NetNews Usenet Archive 1993 #3/NN_1993_3.iso/spool/talk/abortion/57588

Text File | 1993-01-24 | 7.1 KB | 169 lines

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Path: sparky!uunet!mnemosyne.cs.du.edu!nyx!mcochran
From: [e-mail] (Mark A. Cochran)
Subject: Re: Carol Everett
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
X-Disclaimer: Nyx is a public access Unix system run by the University
    of Denver for the Denver community.  The University has neither
    control over nor responsibility for the opinions of users.
Sender: [e-mail] (netnews admin account)
Organization: None worth mentioning.
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 93 23:01:03 GMT
Lines: 154

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Richard Pitts) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Mark A. Cochran) writes:
>|In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Eric Rescorla) writes:
>|>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Gregory Bernath) writes:
>|>>Carol Everett is coming to speak on our campus on Nov. 26.  I would
>|>>be interested in any information about her.
>|>>A little about her (claimed) background:
>|>>   - worked in and ownded two abortion clinics from 1977 to 1983
>|>Ok.
>
>I just heard Carol on the radio yesterday and today.  She said that
>she has been interviewed by many mainstream media groups, but todate
>none of the mainstream has ever published what they learned.
>
>Carol had, I believe, at least one abortion herself.
>
>She has a new book out entitled _Blood Money_.
>
>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.
>
>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.  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.
>
In other words, you have nothing to add except hearsay and anecdotal
information?

>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.
>
Source?
You might also keep in mind that the bank account of PP has nothing at
all to do with its status as non-profit. Non-profit means that any and
all funds generated by PP and not used for internal expenses will be
re-invested in furthering the aims of PP. Which is precisly what is
done with it.

>|>>   - one of her clinics busted for performing abortions on non-pregant
>|>>     women, and for abortions performed by non-doctors.
>
>Fifteen (15) states do not have regulations requiring the abortion
>provider to be a doctor.
>
Source?

>|>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.
>
Oh, another PHoney type consiratory theorist. I should have known...

>|>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.  She claims that abortion is
>one of the largest unregulated businesses in the US.
>
More completely unspoorted anecdotal evidence. do you *really* think
anybody will believe it without proof?

>|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.
>
Again. Source?

>|>>   - 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.
>
Indicating only that if she is telling the truth, her ractitioners
were woefully incompetant. But since this is nothign more then yet
another unsupported claim, I decline to take it seriously.

>|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.
>
Likewise false, even if she is actually claiming it. There is
absolutely no correlation between abortions and problems with
subsequent pregnancies from modern abortive techniques.

>|Complication        D&C    Suction
>|---------------------------------------
>|Hemorrhage        1.0    0.5
>|Infection        0.9    0.8
>|Perforation        1.9    1.3
>|Anesthesia        0.1    0.1
>|Retained Products    0.5    0.5
>|Lacerated Cervix    0.3    0.2
>|All other complications    0.4    0.3
>|----------------------------------------
>|Total morbidity [1]    5.1    3.7
>|Total Mortality [2]    2.8    1.2
>|
>|[1] Complications per 1000 abortions.
>|[2] Deaths per 100,000 abortions.
>|
>|[Martin, LL: _Health Care of Women_ Philadelphia, JB Lippincott, 1978]
>
>What was the result or corrective action required in this study?
>
What corrective action is needed? The statistics show that abortion is
safe, far safer then birth, and certainly safer then the backalley
abortions some would force upon women.

>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.
>
Groundless, unsupported speculation, and more conspiracy theory. How
quaint. Do you have anything *supportable* to add to this discussion?


--
                  Mark Cochran          [e-mail]
These are the views of my employer, your employer, your government, the
Church of your choice, and the Ghost of Elvis. So there.
Member, T.S.A.K.C.