From: nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
Subject: Re: Nyikos and the one bad apple theory of forced pregnancy.
Keywords: abortion, digoxin, laminaria
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science
Date: 23 Dec 92 22:44:38 GMT

In <34529@rnd.GBA.NYU.EDU> smezias@rnd.GBA.NYU.EDU (Stephen J. Mezias) writes:

>In article <nyikos.724627328@milo.math.scarolina.edu>
>nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) post the latest in what I
>describe as the one bad apple theory of forced pregnancy.  In it, the
>a legislative agenda restricting the rights of women is disguised as a
>response to a public health crisis.  The public health concerns
>revolve around bad performance by an abortion provider.  This is the
>one bad apple that leads by some incomprehensible leap of fetus
>fanatic logic to a legislative agenda of forced pregnancy.

To date, I have posted concerning FIVE  bad apples, on three of them
extensively, with information from PRIMARY sources, including in one
case the victimized woman herself, testifying before the South Carolina
State Senate Judiciary Committee.  TWO of these abortion providers
are right in the Columbia area, and as I said in "Meet Ismail Elguindi,
Abortionist," the two together account for almost exactly half of the
5000+ abortions reported in the Columbia area in 1990, the last year
in which Elguindi did not have his license suspended for some reason
or other.

>To believe this public health concern, I would at least like some
>statistical evidence gathered by an impartial panel demonstrating that
>abortion was on balance an unsafe procedure.

In this, I am in full agreement with Mezias.  So far, all we have 
seen are MORTALITY rates given by the Alan Gutmacher institute, research
affilaiate of Planned Parenthood, and other statistics which could all
go back to this Institute for all the documentation Larry Margolis or
anyone else has provided on them.

In the meantime, I wish Columbia SC were a statistical anomaly, but
so far Susan Garvin has not come forth with the documentation of this
factoid that she seemed to be promising when she sneered at my documentation
of Elguindi's malpractice.

>  The two reasons lurking
>in the background of this thin smokescreen are revealing: (1) Women
>can't be trusted to consult with physicians and make decisions about
>their own medical care.  (2) Doctors are engaged in a conspiracy of
>silence about profiteering abortion clinics.

Don't you believe it, Steve.  Here are two others, at least as revealing:
(1) Women generally DON'T consult with physicians, not EVEN THE ONES DOING
THE ABORTIONS, prior to signing consent forms for abortions out in the 
front office and (2) Abortion providers and counselors are engaged in
a conspiracy of silence about profiteering abortion clinics, and won't
release crucial information to the public, the State Boards of Medical
Examiners, nor the Departments of Health (& Environmental Control, or
whatever they are called in your state.)

>Maybe I am missing something in this theory.

You sure are.

>the best interests of the public.  However, absent a finding of strong
>evidence of profiteering, I see no reason to investigate this
>particular example of bad medical practice.  C. Everett Koop, the
>conservative pro-life surgeon general under Reagan, came to more or
>less the same conclusion.

Wrong.  He came to the conclusion that meaningful statistics are 
impossible to come by, given the current pro-choice climate that 
prevails in the media, and the constitutional "zone of privacy"
that covers abortion clinics more than ANY OTHER PLACE WHERE SURGERY
IS PERFORMED.

>  We have other public health problems, e.g.,
>tuberculosis, that are much more deserving of scarce intervention
>resources.

Meanwhile, 1,600,000 unborn children, most of them already in the
fetus stage, are aborted each year in the USA alone.

Besides, Steve, this is not talk.tuberculosis.

PJN

Newsgroups: talk.abortion