From: rpitts@cerl.gatech.edu (Richard Pitts)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Carol Everett
Date: 22 Jan 93 20:07:52 GMT
Organization: Georgia Tech CERL/EE, Atlanta, Ga

In article <1993Jan22.163003.20523@cs.yale.edu> rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla) writes:
|In article <81308@hydra.gatech.EDU> rpitts@cerl.gatech.edu (Richard Pitts) writes:
|>Some of the things she said were that today abortion providers (the
|>doctors) get 1/3 of the fee for 1st tri-mesters abortions and they
|>get 1/2 the fee for 2nd tri-mester abortions.
|Good. You have documentation?
|
|>She as the owner of her clinics recieved $25/abortion and her last
|>monthly check was over $13,000 gross, which is almost 550 abortions
|>for the month.  In her book she tells about one abortion doctor
|>who makes $1,000,000/year.
|Documentation? It's easy to make this kind of claiiim.

It is also easy to question a claim?  Provide some infor for a counter
point.  We always get into this, don't we?  Give some averages
of some clinics and doctors salaries?  It is probably hard to do,
for people don't run around telling how much they make very often.

Her book _Blood Money_ would be the support for the doctor's salary
and her own testimony would be the support for her salary and the
pay rates for the abortion providers, since she was in the business.
Do you believe she was in the abortion business?

One can quickly question and cast doubt upon anything, but without
evidence to the contrary - it carries no more, if not less, weight
than the statement.  I presented the information as truth per a
testimony of Carol Everett - questioning it doesn't negate her
testimony.

...
|>So much for abortions being non-profit - like Planned Parenthood
|>is chartered.  In fact, at the close of 1990, PP had $383,000,000
|>(three hundred and eighty-three million dollars) in cash, to my
|>understanding.
|Ahem. Being rich does not make them not non-profit. Allow me to
|point out United Way once again, which probably has quite a bit
|of money as well(distributing money being it's purpose) and
|as Mr. Kaflowitz pointed out to me, it is quite demonstrably
|non-profit.

Understood.  However, people cried FOUL at the big guy at United Way,
didn't they?

|>|>I see. I know you're not making an argument against abortion but
|>|>I see this sort of argument made commonly. The fact that there
|>|>are abortion clinics where fraud occurs is not particularly surprising
|>|>since fraud occurs in most businesses. I fail to see how this
|>|>can be used as an argument that abortion should be illegal.
|>|>I have never, however, seen the court records that substantiate
|>|>that anyone has ever been prosecuted for performing abortions on
|>|>non-pregnant women.
|>Just because there is not enough evidence to prosecute doesn't
|>mean the event isn't occurring.  Have you ever noticed how hard
|>it is to get evidence on other crimes - people hide the stuff.
|Why did you ignore my main argument here, Mr. Pitts, which is that
|all this is irrelevant?

Again, I understand your point - though, stating that fraud occurs 
in most business doesn't make it right, for all fraud is not 
prosecuted.  However, if it becomes rampant it is.  I personally, don't
have quick access information on fraud, for they don't run around
and publish it weekly in the paper, do they?  This all gets back
to the issue of how little regulation there is in the abortion business.

|In any case, people are routinely prosecuted for all sorts of
|fraud. Doesn't it strike you as a bit odd if this particular
|form of fraud which is--if it's serious enough to care about
|much--quite rampant is never prosecuted?

There are many things that strike me as odd (abortion, pornography,
and child pornography are three of them.)  We claim equal rights
for women, but in the same breath we exploit them and children.
And yes the pornography trade is being attacked.  People generally
recognized this as a non-beneficial trade for society.  I pray
that this will be the case for abortion some day.  Pornography
was rarely ever prosecuted before the Presidential Commission
on Pornography (1986 or 1987) served - now many porn kings are falling.

|>|>As for abortions performed by non-doctors--I was not aware that
|>|>that was illegal. I know I've had a lot of medical care
|>|>(though not abortions, obviously) done for me   by nurses.
|>One point Carol made was that people have the misconception
|>that abortion is viewed by regulatory means just like any other
|>surgery, but she says it is not.
|Depends what you mean by "any other surgery". It's not at all
|like having an appendectomy. In most cases it's outpatient.
|
|>|Abortion is a surgical procedure performed only by licensed phsycians
|>|(legally). It is certainly beyond the scope of practice for nurses,
|>|and is beyond the scope of practice for Physicians Assistants and
|>|Nurse Pracitioners in every state for which I have seen the practice
|>|acts.
|>Again 15 states don't have this legislated.
|Can you document this, Mr. Pitts?

Check with Carol Everett.  I didn't say licensed doctors routinely
perform abortions in 15 states, but that the states don't have it
legislated.

|>|>>   - 20 women (out of 35,000 abortions) "maimed or killed"
|>|>That would be surprising, since the overall rate is something
|>|>like 1/100 major complications and 1-2/100000 deaths.
|>|>Were her doctors particularly incompetent or is she just being
|>|>VERY loose with the term "maimed or killed"
|>
|>Carol said on the radio that she had one (1) death and, I think,
|>thirty-five (35) were maimed at her clinics.  I forget how many
|>abortions they provided.  However, the numbers she gave for
|>complications was that 1 in 500 had to have a hysterectomy or colostomy. 
|
|Well she should really make up her mind. I would consider both of
|those "maimed" and that means that 70 people were maimed. Which
|one is it, Mr. Pitts?

How so, Mr. Rescorla - I said I didn't have the numbers on how many 
abortions her clinics provided.  If you use the other persons numbers,
you'd get your numbers, but I can't confirm the 35,000 number.  I
remembered and used the 1 death, 35 maimed, and the 1 in 500 Hs and Cs.

|>|Here we go again... I haven't posted the entire table here since some
|>|twit claimed a 27% infection rate for abortins, so I guess it's time
|>|to do it again....
|>Carol said that 25% of those who have abortions will have problems
|>with a subsequent pregnacy.
|Really? And what's the NORMAL complication rate? Please, post studies
|MR. Pitts.

Understood - just because they had abortions doesn't mean they
would have problems as a result of the abortion, but as you know
those who had hysterectomies probably had a little problem.

|>Complications, according to Carol, are readily covered up and the
|>people are rushed out of the clinics and the records don't show
|>that the clinics are involved.  People are reluctant to say so
|>and so happened, while I was at the abortion clinic.
|Conspiracy theories are so convenient.

Human nature tends to not want to reveal one's own perceived faults and 
problems OR at least that seems to be the case for most people, agreed?  

Sincerely,
Richard Pitts

-- 
rpitts@cerl.gatech.edu  |    Love and Worship God the Father and His Son, 
                      --|--            the Creator of the Earth. 
Pro-Life!          -|-  |  -|-  Come bow down in worship, let us kneel
Pro-Responsibility! |   |   |   before the Lord Our Maker.  Psalm 95:6 
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:57110 alt.child-support:4620