From: rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla)
Subject: Re: Carol Everett
Organization: Rescorla for himself.
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1993 21:12:07 GMT

In article <81374@hydra.gatech.EDU> rpitts@cerl.gatech.edu (Richard Pitts) writes:
>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:
>|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?
Yes, because you are making a claim without backing it up.

> 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.
Nonsense. This kind of survey is done all the time.

>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.
Without evidence, her testimony, just as your citing of it
is basically worthless.

>|>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?
Because of his salary or because UW had a lot of money?

>|>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.
Little regulation compared to WHAT? There is immense fraud in medical
care of all kinds.

>|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.
I don't consider pornography to be exploitation of women. Child
pornography is illegal, so I don't see what you think is inconsistent
about society's attitude.

>And yes the pornography trade is being attacked.  People generally
>recognized this as a non-beneficial trade for society.
I don't recognize it as that. What do you mean by generally.

>  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.
Ever hear of the First Amendment?

>|>|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.
Yes, and how many would have had to have hysterectomies anyway as
a result of giving birth?

>|>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?  
Yes? So? Without data, all you've got is the claim that if there
is data it's being covered up. I find that singularly unconvincing,
sir.
-Ekr

-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Rescorla, DoD#431 (Nighthawk S)              rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu
Former chemist now CM400 mechanic                 ekr@eitech.com(preferred)
                        Don't believe anything you hear.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion