NetNews Usenet Archive 1993 #3/NN_1993_3.iso/spool/talk/abortion/57354

Text File | 1993-01-22 | 5.2 KB | 109 lines

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Path: sparky!uunet!haven.umd.edu!ames!sun-barr!cs.utexas.edu!qt.cs.utexas.edu!yale.edu!cs.yale.edu!rtnmr.chem.yale.edu!rescorla
From: [e-mail] (Eric Rescorla)
Subject: Re: Carol Everett
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail] (Usenet News)
Nntp-Posting-Host: rtnmr.chem.yale.edu
Organization: Rescorla for himself.
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 16:30:03 GMT
Lines: 96

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (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.

>She also said that in congressional
>testimony, one doctor said that the system was very slack on taxes
>and stuff - in fact he got paid cash at the end of the day and there
>were no 1099 forms issued.
This happens a lot in medical practices I suspsect.

>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.

>|>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?
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?

>|>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?

>|>>   - 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?

>|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.

>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.
-Ekr

--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Rescorla, DoD#431 (Nighthawk S)              [e-mail]
Former chemist now CM400 mechanic                 [e-mail](preferred)
                        Don't believe anything you hear.