I have a question about women's health...

[Solon]

well obviously I'm a guy, but a while ago one of my co-workers, a 60+ year old lady, she loved telling stories. Anyways, she said that after she had her 4 child at around the age of 25 or so, she wanted her tubes tied, at the time she was single. She told me that the hospital required her mother's and/or husband's permission to do the surgery. When she said that I was shocked, I mean really, I'm only 26 and that seems so...Freaky. But I wanted to ask, was that common practice before the '70s, and also, did Roe v. Wade have anything to do with it, or another court case?

[luaneryder]

1. Had a tubal ligation in 1976

and had to have my husband's permission, which he gave. I was shocked because no one told me of this requirement until right before they were getting ready to wheel me off for the surgery. I'm not sure when that law changed or why, but it really ticked me off at the time.

[barb162]

7. yeah my girlfriend (unmarried at the time and in her mid 20s

and with a masters degree) in the mid 1970s had a hard time finding a MD to do a tubal becaue she hadn't had children yet. She finally found a MD who did it. It seems so unfair and stupid that someone would say this to an adult educated woman, but it wasn't all that long ago that women got this dumbass refusal. I think they wanted to check her mental state too because the MDs automatically assumed she had to be crazy. I think she went to about 5 MDs before she found one who did the procedure. We were both incensed at this disgusting treatment and I remember we joined NOW because of this and so many other anti-women things happening then.

[MountainLaurel]

20. The 60 rule

For a long time, for women to be sterilized by a medical doctor, they had to meet what was called the 60 rule: Their age at the time multiplied by the number of children they had borne had to equal 60 in order for them to be "allowed" to be sterilized. So, if you were 20 at the time and had three kids, you were ok. If you were 30 years old and had two kids, you could get a tubal. But if you were 25 and had only 2 kids, well that totaled to 50, so you were shit out of luck.

[barb162]

64. thanks, you jogged my memory and I am glad you said the rule; I

vaguely remembered some formula with age and number of kids but didn't know what it was. My girlfriend only rated about a 25 score then. She never regretted her decision.

[sbj405]

13. Interesting. Were wives required to sign off on a vasectomy?

:eyes:

[Crowdance]

15. Twelve years ago, I had to sign off on Mr. CD's vasectomy

I suspect it was in order to avoid litigation.

[mandyky]

17. I've often wondered about that one too LOL

Somehow I doubt it though!

[Tansy_Gold]

77. In 1977, signed consent for vasectomy

I signed consent form for Mr. Gold's vasectomy in September 1977, six weeks after our second child was born.

Laws vary from state to state. Neither of us met any "60" rule, but there was no difficulty obtaining the procedure in Indiana.

An acquaintance, however, encountered life-threatening difficulty just a few years later in Michigan. After a very difficult fourth pregnancy, she tried to get her tubes tied, but the abusive husband she was already separated from would not consent and the hospital would not perform the surgery. Financially dependent on him, she returned to the marriage and became pregnant again, this time with twins. She was only able to finally get the surgery because her parents were granted custody of the other two children of the marriage when the father abandoned them while the mother was hospitalized before the twins' birth. The grandparents had to get a court order -- they lived in Indiana! -- to force the Michigan hospital to sterilize their daughter as she requested. She was 34 years old and had six children, but without legal spouse's consent, no tubal ligation.

[asjr]

2. Roe v Wade didn't happen until the 70s. But I can remember

before that women didn't fare well when it came to owning their own bodies. Roe helped that but with this administration it could come to an end and we will go back to the dark ages. I had my tubes tied in 1969 after my third child. I can't really remember if my husband had to sign anything or not, but if he had to sign and wouldn't I would have killed him.

[barb162]

9. I think Roe V. Wade will be overturned in the next 1 or 2 years

re the Supreme Court being loaded with conservatives. Scalia etal will tip it. Back alley abortions will be back

[mandyky]

3. It is sort of a general medical practice

to have a woman be 25 or have had x amount of children, because undoing tied tubes was once harder to reverse. Having a parent or husband have to sign is over the top, and I'd never heard that before.
What state did she live in?

[Solon]

11. Missouri n/t

[TxGran]

4. 1967

When pregnant with my third child, I requested that my tubes be tied upon delivery. My doctor said that it had to go before the hospital board for approval and that because of my age (early twenties) and good health it would not even be considered.

[The empressof all]

5. I would imagine this was true

It was SOP to have husbands consent to have something like this done. I couldn't tell you if it was legal or not- It was just what was done.

[Ilsa]

6. Contraception used to be against the law in some places I believe.

Griswold v. Connecticut

http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/griswold.html

The state controlled conception to some degree.

So you shouldn't be surprised to discover that women had to have their husband's permission to prevent a pregnancy. To some people, the uterus was like community property.

Alot of attitudes, fortunately, have changed since then as women have learned that they are supposed to be incontrol over their own reproductive organs.

[barb162]

65. I seem to recall the Catholic Church saying it was a mortal sin too

[knitter4democracy]

8. My knitting mentor had the same thing happen to her

She needed a hysterectomy in the late sixties because of uncontrolled bleeding, and, in Ohio, she needed her husband's permission--even though it was a life-threatening condition if left alone (I know, long-term, but still). Her doctor wasn't allowed to do the surgery without her husband's permission. She asked him what would happen if she wasn't married, and he said that the hospital would require her father's permission instead. What if her dad was dead? Well, then he didn't know, but it would require a hearing.

Sheesh. And people want to go back to that. Why not just make me wear a burqa while you're at it?

[barb162]

10. we probably will be wearing burqas before too long the way

things are going

[Solon]

14. Shit, tell me about it...

I had NO idea that this was a somewhat common practice in the US. No one should make medical decisions for you at all except for you and the doctor, regardless of reason. The only acceptable exception is when you are incapacitated, like in a coma, or in another way incapable to make the decision. I would imagine the repubs in power actually want to go back to this practice, if not worst, and that scares me as well.

[Solly Mack]

12. My sister-in-law had to have her husband's permission in the 80's

to have her tubes tied.

She was under 25 (though not by much) and with 2 kids.

She was living in Germany at the time.


My friend had her tubes tied about 3 years ago...and she had to have her husband sign a release form saying he "was aware of the procedure"

She was 25 at the time.

I'd give comment but my head would burst from the rant I'd spiral into.

[sbj405]

16. Re: your friend, was it merely a function of her age?

Or is this still common practice? Either way, I'm shocked(though I guess I shouldn't be) that this still goes on.

[Solly Mack]

21. They claimed it was her age

and that age, "25" , seems to be the standard throughout the decades.

However, I don't agree that a married woman needs her husband's written permission (or verbal permission for that matter). I would hope the two of them would have discussed it beforehand, but that's not always going to be the case...

Nor do I agree an unmarried woman needs anyones permission once she's chosen to have it done.

[Solon]

18. Wait a second...

3 FUCKING YEARS AGO..., holy shit, I mean, seriously, he doesn't even have to be informed about that, that is HER decision, no one elses, what the fuck is wrong with this country, and we thought the taliban is bad?

[Solly Mack]

22. This was in Kansas...which may or may not explain it

and I went through the roof when she told me.

She was 25,also a mother of 2, and didn't want to have more because she felt it would be all they could do to put 2 kids through college.

and they sent her home with a form for her husband to sign saying he acknowledged she was having the procedure.

[SheilaT]

19. Oh, yeah, this kind of thing

was absolutely standard not that long ago.

Pregnant employees were routinely fired. Maternity leaves were practically non-existent, or where they did exist there was no guarantee of actually being able to return to your same job.

Interestingly enough, the phone company (Ma Bell) was an early leader in maternity leaves. I worked as an operator in 1967 and 68, and a year's maternity leave was standard. Women typically left when they were six months pregnant and had the first nine month's of the baby's life at home. Of course it was an unpaid leave, but there was no problem about coming back to the same job at the same pay.

[mopinko]

23. yup, took good care of the "girls"

that were operators, cuz they felt they had to be female. just don't try getting a job that required a soldering iron or a screwdriver.

[SheilaT]

56. You're right. Job opportunities

for women were severely limited back then. You could go to college and become a teacher or a nurse. Without a degree you could be a telephone operator or waitress. Somewhere in between on the education scale was being an airline stewardess.

Harvard, Princeton, Yale, MIT, Caltech and lots of other schools didn't admit women. It's hard for younger people to understand how restricted our choices and opportunities were back then.

But the phone company, with all its paternalism, provided a good job at a decent salary for women, with maternity leave. You have no idea how rare that was back then. And in the relatively short time I worked for Ma Bell, I didn't know any unmarried women who got pregnant, but I strongly suspect they would have gotten the same benefit.

[SharonAnn]

75. Yes, they wouldn't hire me because I was "too intelligent"

They said that the only two jobs they had for women were Customer Service jobs and Operator jobs and i would get bored with them and either quit or stop doing well. Either way, they lose their training investment.

They told me to find a job that was more demanding and required more of my capabilities and i would be more successful.

At first I as angry about it because I needed a job. Later I realized that they were right. I've never been good at jobs that aren't demanding. I get bored easily and stop paying attention.

Of course they could've hired me for one of their demanding jobs but those were only for men.

[TxGran]

24. Another Memory

I don't mean to hi-jack your thread, but this triggered another memory from the seventies. If you were lucky enough to have medical insurance, it would only cover pregnancy related expenses if you had been married for a full nine months prior to the delivery date.

[Solon]

26. No problem hijacking the thread...

I think all of these are women's issues that need to be brought to light, because you and I know the repukes will not stop at abortion, but would rather have women become the property of their husbands and parents again.

[Greylyn58]

72. In Some Ways

Women are still treated differently in health situation.

Up until recently, if a woman went to an emergency room complaining of chest pains, the physicians would assume it was nerves and give her some tranquilizers and send her home.

Whereas if a man came in with the same kind of chest pains, he would be put through all kinds of tests, his heart would be checked, etc.

Conclusion...men have heart attacks but women don't. It was assumed that our lives weren't as stressful as men, therefore we couldn't have heart problems.

YEAH RIGHT!!!!

[yardwork]

54. Teachers were not allowed to be visibly pregnant and keep their jobs

My MIL, in the late 1950s, was told that she could keep teaching only as long as she didn't look pregnant and didn't wear maternity clothes.

So she starved herself, chain-smoked, and stayed thin as a rail throughout her pregnancy. No wonder her first-born (my husband) has scoliosis of the spine and severe allergies.

My MIL lost two babies very late in pregnancy following these kinds of orders. Very sad.

The saddest part is that she is a Republican and thinks dumbya is just fine. I guess you could say she was raised drinking kool-aid.

[Ms_Mary]

57. In 99 when my son was born

I had a boss who was a real jerk. Two days after I started maternity leave, he rifled through my desk, threw some of my things away and had his secretary take half my files to storage. I wound up going to the college president when I returned, for that and other things, but they had such a good old boy network that it didn't help. I'd been there 4 years and I was very good at my job. I left and went to work part-time. He hired his secretary in my place and I later found out he paid her nearly $10K more than me. But she sucked up to him and I didn't. The thought of that man still stresses me out. I stayed there 4 years too long.

[neebob]

25. That's not the only example

I believe women are still excluded from certain drugs or medical procedures if they're within a certain age range, because of the possibility of childbearing - regardless of their personal wishes. A few years ago, I was told I couldn't have something because I was within that age range, even though insisted I was done having kids. I can't remember what it was now, but it pissed me off.

[Solon]

27. Misogyny is alive and well in health I see...

that's atrocious, what the hell is wrong with this picture?!?!?!

[boi1946]

28. I was refused a tubal ligation in 1970--

2 year's divorced, I was told I would have to have my EX-HUSBAND's or my father's permission to have the procedure. I'm adopted, have an Rh incompatibility, and had been told by that very same MD never to have another child. I went on the pill for approx 20 yr's, changed MD's, and am still angry over it.

[Mari333]

29. Im not surprised.

There are some real horror stories out there. When I was 35, I was asked by a doctor if I was planning on having more children. I said No, 3 boys are quite enough. He then advised me to get a full hysterectomy...I said What? He said "well since you arent planning on having any more children you might as well have your uterus and ovaries removed if you arent using them..."
This doctor was in his 70s at the time..I asked him if HE was planning on having more children..he said NO..I said "Then I suggest you have your penis and testicles removed since you wont be needing them.."
I left his office, and left him standing there with his mouth hanging open.

[Lady Effingbroke]

32. HAHAHAHAHA!

:thumbsup: What a maroon! WTG Mari!

[sbj405]

38. Good answer to him. Though it's a bit scarey.

I wonder how many woman listened to his advice.

[barb162]

66. I wish I could think of answers like that when someone says

a totally dumbfuck thing to me. I always think of these great answers an hour later.

You know what, he probably also wanted to make some extra money doing the procedure. What did he care if he cost you a lot of pain? Look at all the hysterectomies done on U.S. women that never had to be done. There was some study done a few years ago on that procedure in this country versus other industrialized countries. It was clear MDs here were recommending them to line their damned pockets

[knitter4democracy]

71. Oh, it wasn't just the money

A lot of docs really believed that the uterus had zero function after you were done having kids, ovaries too. "There's no room in the tomb for the womb" was a saying doctors were trained with for decades. Of course, they would'nt have said the same thing about testicles or anything . . .

[barb162]

78. ...tomb for the womb. Primal scream. I wonder how many still think

this way.

I know as a childfree woman I often got comments from people about why I wasn't having kids. They always assumed there was either something physically wrong with me or mentally wrong. They never concluded that it was my choice not to have children.

And yes, let's NEVER say anything about those precious testicles; bow down in glory to those things

[knitter4democracy]

79. Hee, hee!

Bow down in glory . . . LOL! That's about right!

[Lady Effingbroke]

30. So is there an age at which a woman (me) who has never had children

and who doesn't want any children can get her tubes tied? I am 35, and have been on the pill since I was 20 (I have a wonderful ob/gyn who says I can stay on the pill up until menopause, but I am growing tired of taking it every day, despite the benefits, and would like a more permanent solution.) I live in TX.

[Solon]

31. Probably not Texas...

don't know, ask your doctor about it, hell if they refuse, you could possibly sue them or the state if there is a law against it, I don't know.

[Lady Effingbroke]

33. Yeah, I figured I might be getting old enough to where a doctor would

consider the operation despite my childlessness, and I am lucky to have the ob/gyn that I do, especially here in TX.

[disillusioned1]

68. Go to Planned Parenthood

I was 25 in 1979 and asked for a tubal from my gynecologist. I was unmarried and childless. He refused on the grounds he was Catholic.

I went to PP, signed once, and the deed was done. No questions.

[Scout]

76. Check first with Planned Parenthood....

I had my tubal in 2002 at age 41. No kids. I was married at the time. I don't recall if my husband actually gave permission (I don't think so) or merely signed the surgical "awareness" thing.

This was in Michigan. The doctor was pretty good, not patronizing until right before surgery, during prep ... then he asked me about 3 different times "no more babies, right?" just like that. I kept telling him "no, no babies at all, that's why I'm here!" and was startging to get pissed off. But I didn't want to screw with the surgery, and then they finally came with the good drugs!

[cags]

34. This still happens, It happened to my sister a couple years ago in CA

My sister was 22 and wanted to have her tubes tied after her second child (and should of had them tied before she had any children, but thats another story)

They wouldn't do it until she was 25. After her third child they did it.

I agree with it in a sense that when I was 22 I wouldn't make the same decisions now that I would have then. Maturity puts a different light on things. Temporary solutions are available at that age, unless there is some medical problem I think it is a good rule.

Also I think married men and women should not be allowed to do it without at least informing thier spouses.

[Solon]

35. That's a stupid excuse...

In other words, you are not a legal adult until 25 then? Even worse for females, I guess they are just property to their man until then, huh? What type of misogynist bullshit is this?

[cags]

37. There was no man involved, No permission to get, they just wouldn't do

it on a woman of her age

[Solon]

39. It is still stupid...

Once you hit 18, you should have all the RIGHTS and RESPONSIBILITIES of an full fledged adult, and if the doctor doesn't have a valid medical reason, then its pure bullshit and he should not be practicing medicine. Should they deny abortions to women under 25 as well?

Edited subject line.

[cags]

42. There are solutions that are not permanent.

An abortion isn't going to permanently affect your reproductive decisions for the rest of your life. A tubal ligation will. I know very few people in there 30's that still have the same ideas about thier lives that they did in thier early 20's. There are many other options to avoid pregnancy.

I still think its a good rule, and if someone is that determined to have it done at such a young age, they could find a doctor to do it if they really wanted to

[Solon]

45. Still a question of rights and responsibilities...

So your saying that women should be discriminated against due to age or maturity because of biology compared to men. After all him getting snipped is reversable.

[cags]

48. I suppose yes, but I wouldn't call it discrimination

If a vasectomy was permanent I would say the same for young men. There are all kinds of birth control. They are implants that last 5 years.

It is a serious decision which should not be taken lightly, and some serious counseling should go into that decision for people who are still in the phase of thier lives where they are figuring out what they want out of life

[Solon]

63. I never said it should be taken lightly...

and there are other choices out there, but I believe, just like I do in the abortion debate, that it is between the individual and their doctor, no one else has to be involved.

[Blue Diadem]

36. 1978

I was 23, married with two kids, and had to argue with my Dr. to get a tubal ligation. We had little money with the constant layoffs back then and pregnancy was hard on me.

My OB/Gyn finally agreed when I said if he didn't do it, Hubby would get snipped. Hubby had to sign for me too.

Four months after surgery, I went back to the Dr. telling him I was pregnant. He offered me psychiatric help because I had my tubes tied so young. I told him "NO I need a pregnancy test". My youngest son was born a week shy of 1 year after having my tubes tied. I had a different Dr. by that time and he had no problem doing another tubal ligation for me.

I still tend to think the 1st Dr. didn't do the surgery correctly because of my age, although I did get a wonderful son out of the deal.

[cags]

40. I don't see the problem with married people having to make thier spouse

aware of a reproductive procedure.

Children are an important issue in marriage.
It is a huge deception to have a procedure like this done without the knowledge of your spouse.

[Solon]

41. There is a distinct difference between hoping they inform them...

and FORCING THEM TO!!! My aunt has Rh negative blood, and after the 3rd kid almost killed her, she wanted her tubes tied. Husband said no, she forged his signature and had it done anyways, was she wrong?

[cags]

44. No, She informed him, I didn't say they should have to get permission

Just that they should be informed so that there is no deception

[Solon]

46. Uh, she told him, he said no, she did it anyways, didn't tell him that...

until after the fact, so there was deception involved.

[cags]

47. But he still knew of her intent to not have any more children

She didn't trick him into believing he would have more children

[Solon]

49. Its always nice to be on a high horse and hand out a directive...

but I live in reality, thank you very much, I do not believe that he should HAVE to be informed so she could have had the procedure at all. What if he was abusive, where is the line drawn? Would she have to go to court to get a medical procedure that is her RIGHT to have? Or how about this, what if the hospital refused such a thing, whether because of her age, or because of she was scared to inform her husband. What if she died from a resulting pregnancy, should the hospital be brought up on charges of MURDER because of that?

[cags]

50. So its OK to decieve a spouse in your eyes,

Your cenario is not the norm.

Don't think I'm on a high horse about anything, I know more about living with abuse than you think. Your cenario just wouldn't happen.
Until you've lived in an abused womans shoes, I don't think you can speak of what they would or would not do.

[Solon]

52. The point is that it all depends on the INDIVIDUAL...

there should NOT be either a law or a rule for MD's or others to follow that forces the decision on anyone. Besides that, my hypothetical is certainly real, that scenario has the potential to happen, and most likely has happened in the past, so why set up conditions to make it more difficult for people to make decisions about their own body?

[cags]

53. Do you know any women that have lived with abuse?

If they are so afraid that they can't tell thier husbands what they want to do, then they are most likely too afraid to have a procedure that leaves a scar much less go to court over it.

I've lived with it, you have no clue what you are talking about.

The only way to truly debate this with you is if you were older. But being that you are only 26 I understand where you are coming from.

[Solon]

55. I certainly am no expert, nor do I claim to be...

I do not have a lot of experience with abusive relationships, except for my best friend growing up, being beaten by his father constantly, stuff like that. To this day I remember staying the night one night, after his mother divorced his father, and his dad showed up at their house and started banging on the door in the middle of the night. I remember the fear in my best friends eyes as he ran into the kitchen and hid in the cabinet under the sink. Considering that he was 12, and tall for his age, that was an accomplishment. I remember his mother paralyzed with fear, as I ran for the phone and called 911 and the police arrived to drag his dad away. To this day, that haunts me, so yes, I may not be as experienced as you, but then I am not "clueless" either. I simply do not want pointless legal barriers put up that are there only to burden those who are already weak and powerless.

ON EDIT: I do remember one thing about that night, my friend crying and screaming about not letting his dad get him, over and over again, it was horrible.

[cags]

60. I'd like to get away from the abuse issue because I just don't think it

applies to this. The weak and powerless are in a totally different situation.

Imagine if your wife secretly got her tubes tied, all the while you are trying to have children, but it will never happen. How many years would you have wasted believing you would start a family. Thats who would bear the burden.

[Solon]

61. It would be grounds for divorce...

the point being that it would remain a civil matter and not anything that would be enforced by denying chosen medical procedure for somebody else. The problem is that you could imagine any scenario like that, but that doesn't mean there should be a law or rule that protects you from that. We need to trust individual adults to their own choices, both good and bad, especially when it comes to medical decisions. You can't make laws that protect people from lying to each other outside of a courtroom, besides that, in such a situation, they should have built up the trust already, otherwise the marriage should have naver taken place.

[readmoreoften]

73. I don't care if you were abused or not. That has nothing to do

with your original comment, which is that the STATE should demand that women GET PERMISSION from their husbands of what they do with their bodies.

Newsflash: your 'abuse victim status' does not bolster your anti-woman post and does not give you any moral highground, so cut it the fuck out. Stop trying to derail an argument with an ad hominem attack and a personal appeal for pity.

There are plenty of abused women who don't give a fig if other women are abused, and if you support the kind of policy where marriage gives men the right to have final decisions over women's lives or deaths, then you have no moral ground to stand on.

[Ms_Mary]

59. There's nothing wrong with his scenario.

[serryjw]

67. Absolutely agreed........

Last time I check we are full citizens of the US as stated in the US Constitution. My relationship with my husband is no bodies business. I want the government out of of my bedroom, my doctors office and the wedding chapel.

In the middle 70's my dear girl friend (probably 25---didn't meet the 60 rule!)found herself with an atopic pregnancy. By the time they DX her it was a crisis. She was married, had 2 kids, they had 4 degrees b/t them........and the hospital would not tie her tubes at the same time as the surgery for the atopic!They required 2 days notice and the surgery couldn't wait. She had to go back into surgery later to do it.

[cags]

51. My sister is also RH negative, She gets a shot during her pregnancy,

and shes fine. I don't know about your aunt but from what I've read its not supposed to be life threatening

[peacebird]

70. whether or not one chooses to inform their spouse is between the couple

cags - i think you are mixing apples and oranges here.

no woman or man should have to have another persons "permission" in order to make a medical decision regarding their own fertility.
This is about a persons autonomous decision regarding their own body.

the partners perspective is valid to the decision IF the person cares about asking their partner. if their marriage is based on honesty, they will discuss it. if their marriage is not based on honesty and trust then it has more problems than a spouse getting tubes tied on the side.

[noamnety]

74. exactly.

Trust is an issue for the husband and wife. It's unrelated to a medical decision, and it is outrageous for a spouse's signature to be required by a doctor. Telling a spouse is a moral decision, not a medical one, and it's not a doctor's job to make our moral decisions for us.

Furthermore, rules like that are hypocritical for a number of reasons. We don't need to prove our fertility to get married, one could easily marry a person who'd had a tubal ligation or a vasectomy without knowing it. Yet we don't require couples to release their medical files to each other before they wed.

We don't require that women get their husband's permission to go on the pill, so a woman could remain infertile throughout the duration of the marriage without the husband ever knowing.

Beyond that, if they did have a disagreement over whether they wanted more kids, the woman - as the one who gets pregnant, should have final say to refuse having another child. If they absolutely can't agree, in some circumstances, depending on the personalities, I could see that it might be better to simply make arrangements to not get pregnant rather than make it a daily battle without resolution.

Ideally, it would never come to that, but that's the fantasy-based world of freepers. In the real world, husbands and wives have difficult issues that can't always be resolved, and it's not a doctor's place to insert himself into that dynamic.

As far as waiting til a person is 25 before allowing them to make a decision like that, it's true some people will regret their decisions. But to be real blunt, if we cared about people making decisions that could affect them permanently when they aren't fully "mature" (whatever that means), we wouldn't allow people under 25 to enlist, would we?

[China_cat]

43. In PA in the 60's

you had to have 'permission' from the ruling male in your life, AND the ok of a 3 member (male) doctor's board to have a tubal. My best friend couldn't have one because they refused her even though she was diabetic and had 4 kids and couldn't take the pill.

Only exception to that was if you happened to get in trouble with the law. Then you could be sentenced to jail until you were past child bearing years, unless you agreed to sergical sterilization, for even the most minor of offenses. (And I'm talking about cutting school, running away from home, etc...no nice social workers to try to find out what was wrong in your life; you were wrong and bad and ended up in a 'home' and faced with that choice.)

[SarahB]

58. I had to also sign for my husband's vasectomy in 2002.

I'm not sure what would have happened if I didn't, but it seems like the chocies people make with their bodies should be their choice, not anyone else's be it male or female.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

62. I had a married friend in the 1970s who wanted a tubal ligation

She and her husband had both decided that they didn't want children, but it was nearly impossible for her to get it done. They were in their mid twenties at the time, and every doctor they consulted told them that they would eventually change their minds. I don't know what happened, because they moved out of town before the issue was resolved.

[OKNancy]

69. Off topic slightly, but my husband had to sign

with me when I got a credit card in 1976. They wouldn't give me one on my own...and I made twice as much money as he did!! Pissed me off and I raised a stink later on the phone with the president of the bank.

[Nobody]

80. Sister of a coworker couldn't get a tubal

It was the 90s, yes, less than 15 years ago. She had serious problems and she wouldn't be able to survive a pregnancy. But because she was a teenager, they wouldn't do it. Despite family asking for it to be done.

Excruciatingly painful periods that disabled her for a week each month was the main symptom. The tubal would likely take care of that, too. But nooooooo.

[RUDUing2]

81. I think it still is common if you are married...when my dh had his vas in

1994 I had to meet the doctor too...and sign a paper.

[Samurai_Writer]

82. I had my tubes tied 4 years ago...

When I was 40 (and divorced, with 2 grown children). The doctor STILL did not want to do the tubal on me! He tried to get me to put in an IUD instead... I told him he could either do his fucking job and give me the tubal or I would go elsewhere and pay another doctor to do it. He gave me the tubal, reluctantly.