Is Ted Wilson Misinformed About Elective Abortions in Adventist Hosp.?

[Nic Samojluk]

Overaged asked:

“What is this "independant repository?"

*********

Excellent question! Said entity is known as HSCRC or “Health Services Review Commission.” Here is a short description of what they do:

“Hospital rate regulation in Maryland was established by an act of the Maryland legislature in 1971. The law created the Health Services Cost Review Commission (HSCRC), an independent State agency with seven Commissioners appointed by the Governor. The law was strongly supported by the hospital industry. The HSCRC was given broad responsibility regarding the public disclosure of hospital data and operating performance and was authorized to establish hospital rates to promote cost containment, access to care, equity, financial stability and hospital accountability.

The HSCRC has set rates for all payers, including Medicare and Medicaid, since 1977 and has largely achieved the key policy objectives established by the Maryland legislature. In recent years, the HSCRC has devoted considerable resources toward the development and implementation of payment-related initiatives designed to promote the overall quality of care in Maryland hospitals.”

http://www.hscrc.state.md.us/

I hope this helps!

[Overaged]

As usual Nic has "somebody told me's and "someone comfided's" with no way for the generAl public to verify Of course, we are accusing him of "lying" if we dare to ask for proof, or better yet he will demand to be proven wrong

[doug yowell]

As usual Nic has "somebody told me's and "someone comfided's" with no way for the generAl public to verify Of course, we are accusing him of "lying" if we dare to ask for proof, or better yet he will demand to be proven wrong

At least he gives an answer. The church doesn't even have the courtesy to make up evidence to give to those who question them. Seems like you're defending the church by critizing Nic for doing that which the church itself is doing.

[Overaged]

At least he gives an answer.

[doug yowell]

"Giving an answer" means nothing when the answer cannot be verified.

quote] True enough but Nic's answers can be verified if one wanted to really know the answers.He could be proven a liar if his information was shown to be false. So far you haven't shown any interest in attempting to verify them any more than the church has shown any interest in dispelling any misinformation.Hearsay from Nic is no more or less accurate than hearsay from the church President. Nic has attempted to check out the validity of Pres. Wilson's claims. If you can show that his evidence is faulty without having to resort to name calling and ad hominem charges you might be able to be effective in challenging his accusations.

[doug yowell]

You have to be kidding. You want the church to just make up a bunch of lies, like Nic?

The church has not identified Nic's evidence as lies, on what basis do you feel the freedom to assert this charge?Can't the church speak for itself? Nic responds to every accusation against his person, his motives, and his position. The church avoids any openness at all. All that is being asked is that the church be open and forthcoming to these questions.Even making up a lie would be demonstrating some sort of desire for a connection with it's members. If you, as a former alcoholic, were asked by your wife if the rumors were true (that you'd been seen lately frequenting Joe's Bar) and you simply ignored her do you think that would endow her with a great deal of trust in your sobriety? What's the difference?

[doug yowell]

[ There are special words for that that Psychiatrists use on The Adult Disturbed Unit.

Are you bidding me ADU?

[Overaged]

Don't get too fluffed Doug. I mean well; just don't always express well.

Nic continues to cite ancient, "evidence" from 1988, and to report things people or organizations [allegedly] said to him; and the thing that no one wants to acknowledge is that he cannot provide things like this that are easily verifiable.

[Nic Samojluk]

Overaged wrote:

“As usual Nic has "somebody told me's and "someone comfided's" with no way for the general public to verify Of course, we are accusing him of "lying" if we dare to ask for proof, or better yet he will demand to be proven wrong”

*********

You asked me to identify the independent source of statistics I received the data from, and I answered your question and gave you the link for the public entity which did provided me the data, and you come back with the complaint that there is “no way for the general public to verify”? Don’t you know how to click on an Internet link? I provided you with the evidence, and you persist in insisting that I am lying?

Please, read your question again and review my response! Here is the question you asked, and the answer I provided to you:

Overaged asked:

“What is this "independant repository?"

*********

Excellent question! Said entity is known as HSCRC or “Health Services Review Commission.” Here is a short description of what they do:

“Hospital rate regulation in Maryland was established by an act of the Maryland legislature in 1971. The law created the Health Services Cost Review Commission (HSCRC), an independent State agency with seven Commissioners appointed by the Governor. The law was strongly supported by the hospital industry. The HSCRC was given broad responsibility regarding the public disclosure of hospital data and operating performance and was authorized to establish hospital rates to promote cost containment, access to care, equity, financial stability and hospital accountability.

The HSCRC has set rates for all payers, including Medicare and Medicaid, since 1977 and has largely achieved the key policy objectives established by the Maryland legislature. In recent years, the HSCRC has devoted considerable resources toward the development and implementation of payment-related initiatives designed to promote the overall quality of care in Maryland hospitals.”

http://www.hscrc.state.md.us/

I hope this helps!

*********

If you review your question and analyze my answer, I hope you will realize that your complaint is groundless. If you are honestly interested in serious dialogue, I am ready; but I have no interest in playing hide and seek games which lead nowhere.

[Nic Samojluk]

Overaged wrote:

"Giving an answer" means nothing when the answer cannot be verified.

*********

Can you identify the answer which you claim cannot be verified?

[Nic Samojluk]

Overaged wrote:

“I mean well; just don't always express well. Nic continues to cite ancient, "evidence" from 1988, and to report things people or organizations [allegedly] said to him; and the thing that no one wants to acknowledge is that he cannot provide things like this that are easily verifiable.”

*********

If you mean well, then stop accusing me of falsehood and lying unless you have evidence in support of your contention. Lying is a serious charge designed to destroy the reputation of an opponent. Lying implies the intentional misrepresentation of facts with the objective of deceiving others. If you honestly think that my intention is to deceive, please provide the evidence that I have intentionally misrepresented facts which can be verified to be untrue.

If you cannot provide the evidence then your accusation will boomerang against you and your own reputation and you will be guilty of violating the Commandment which reads: “You shall not give false testimony against your neighbor.” If you are a Christian, you should be concerned about this! I appeal to you as a brother in Christ. Stop doing what a true Christian should not do.

This forum was designed for serious and honest discussion and not for mudslinging. If you continue to act in an unchristian manner, sooner or later you will reap the bitter fruits of what you are sowing. If you want to be respected, you need to respect the opinions of others. If you think that your reputation is worth something, remember that the reputation of others is sacred as well. Can we raise the level of this dialogue to where it will bring honor and glory to the God we worship?

You complain that I bring old evidence going back to 1988. If we want to understand what happened to the abortion issue, we need to compare what happened in the past with what is happening now. The statistics I analyzed in my letter to Ted Wilson is not old, but rather as fresh as we can get, covering the following years: 2008, 2009, and 2010.

You complain that some events I make reference to are not easily verifiable. I am willing to provide the evidence whenever this is feasible. When someone confides with me something, I am willing to share with others the identity of the individual provided I have permission from said individual to do so. Sometimes, employees of the church prefer to remain anonymous for fear of loosing their job. I need to respect that. If you question such information, I would not blame you.

But when I make reference to something that has been published, all you need to do is to ask for the reference. I am willing to take the time to locate the source of any published material or event I am making reference to. For example, here is the reference in connection with the 1988 date:

*********

“In an article published by “Spectrum” entitled “Abortion Policies in Adventist Hospitals” Winslow reported the result of a 1988 survey analyzing the practices of SDA hospitals located within the United States when dealing with abortion. Out of 51 hospitals, only 26 responded to the questionnaire, which is rather small to justify broad conclusions.

Most of those that responded indicated that that their rules permit therapeutic abortions only–meaning when pregnancies are the result of rape, incest, malformations, or serious threats to the life or health of the pregnant woman. If other abortions are performed, they are done contrary to the official hospital policies.

Five of those hospitals indicated that elective abortions are permitted. Evidently there was confusion in the mind of the respondents between the meaning of “therapeutic” and “elective” abortions, which means that the survey results might be questionable.”

Gerald R. Winslow, “Abortion Policies in Adventist Hospitals” Specttum 19/4 (May 1989): 47-50. Accessed from http://www.spectrummagazine.org/spectrum/issue/vol_19_no_4_may_1989 on 18 Oct. 2010.

*********

Please, identify any other reference I have made to published material, and I will take the time to locate the material for you and provide the desired documentation.

[doug yowell]

Nic continues to cite ancient, "evidence" from 1988, and to report things people or organizations [allegedly] said to him; and the thing that no one wants to acknowledge is that he cannot provide things like this that are easily verifiable.

I agree that the evidence from the "pre-Guidelines" era may not be an accurate portrayal of SDA practice today,however,like the former alcoholic example that I used before,that former record (these were extablished facts not hearsay evidence)coupled with today's rumors and a strange silence in response are legitimate reasons for anyone to suspect that all is not well. When confronted with false accusations about the gospel the early Christians (and Christ Himself) responded with the evidence to the contrary.Why can't the Remnant Church reestablish the same confidence level of it's members. And by the way,speaking of members,Nic, as one of those members, has every right to pursue the truth of this matter by asking the head what the "right arm" is doing?

[Overaged]

You asked me to identify the independent source of statistics I received the data from, and I answered your question and gave you the link for the public entity which did provided me the data, and you come back with the complaint that there is “no way for the general public to verify”? Don’t you know how to click on an Internet link? I provided you with the evidence, and you persist in insisting that I am lying?

Once again; you prove me right. I actually told everyone in that post that you would be quite likely to accuse me of saying you are lying. You seem to think that posting a general link to a home page is "evidence;" of some kind, making us thereby searching an entire web site.

Where on this web site link that you just posted as "evidence" against the Church, does it say those statistics you accused us of?

What's the matter? Isn't it there? Don't you know how to post an exact link to specific information?

[Overaged]

Overaged wrote:

If you mean well, then stop accusing me of falsehood and lying unless you have evidence in support of your contention. Lying is a serious charge designed to destroy the reputation of an opponent. Lying implies the intentional misrepresentation of facts with the objective of deceiving others. If you honestly think that my intention is to deceive, please provide the evidence that I have intentionally misrepresented facts which can be verified to be untrue.

As I mentioned earlier; you would likely mount a tirade against me saying I was accusing you of "lying." Since when does disagreement with, and questioning of, constitute such a thing as lying. You have destroyed your own reputation by this rant you have against the Church; and what is really sick about it all is you pretend to have the issue with abortion; yet evidence posted by you in a number of threads show clearly many other issues mixed into the pot. The "many" references you supply are more often than not from your own web site, or that thing you call a "dissertation." We are not stupid. We don't have to believe your garbage.

[doug yowell]

As I mentioned earlier; you would likely mount a tirade against me saying I was accusing you of "lying." Since when does disagreement with, and questioning of, constitute such a thing as lying. You have destroyed your own reputation by this rant you have against the Church; and what is really sick about it all is you pretend to have the issue with abortion; believe

If Nic is pretending is he doing so intentionally in order to deceive his readers, or do you think that he just doesn't understand what he's doing? Since you have on numerous occasions already openly accused him of lying are you attempting to validate that charge with this post or are you having difficulty expressing what you really mean by what you write?

[Overaged]

Originally Posted By: Overaged

As I mentioned earlier; you would likely mount a tirade against me saying I was accusing you of "lying." Since when does disagreement with, and questioning of, constitute such a thing as lying. You have destroyed your own reputation by this rant you have against the Church; and what is really sick about it all is you pretend to have the issue with abortion; believe

If Nic is pretending is he doing so intentionally in order to deceive his readers, or do you think that he just doesn't understand what he's doing? Since you have on numerous occasions already openly accused him of lying are you attempting to validate that charge with this post or are you having difficulty expressing what you really mean by what you write?

No; I am having no "trouble" at all. I actually have shown evidence on numerous occassions for what I say; you just don't like what I said.

[doug yowell]

No; I am having no "trouble" at all. I actually have shown evidence on numerous occassions for what I say; you just don't like what I said.

[Nic Samojluk]

Overaged wrote:

“Where on this web site link that you just posted as "evidence" against the Church, does it say those statistics you accused us of? What's the matter? Isn't it there? Don't you know how to post an exact link to specific information?”

*********

You have raised a valid objection and I am ready to respond. The link I provided to you leads you to the entity which provided me with the statistics. Remember that your question was: “What is this "independent repository?" You were asking for the source for the statistics I analyzed for Ted Wilson, and I gave the link to the said source:

http://www.hscrc.state.md.us/ If you had asked to see the actual original statistics, I would have explained to you the procedure for doing so.

The price for said statistics was $750 dollars, and I told the provider I did not have this kind of money. My real estate business failed and left me with a sizable debt which I have to repay from my meager social security income. The man in charge told me I could have it for free provided I signed a legal document assuring him I would not publish said data. I asked him if I could have a person or two take a look at said statistics if they were willing to sign the same legal document promising not to publish the document, and he said yes.

This means that there is a way of examining said statistics without the expenditure of $750 dollars, but the individual would have to sign the same legal document I signed promising not to publish the original document. I am willing to let a responsible person examine the data I have in my possession, but it has to be someone I can trust, and you have not gained my trust yet. I prefer to share this with someone employed by the church that I can trust that he will not get me in trouble—preferably someone I personally know to be trustworthy. Do you know someone like that living in the Loma Linda area that both of us can trust?

Of course, there is an alternative; you and anybody else can secure the same data from the entity which provided me with the statistics. The $750 price tag is not exorbitant for most people who are not saddled with a debt.

[Nic Samojluk]

Overaged wrote:

“As I mentioned earlier; you would likely mount a tirade against me saying I was accusing you of "lying." Since when does disagreement with, and questioning of, constitute such a thing as lying. You have destroyed your own reputation by this rant you have against the Church; and what is really sick about it all is you pretend to have the issue with abortion; yet evidence posted by you in a number of threads show clearly many other issues mixed into the pot. The "many" references you supply are more often than not from your own web site, or that thing you call a "dissertation." We are not stupid. We don't have to believe your garbage.”

*********

Here is the evidence that you did accuse me of lying. Are you ready to deny that these words are yours?

“Too bad you are choosing to continue in your lies.”

“How you can continue to believe Nic’s Catholic lies is beyond me.”

“we are accusing him of "lying" if we dare to ask for proof”

Do you expect me to remain silent when you have repeatedly attempted to tell the whole world that I am guilty of intentional deception? Self defense is a universal right which is recognized by everybody.

You are labeling by dissertation as “garbage” yet it was approved by a university. By this you are insulting the professors who approved my investigation. If you think that I have garbage in it, please identify said garbage! Most of the quotations I have there were cited from Adventist publications like “Ministry,” “Spectrum,” “Adventist Today,” and books published by Adventists. I did include some of my own published writings about the subject. Is this a mortal sin? This represents a practice which is recognized by respectd authors.

The fact that you happen to disagree with my conclusions does not justify you labeling what you don’t like as “garbage.” I am open for serious discussion of the issue of abortion, but your demeanor seems to be designed to elicit the worst feeling in your opponent, and I am not ready to respond in kind. I invite you to reconsider your attitude towards your opponent. I hope we can discuss this issue without insulting the intelligence and integrity of those who happen to disagree with us.

[Overaged]

Nic; you need to read more carefully, like you keep telling people here to do. I didn't deny thinking that you are spreading lies. I said that your likely response would be to say I was calling you a liar. Just like you think I believe a lie. It's all in how you choose to interpret it. You have made your choices quite clear; but I stand behind everything I said here to you or about you. I said nothing you have disproven.

[Nic Samojluk]

Overage wrote:

“Nic; you need to read more carefully, like you keep telling people here to do. I didn't deny thinking that you are spreading lies. I said that your likely response would be to say I was calling you a liar. Just like you think I believe a lie. It's all in how you choose to interpret it. You have made your choices quite clear; but I stand behind everything I said here to you or about you. I said nothing you have disproven.”

*********

Are you trying to backpedal now? Look at what you stated! You said:

“Too bad you are choosing to continue in your lies.”

My major field in College was English, and I do not see how you can weasel out of this! You said that I was continuing in MY LIES. Now you are trying to suggest that I was merely “spreading lies”?

You did label the lies as MINE, and now you are attempting to make me believe that you did not do what you actually did. Why can’t you own what you did? Are you trying to redefine the true meaning of the “your lies” phrase? Remember that Bill Clinton tried to redefine the meaning of the word “IS” and didn’t get very far!

[Overaged]

*********

Here is the evidence that you did accuse me of lying. Are you ready to deny that these words are yours?

“Too bad you are choosing to continue in your lies.”

“How you can continue to believe Nic’s Catholic lies is beyond me.”

“we are accusing him of "lying" if we dare to ask for proof”

Do you expect me to remain silent when you have repeatedly attempted to tell the whole world that I am guilty of intentional deception? Self defense is a universal right which is recognized by everybody.

The last thing I would expect of you is to be silent. If that was my wish; I could just stop posting here. It's like I already said; I stand by everything I said, every dotting of the i; and every crossing of the t. And as I also said; you are free to interpret it whatever way you want.

You continue to misrepresent the Church in the matter of abortions; you have shown you don't care what anyone says unless they believe YOUR message, you have shown a continued, almost pathological determination to mix other, unrelated issues in with this subject; and there are only a few words in the English language to describe that "Mr English." Your so-called "credentials" are simply not.

[Nic Samojluk]

Overage wrote:

“You continue to misrepresent the Church in the matter of abortions;”

*********

In a court of law, what the judge and the jury want to see is EVIDENCE. Where is the evidence that I am misrepresenting the church in the matter of abortions? Right from the beginning, I have been asking that you provide such EVIDENCE. I am fully persuaded that you have failed to provide such EVIDENCE simply because you have nothing to support your accusation against me. As far as EVIDENCE is concerned, you have been silent so far, and in this the church has acted likewise.

I have written to Ted Wilson twice and all I get is the silence treatment. I have also written to Allan Handysides at the GC, and to other leaders of the church. All I get is total silence. If your argument is solid, I should have received some solid EVIDENCE that I am in error. No EVIDENCE? Case dismissed!

[Overaged]

I actually don't blame them for not replying to you Nic; I wouldn't either if I were them. (if that's even true what you said).

[teresaq]

Originally Posted By: teresaq(sda)You asked me questions and I responded to those questions.

Does that mean you support a woman's right to: employ her body for prostitution or pornography, fornication and adultry,smoking while pregnant,or drug or alcohol addiction? Do you also reject Paul's claim in I Cor. 6:18-20? [/quote

Originally Posted By: doug yowell

...Those statements did not include any connection between the SDA church prohibiting abortion in it's own institutions and using the secular government to force that behavior. My question in response to your statement was an attempt to clarify the parameters (if any)of YOUR support for the freedoms of a woman's bodily use. ....

I'm confused, as I am by most of your responses to something you do not like.

Originally Posted By: doug yowell

If that was true would you find that offensively wrong? Does the proper Christian approach to law or morality require the abolition of law and it's enforcement in order to avoid any perception that force was being used to insure the stability and protection of society?

i personally see a disconnect in your reasoning...you appear to jump from one situation to another yet want the same answer to all.