From: garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin)
Subject: Re: Carol Everett
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1993 23:11:35 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:
#|#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.

"We always get into this" because right-to-lie people have a
havit of making statements which turn out not to be true when
researched.

#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?

How much does Everett earn per book, anyway?  I know what kind
of fees she demands for speaking engagements, but I'm not
sure of her royalty arrangement on the stack of propaganda
that she peddles at these lectures.

#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.

Good for you - you just figured out that citing Everett to support
Everett's claims is not sufficient to convince anyone.

#...
#|#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?

Carol Everett did not, in the speech that I heard, claim to
have experienced a reduction in income when she changed
professions.  I don't believe she did.  I think that she
makes as much money lecturing to other right-to-liars
as she did managing a clinic.  I think that she, like
Bernard Nathanson, saw an opportunity to make more money
off the abortion issue for less work by switching to the
pro-force side.

#|#|#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.

That would be the "medical profession."  Facilities which
provide abortion services are subject to the same regulations
as other medical facilities.

#|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?

It might strike me as odd if I'd seen anything that indicated
that it were true.

#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.

Please make some attempt at telling the truth.  

#|#|#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.

In other words, you don't have any support for this claim,
other than the word of an admitted liar.  (She admitted, when
I heard her speak, that she lied to women in the past.  I have
never understood why so many pro-forcers think that people
who admit lying in the past are more credible than people
who have consistently told the truth.)

#|#|##   - 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.

This is just more unsupported garbage, in other words.

#|#|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.

This is too stupid for comment.

#|#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?  

No one illustrates this better than Everett.  When I heard her, she
was almost incapable of referring to her past in the first person.
("You showed them a sonagram and told them that you could see
a fetus even if you couldn't."  "You made them pay in cash and made
no exceptions.")  She didn't want to take responsibility for
her own sleazy actions, but she had no problem assigning similar
actions to hundreds of other people.  

Susan



Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.flame