
If the nurses in question had “defected to the pro-life side” then we’d hear that they are biased now against their former employer. Come on, abortion advocates, these nurses actually care what happens to the women who come in, not merely their careers or agendas.
Reality’s reality:
Trust Women – but only if they speak favorably of abortion, abortionists, abortion clinics, legalized abortion, abortion methods, abortion employees and any and all other things abortion related.
Shall I start making wild claims about certain people Heather? Claim that there’s evidence but refuse to provide it? If there’s plenty of info online to prove your assertions, provide it.
“The link you provided makes no sense, Reality. How are these DE women benefiting from PPGC reimbursing the TX state government for the money PPGC stole via Medicaid fraud…?” – so we’ve come to the point where we need to decide whether you have failed to read and understand what was written or have chosen to display disingenuousness in regard to it have we?
“Thanks for admitting you have no evidence against these women, btw.” – and thank you for admitting that you have no evidence for these women.
Let me sum it up for you. These women have made claims, supposedly submitted as testimony. Their testimonies may be included as part of the evidence used to determine whether there is enough proof, one way or the other, to determine an outcome.
Until and unless their claims have been tested and accepted as part of the factual proof of anything, it is open to question.
I cannot prove that what they say is untrue.
You cannot prove that what they say is true.
MoJoanne gets it. Well said MoJoanne.
Let me know when you trust women who are in full support of choice Praxedes.
Reality, you already make wild claims that very small human beings aren’t people.
No I don’t ;-)
So, at conception I was a person? Then why do you extol the murder of small people?
No, you weren’t.
I extol womens reproductive freedom including the choice to terminate an unplanned, unwanted or risky pregnancy. Not the murder of small people.
So, you don’t agree that very small humans are people. That’s a pretty wild claim.
It’s not the pregnancy that’s terminated, it’s a human being. Killing human beings is murder.
Why do you use wimpy euphemism? Are you squeamish about the murder of small people?
I extol every human being’s freedom to be alive.
Reality, since you love euphemism, would you support the death penalty for criminals, or would you only support it if it’s called it “parole without life?”
“So, you don’t agree that very small humans are people.” – no.
“That’s a pretty wild claim.” – you know that it’s not.
“It’s not the pregnancy that’s terminated, it’s a human being. Killing human beings is murder.” – murder is unlawful killing.
“Why do you use wimpy euphemism?” – I use accuracy and facts, not subjective endowments.
“Are you squeamish about the murder of small people?” – aren’t we all? That’s a separate matter.
“I extol every human being’s freedom to be alive.” – not a death penalty supporter then, good.
You’re the one using euphemisms so perhaps you should answer your question.
Me, I don’t support the death penalty.
So, you agree that abortion is currently the LAWFUL KILLING OF SMALL HUMAN BEINGS. Thanks, glad we cleared that up.
The hypocrisy of thinking it’s ok to kill small humans who have done nothing wrong but it’s not ok to kill convicted criminals is almost as ridiculous as vegans who support abortion. But you abortion fans are used to your own mental disconnect. Get well soon!
I have stated on a number of occasions that abortion is the terminating of a gestating fetus of the human species.
You know I’m pro-choice and support womens reproductive rights then you act all surprised!