Public backlash stuns sterilized mother of nine

[Freddie Stubbs]

Source: Boston Herald

Woman claims procedure performed without consent

By Jessica Fargen | Wednesday, January 6, 2010 | http://www.bostonherald.com | Local Coverage

A Springfield mom of nine said yesterday she has been bombarded with hate messages in the wake of a Herald article on her lawsuit against doctors who she claims permanently sterilized her without her written consent.

Tessa Savicki, 35, has received a dozen nasty text messages and comments on her Facebook page since Sunday’s article on the suit. She said she’s been attacked for being a poor, single mom who is on public assistance.

“It hurts. I don’t want my kids suffering,” said Savicki, who lives with her fiance and four of her kids and said she has even dyed her hair to avoid recognition. “One person told me, ‘You should be ashamed of yourself.”’

Savicki’s suit against Baystate Medical Center, two nurses and three doctors claims they performed a tubal ligation without her consent on Dec. 19, 2006, following the delivery of her ninth child.

Read more: http://www.bostonherald.com/news/regional/view/20100106public_backlash_stuns_sterilized_mother_of_nine_woman_claims_procedure_performed_without_consent/

[ck4829]

1. People condoning medical malpractice. Just fantastic.

[Posteritatis]

24. It's great how these stories bring out the eugenicists, isn't it? (nt)

[buckrogers1965]

52. Tough questions.

Does someone on public assistance have the right to have unlimited number of children that we all have to pay to raise non-consensually? What is the number of kids people on public assistance should have on the public dole? 1? 2? 9? 24?

If yes, then how can I opt out of paying for that? Seriously, if you want to pay for a stranger to have a dozen kids, then more power to you, but don't force me to pay for that.

If no, then do we require them to agree or we cut off the payments? Or do we just do it when they have the next child?

[AlienGirl]

62. That is NOT this question. This is about surgery without consent and whether we're OK with that.

[SidDithers]

81. If you support a woman's right to choose...

and a woman's right to privacy and sanctity of person, then that question isn't tough at all.

Sid

[Dorian Gray]

68. I have such mixed emotions about this story

a) Obviously she's irresponsible, but

b) Obviously the hospital should not have sterilized her without her consent. It's not only unethical, but immoral.

I wouldn't leave her hate messages, but NINE kids? And she can't take care of them? She's so irresponsible it makes me angry!

[monmouth]

2. Tessa needs to lawyer-up immediately and plan on not being poor

any longer. The Duggars are paid by TLC for exploiting their children and their carbon footprint on this earth are far more egregious than Tessas'. Hope her life gets better.

[Warpy]

17. Same here.

about the carbon footprint of her kids versus the Duggar mob.

This might not be the whole story, though. If she'd had a couple of Caesarian births before, the ligation could conceivably be to save her life. You can cut a uterus open only so many times before you start risking fatal complications with subsequent birth. She had to have a Caesarian, there is no way you'd have a tubal ligation otherwise and not notice.

[tavalon]

76. Doctors and nurses don't get to decide that

Once, we did a repeat c/s on a woman who had a window in her uterus - the layers had never healed together after the last few c/s. She was awake and so the doctor explained what he had found, what the impact of another pregnancy could be (death for mom and child) and attempted to get consent to do a tubal ligation. She refused and she took her fully functioning tubes out of the OR with her. Nope, I don't know the follow up story, if there even is one, but the take home message is that it is immoral and illegal to do any operation on a person without their consent.

[brendan120678]

129. In regard to the Duggar's carbon footprint...

I'm not defending their lifestyle choice, but I do know from reading articles and occasionally watching TLC that The Duggars have a fairly small carbon footprint (considering the size of their clan) because they only buy what they need, they frequently purchase from second-hand stores, and they pass clothes down through many many children and recycle all they can.

Certainly it is much smaller than those celebrities who fly in their chartered jets all across the globe trying to tell us we need to reduce our carbon footprint.

[Lance_Boyle]

77. She has lawyered up - she already fired the first one she hired for THIS suit.

The same woman made a good chunk of change a few years ago suing a drug store chain and a drug company for "selling her expired spermacidal jelly." She's a friggin' slip-and-fall lawsuit queen, and the new face of lawsuit abuse in the US. She deserves plenty of hate mail, and probably worse.

[chatnoir]

87. Ugh, she sounds like a parasite in that case

[texastoast]

3. AIIEEEEEE

Yep, she's free to fuck and make all the babies she wants for the rest of us to feed without our consent to such feeding.

Free, indeed, but where in the hell is the wisdom in doing it? If you can't feed 'em, don't breed 'em.

Shocking Codepink flamesuit on.

[leftynyc]

4. I agree with you

The doctor should be sued for malpractice but this ditz doesn't deserve the children she has and shouldn't have the opportunity for more.

[Dorian Gray]

69. aren't most of them

being raised outside of her home?

[dencol]

32. Agreed.

It is different if people have kids, and then run into financial difficulties. They definitely deserve assistance. But having more children than you KNOW you could ever support is irresponsible. I don't care if she was in committed relationships, or not.

[emilyg]

35. Agree.

35 years old - 9 kids.

[AlienGirl]

46. So who should be allowed to "fuck and make...babies"? Who should get to breed?

Isn't that the real question here? How much money, for instance, should a person have before they are allowed to fuck, or to breed? How healthy ought they be able to prove they are? And who decides?

That's the real issue, isn't it? Exactly who is good enough to make that decision for another person?

Tucker

[JNelson6563]

63. My heart goes out to the kids

Poor kids! Who can parent nine kids? And to do so while poor? Why would anyone bring all those kids (and more??) into such a lilfe?

What a life for them!

[Deep13]

5. If that happened then in principle she should win.

Of course, she has to prove that it was done to her. And as the plaintiff in a negligence case, she has to prove damages. From the article, it looks like they had consent to do the procedure, but forgot to install the device. Considering she intended to be sterile, at least for now, damages might not be significant.

[Posteritatis]

23. The article doesn't suggest that at all

An IUD and a tubal ligation are roughly as equivalent as birth control pills and a tubal ligation are.

[Deep13]

38. You're right. I misread it.

Somehow I thought it said they were installing a device in the fallopian tube.

[Glorfindel]

6. Possible New Reality Show: "Breeders Gone Wild!"

Hey, it's no worse than some of the other crap I've never seen. :evilgrin:

[thereismore]

7. That's what courts are for. I hope she doesn't go on Larry King and a shitload of

other talk shows and become a celebrity.

[Crzyrussell]

8. If the proceedure was done

without consent she has a good case and will probably become quite wealthy.

[louis-t]

9. Wait, this woman has the right to as many children as she wants.

Now that I have your attention, she has done nothing illegal. Granted, she has 9 kids with what appears to be at least 3 fathers and is on assistance, while saying it's ok because she was in a "committed relationship". That oughta send freepers screaming into the night, and it makes me wince. However, NO ONE HAS THE RIGHT TO DECIDE THAT SHE SHOULDN'T HAVE ANY MORE KIDS. Certainly not some damn doctor. Certainly not some damn RW talk show host. Once you submit to this kind of thinking, it's a short jump to mandatory sterilization of any group you don't like. Sounds like she has a pretty good case. She may not be on assistance much longer.

edit: Tell the freepers she's pulling herself up by her bootstraps.

[rfranklin]

10. This woman is mentally ill...

She cannot support her family yet she continues to grow it.

[louis-t]

19. I wouldn't say mentally ill, maybe not the brightest bulb in the lamp.

As long as the government will pay her to have kids, she's doing nothing illegal. Only 4 or 5 are actually still living with her. Sad, she started having kids at 14. Seems she thought she was in a "committed relationship" at that age. And you are not qualified to decide her mental fitness based on reading a news story.

[Book Lover]

29. Nice diagnosis, doctor (nm)

[rug]

30. If your hyperbole were fact, a mentally ill person was sterilized without consent.

If it is not fact, a woman in poverty was sterilized without consent.

[AlienGirl]

31. Eugenics is making a strong comeback in popular opinion as resources become scarce.

Watch for even more public, aggressive eugenicist opinions to creep into national discourse--on both the right and left, spreading toward the center and becoming ever more mainstream as the Culture of Cruelty consumes the dying empires.

Who remembers the Ik?

Tucker

[spoony]

56. Yep, I just recced your thread on it. nt

[Posteritatis]

40. That's reall there should be to the whole discussion, isn't it?

Instead there's lots of both implicit and explicit "she deserved it" kind of statements. It's sad.

[1monster]

33. The article I read said she was on SSI because she has non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. which is a pretty

grim diagnosis.

http://www.parentdish.com/2010/01/04/mother-of-nine-says-she-was-sterilized-against-her-will/?icid=main|htmlws-main-n|dl4|link3|http%3A%2F%2Fwww.parentdish.com%2F2010%2F01%2F04%2Fmother-of-nine-says-she-was-sterilized-against-her-will%2F

She receives supplemental security income for non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, she tells the paper. Her mother has custody of three of her children, according to the Herald. Two of her children are grown.

Savicki tells the paper she realizes she might not cut the most sympathetic figure in the public eye, but basic rights are at stake.

"I would never have the right to tell anyone else 'because you have this many kids that's enough,' " she tells the Herald. "That's no one's right to say that. It's my choice. No one has the right to say you've had enough. I take care of my kids. I love my kids. I was not ready to make that kind of decision."

[AlienGirl]

41. I'm sure someone will turn up to say cancer patients shouldn't breed

Genetic links, possible mortality, and all that...

Tucker

[Dorian Gray]

70. So she should be forcefully sterilized?

No way. I reject that!

[The Stranger]

11. I don't think that DUers and others pointing out her complete irresponsibility is the same thing as

mandatory sterilization.

That's not "a short jump," that is a bizarre and absurd leap on your part.

[louis-t]

20. There is a difference between saying she's "irresponsible" and

saying it's ok to sterilize her without her consent. I was responding to the crazies who wrote her emails. It would not surprise me to read that they think what the doctor did was fine.

[The Stranger]

25. I don't think anyone is saying that the doctor did it intentionally, not even the emailers.

And it is still an absurd and bizarre leap for you to think that emailers saying they're glad it happened is the same thing as forced sterilization.

And the very nature of her allegations are incredible. She was somehow sterilized, and she never even consented to the operation? Was she at Guantanamo and tortured?

[ima_sinnic]

13. she might have the "right" to breed without thought or care, but others have the right to

be outraged by it. She's "stunned"? ts! others are "stunned" by her irresponsible, thoughtless behavior. No one has "the right" to decide she shouldn't have any more kids, but tax incentives for breeding could be reduced to make her "right" to breed indiscriminately and with no means of support less lucrative. The planet is overpopulated as it is, and people are taxed enough without having to contribute to this nonsense. Her "tax deductions" as well as her additional public assistance mean that much less in the public treasury.

[louis-t]

21. Now you have the idea.

Couldn't agree more. Although, again, I doubt she will be on assistance much longer.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

14. better yet, tell the freepers:

She's a committed christian and shee will be homeskulin all da littel oness. With biblical lessens.

I suspect that would shut them up right quick.

[louis-t]

22. An' trainin' them to be good repudlicants.

[NashVegas]

54. And the Public Has the Right To React Any Way It Wants

I agree the tubal should never have been done without her consent, and the operators should be stripped of their medical licenses.

That said, if it was okay for anti-smokers to form a lobby and peer pressure people to quit, I don't see why people who want reasonably sized families where negligence isn't a factor can't also band together and humiliate the crap out of someone who goes for 9.

[spoony]

58. So you're okay with individual women being targeted

by groups wanting her to do certain things with her reproductive choices, hmmm. That sounds familiar, somehow.

Oh, and do we also have the "right" to "humiliate" other people receiving public assistance who make choices we disagree with?

[NashVegas]

60. Yeah, Keep Demonizing

Because really, it's just peachy for someone to create nine children and put them in a situation where they're virtually guaranteed to suffer neglect and abuse.

[spoony]

61. The only demonising being done is of this woman

and other "welfare mothers" as another put it. By the way, nothing about the father(s) in this thread?

[NashVegas]

94. Sure, Except for What You're Spewing

Your notion that no one has any right or business expressing disapproval is wildly mistaken.

Newsflash: we have a choice, to attempt to reduce child abuse in negligent homes: we can either write laws determining who is and is not allowed to parent, or we can use social pressure. We can have one or the other: you cannot have it both ways.

[bc3000]

12. But she should be ashamed of herself

She's got nine kids, lives on public assistance, and plans to have more kids. That's shameful. If "you should be ashamed of yourself" is the worst of the "attacks" then she really doesn't have anything to complain about.

Opposition to forced sterilization doesn't require approval of welfare mothers pumping out kids in the dozens when they have no means to support their children other than public assistance.

[spoony]

59. "welfare mothers" wow, never thought I'd see that bullshit here. nt

[Quantess]

15. A lawsuit will bring in a nice fat check for her if she wins.

Oh, I'm sure she can use the money to help provide for her nine children.

I'm going to wait to see how the court rules. It's possible she asked for tubal ligation and now regrets it.

[bergie321]

16. There is no law

That says this woman can not have as many kids as she wants. (I think there should be but that is another story) This doctor took it upon himself to sterilize the woman. She should sue and win.

[My Good Babushka]

18. Tactically smart

Being on public assistance is smarter than working. When working pays a living wage, then it will be smarter to work. I'm not going to bash someone who is using the programs available to anyone in order to eke out an existence. I'd rather she didn't have so many kids, but she didn't ask for my advice.

[Sen. Walter Sobchak]

28. and what about the kids?

What sort of lives are they being setup for in this scheme of hers?

[NashVegas]

92. 7 Future Target Warehouse Workers of America

And maybe the other two will be able to escape via college scholarships if they apply themselves.

[Gormy Cuss]

37. That's an even weirder position than the ones who support the sterilization.

Uh, no it isn't smarter to be on public assistance, especially under TANF.

[Sen. Walter Sobchak]

26. spend some time with my girlfriends family in Nevada...

Not only will you support eugenics, you will be willing to sterilize people with your bare hands. Their now going into their third generation of professional unemployment and they will look you right in the eye and blame the mexicans when the last time somebody on that branch of her family finished high school was 1971!

Although they did have a proud moment recently when one of the girls out their got married without already being pregnant. The marriage lasted less than a year before the husband was thrown in jail and they divorced, but on her wedding day she was not pregnant and they are very proud of that.

[Starbucks Anarchist]

27. !

:rofl:

[proud2BlibKansan]

34. Facebook is getting scary

Lots of crazy ass people there.

[Posteritatis]

39. Meh. It's got a population of 350 million. There's lots of everything there. (nt)

[spoony]

98. So is DU. nt

[Name removed]

36. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[LisaL]

42. Tubal ligation can be reversed.

[AlienGirl]

43. Sometimes it can, at a cost of $20,000 minimum.

If the tubes were cauterized, though, it's pretty much irreversible.

Tucker

[LisaL]

44. Yea well. In her case, considering she got 9 kids already, somehow

I don't feel sorry for her.

[AlienGirl]

45. It is a matter of principle and not of pity. "I don't feel sorry for--" is such a popular sentiment

Have you ever wondered why memes like "I don't feel sorry for--" or "No sympathy" have become so fashionable as resource scarcity weighs on the mass psyche, anyway?

Who remembers the Ik...?

Tucker

[LisaL]

47. A matter of principle? She has 9 kids and no job.

[AlienGirl]

49. She has a right to body integrity and a right not to have surgery performed without her consent.

If that's not a principle we hold dear, then what is?

Tucker

[Liquorice]

48. There are many self-described "pro-choice" people who would have no problem

with a woman being denied a choice... that is when her choice would result in her having more children than these "pro-choice" people think she should have. These people are nothing but phonies.

[LisaL]

50. Considering she is on public assistance, does the public have a choice

on whether to support her?

[AlienGirl]

51. That's not the issue. SSI did not drop her for having the ninth kid. A doctor cut and burned her.

The question is whether or not that was OK.

Tucker

[LisaL]

53. Let's say an unemployed mother of 9 shows up at a fertility

clinic and asks for IVF. Should the doctor oblige her or not?

[Dorian Gray]

72. The doctor probably would

(that's how they make money). But he could deny her if he felt that was his moral choice. What he could NOT do is force her to be sterilized.

[spoony]

57. No, they don't.

Just because someone is publicly supported, doesn't give the public the right to either withdraw that support (if you meant it that way) or treat her like some animal who should be grateful for whatever we throw at her, and to take our insults along with it.

[EmeraldCityGrl]

55. I couldn't believe the hateful

comments on that article so I put my own not so nice one on. What I couldn't believe was all the blaming of Obama and the liberals. Doesn't MA. have a republican governor?
Didn't we just finish eight years of Bush? Didn't Clinton inact welfare reform?


"Truth is, if all the hateful posters here were making good salaries, received adequate services for their taxes, free healthcare, this losers story wouldn't be a blip on your screen.
You're so miserable with your own crummy lives, feel so victimized, you take it out on an obviously mentally ill woman.

You created the country and lousy economy you're living in that produces people like this. Eight years of Republican rule
and don't you have a Republican governor? Now you've got
to suck it up and pay the price...how's it feel? You created this situation so quit your pissy, whiney complaining.

You want a strong economy where everyone works for a living and gets compensated well, quit electing corporate
fascists for eight years. Your a bunch of hypocrites."

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

64. When I say I am pro-choice, I am exactly that. It's horrendous that she had no control over her

womb when she was sterilized. Her body, her life, her choices.

Do I recommend that people have that many children? No, but it's not my life, is it?

[TexasObserver]

65. Strong disapproval of over breeders is appropriate.

First of all, we don't know if she consented to the procedure or not. We know she says she didn't.

Second, if she didn't consent, there may have been a mistake. That's negligence, not eugenics.

Third, irrespective of the reason her tubes were tied, there is the dialog about out of control persons over-breeding. We do not have the resources for everyone to drop 9 kids on the world. We don't have the resources to support these human rabbits, who think their genetic material is so precious it deserves many replications.

[davidpdx]

66. If it can be proved it was done without her consent

then she has every reason to sue. That's her right.

All the other issues are based on personal opinion, not what I would force on someone. Some of my opinons favor her and some don't:

1)She clearly needs to stop having children as it's clear if she's on assitance, she's abusing the system. Public assistance is suppose to be there for people who need it, not people who continue to have kids and can't support them.

2) No kind of abuse on Facebook should be tolerated and those caught should have their accounts suspended.

3) People should not be forced to be sterlized, they should be responsible. If you are responsible in the first place, you don't have this problem.

I also want to address the person that went off and pouted started a new thread because they didn't like the responses in the thread. That's very childish behavior, if you think someone is wrong then tell them. Going off and whining because you don't like a thread is just plain dumb though.

[Rebubula]

67. Whatever...

...I have no problem with this.

None what so ever. Call me an asshole or whatever you want...

[Dorian Gray]

74. You are an asshole.

(you said to call you that!) ;) Just kidding........

Seriously, I understand how you can feel the way you do. The story is frustrating. But, the idea that forceful sterilization is possible is so frightening to me, I can't agree with you. She deserves to sue and be paid out for this. (If she can prove she didn't give consent. Which should be easy to do. No signed forms... no consent.)

[waiting]

125. You have no problem

with medical prceduers that wer not consented to taking place? Because that is very strange.

[Cali_Democrat]

134. What if a doctor castrated you without your consent?

How would you feel?

[Tailormyst]

71. I think she is irresposible and selfish

But, a woman's body is her own and she has free choice. If the doctors did do this, they should go to jail, but I'm just not so sure this woman is telling the truth.

[Skidmore]

73. Sometimes the left sounds just like the right,

as evidenced by some of the responses on this thread. The right just wants babies to get to be born, and then forsake them. Well, we fine liberals want everyone's hands off our reproductive choices, except when we make them and then no one really wants that either...


Who do you people think you are? I don't recognize you as liberals.

[liberal_at_heart]

79. +1

[pipi_k]

83. I thought the same thing, but for a slightly different reason...

Yeah, the Right "cares" about babies except after they're born. Then they forsake them.

And the Left...we all care about a woman's "right" to breed as many kids as she wants to, even if she cannot support them without help. Those who think that's OK need to put their money where their mouths are.

If we on the Left think its fitting to tell RWers they should help support a couple of kids who have been "saved" from abortion, then why shouldn't those of us who support the idea of unrestricted breeding by people who can't afford them also not be called upon to help those children with financial aid...find a poor family and contribute...

In fact, I would challenge anyone here who thinks this woman should not have been sterilized against her will to contribute money to her kids. If she doesn't win the lawsuit, that is. If she does, then find another woman with a litter of kids to help support financially.

I bet that won't happen, though. I would bet the excuses would be many...the most popular one probably being, "Hey...it was HER decision...I didn't tell her to have all those kids! See ya!" Then they go on their merry way knowing they stood up (in principle) for someone's dubious "right" to inflict poverty on innocent children, making them miserable, and adding to the woes of Society.


IMO, being a "Liberal" doesn't mean we sit around and root for people to conduct themselves with absolutely no thought for others.

And, in this case, just like with the RW anti Choicers, it's the kids who will probably suffer the most. But hey...fuck the kids. It's all about the mom's "rights".

[liberal_at_heart]

86. I was 19 and poor when I had my first kid

My husband and I were very young and poor when we had our first baby. We even went on Medicaid and WIC for a year. I too was born into poverty. Does that mean that my parents had no right to have me? Does that mean I had no right to have my baby? My children are very happy. We are not poor now but even when we were poor we were still happy. Happiness is about how much love you receive not how much money you have, but we live in a materialistic society and we seem to have it backwards.

[pipi_k]

101. Having a child one can't afford

is not smart, and it's not responsible.

Neither is having a child to "mend" a marriage.

Or any of a dozen other illogical reasons people give that are nauseatingly selfish.


"Hmmm....geez...we're having trouble paying our bills and feeding and clothing ourselves...

LET'S HAVE A KID (or two or three or nine)!!!"


yeah! that'll make things so much better!


I wouldn't recommend people who can't support themselves to even get a pet, let alone have kids.

[Skidmore]

107. Not all of us were born into middle class or wealthy families.

Nor did we start adulthood with all of the amenities that are passed on by parents in such families....we worked hard to get where we were and we learned to manage on less resources. SOme of the statements I read regarding this topic are incredibly ignorant and insensitive to the way the working poor live.

[Skidmore]

102. Thank you. Well said.

I was born in to an impoverished home and was the eldest of 8. My father was one of 14. We really didn't realize how poor we were as children because it was all we knew. Yet from these generations have come doctors, teachers, engineers, professional soldiers, and laborers. Who decides is the question.

[waiting]

109. I would think that

we root for the Constitution being upheld, equally for all.

[Gormy Cuss]

128. Actually, most "liberals" understand that right to chose means that

not all choices will be the ones that we as individuals find acceptable, never mind responsible, but the freedom to chose is important enough to defend. We also understand that one consequence is that we are willing to pay for those choices rather than inflict greater poverty on the children. If we really cared we'd keep all children out of poverty, whether they be from families of two or two dozen.

[spoony]

96. +1

[dkf]

75. The ligation wasn't right but it is right that she be made a pariah.

Just like Tiger Woods. I have no problem with her being publicly shamed since she has no inner morality of her own. How any mother can do this to all these kids is beyond me. Irresponsible parenting needs to be condemned.

[spoony]

78. So you're for shaming women for making personal reproductive choices.

Gotcha.

[Freddie Stubbs]

88. People who make IRRESPONSIBLE choices should be shamed

[Orsino]

90. I'm for shaming irresponsible parents of both sexes.

Since we haven't yet found the courage to legislate against willy-nilly reproduction, shame is the only weapon we have that I'll advocate using.

[Solly Mack]

80. Wow. This thread...wow.

[jmm]

82. Rights aren't just for the popular. If they were we wouldn't need them.

I don't care how unsympathetic she may appear if they did do this without her consent than that is reprehensible.

[Posteritatis]

135. Agreed, although there's a lot of morons here who seem to think otherwise. (nt)

[waiting]

84. I am stunned

by the ignorance of the Constitution and the law by some people here.
This woman was on Social Security disability, not welfare. In any scenario, it is unacceptable to sterilize a person against their will or without their consent. While there are laws that are geared for this in the welfare system, there are not in the Social Security system. And that is because they are entirely different. She is not working because she had cancer. And she obviously paid enough taxes into Social Security to be eligible for it. We are talking about basic fundamental reproductive rights here. Bodily sovereignty. And where are all the supporters of her children's fathers being accountable for irresponsibly contributing to this? Should they be forcefully sterilized as well? Unbelievable. Those who would support this should really think things through about what the consequences of this would mean in their own lives, before being so quick to judge this woman.

[liberal_at_heart]

91. good post.+1

You make some good points and ask some good questions too.

[Lance_Boyle]

97. we might also wait to see if her case is proved before accepting her story

She has a history of questionable suits settled for good cash - yet is still unable to support herself or any of her 9 kids? Where did her $ from the spermacide lawsuit go? And what happened to the first lawyer she hired for THIS suit? Not sleazy enough for her?

There's a lot to question here, and questioning does not imply support for forced sterilization.

[waiting]

100. Of course

Truth is always the right way to go. If what she is saying was done to her is true, that is enough for me. People can think that her having 9 kids is wrong, but that is as far as they are allowed to go with it. We are free to think whatever we like, we aren't free to sterilize a person without their consent.

[spoony]

105. The attitudes on display go WAY beyond this woman. nt

[liberal_at_heart]

116. This is scary how much these people sound like the republicans

Not only do they not have compassion but they are willing to circumvent the law based on their prejudice against this woman, and I agree. I don't think it is just about this one woman. This is part of a broader problem with the attitudes towards the poor, the working class, women, the disabled, and people who have large families.

[NashVegas]

106. Why Don't You Take It

To the three posters who expressed approval of the procedure?

[waiting]

108. Why?

It isn't okay to say it in the thread on the subject? I didn't say all people here, just some. Why do you feel the need to tell me where to take it?

[tammywammy]

85. If she was sterilized against her consent, I don't care if she has 50 kids, it's wrong. n/t

[Orsino]

89. Yep. She can be wrong, wrong, wrong for having nine kids...

...and doctors could be wrong, wrong, wrong for sterilizing her.

[Realityhack]

95. Yep. And it looks like we are maybe missing some facts as well. n/t

[NashVegas]

103. All But Three Posters Are Saying Exactly That

And yet we're wrong, wrong, wrong.

[Nikki Stone1]

93. The doctors were supposed to plant an IUD, not sterilize; this is a lawsuit.

"Doctors were supposed to implant an intrauterine device, a reversible form of birth control, according to the complaint in Hampden Superior Court. Instead, a tubal ligation - a procedure cutting or tying a woman’s fallopian tubes - was performed, she claims, preventing her from bearing any more children."

For low population types: Isn't the IUD responsible?

[Lorien]

99. As a "low population type", yes, it is. The doctors were wrong to sterilize

her and should be sued. I also think that it's wrong of her to want more children. Nine would be difficult for anyone but those who can afford a full time staff these days. I have a couple of friends who come from very large families who were poor and middle class, and they are still very angry about the childhoods that they had.

[liberal_at_heart]

104. Oh so she was trying to be responsible and the doctor screwed up and did the wrong procedure

Sounds like alot of people here jumped to a conclusion and prejudged her because she has already had 9 children. This is malpractice plain and simple and she has the right to sue. She tries to do the right thing and she gets death threats. Sad society we live in. You know a few hundred years ago having lots of children was the expected thing and if you didn't have a bunch of kids they judged you and discriminated against you and ostrisized you. Sounds like just because it is the norm to have 2 or 3 children or no children at all anyone who has a large family is demonized. Reverse prejudice. I guess it goes with the times we live in. But it's still sad to know that is the society in which we live.

[NashVegas]

110. That's Almost It

A lot of people agree she has a lawsuit, a lot of people agree the idea of forced sterilization is appalling, and a lot of people think she's an asswipe for going to the newspaper because people said mean things.

[Nikki Stone1]

119. Why shouldn't she go to the newspaper? She is creating a public paper trail in case some yahoo

decides that writing is not enough and comes after her (or her kids) with a weapon.

[LisaL]

111. No wonder this country is so lawsuit happy.

Even if the doctor performed the wrong procedure, what are the damages? She can't have any more children? She already got 9, and no job.

[liberal_at_heart]

113. I hope you never have the wrong procedure performed on you

Who's to say her situation may improve someday and she wants to have more kids? The fact is the doctor performed the wrong procedure and there is permanent damage. I think she will win her lawsuit.

[waiting]

114. If it is in fact true

that she never signed a consent form, she will win her lawsuit.

[Nikki Stone1]

124. Yes. Legally, the hospital has no leg to stand on.

They might rely on public prejudice to taint the jury pool, but in the end, this is simple malpractice.

[LisaL]

115. Truly, if this woman wants to breed some more, she

probably can. Of course it wouldn't be as easy as before.
But, for instance, octomom produced 14 offsprings with naturally blocked tubes.
So in all likelihood, this woman can still breed with medical assistance.

[Nikki Stone1]

122. Actually, she's been sterilized.

That will, of course, make it harder to conceive. :)

[Nikki Stone1]

121. I think she'll win this one too.

I just wonder how they got it so wrong.

[Nikki Stone1]

120. The damages are her future fertility if she so chose.

And, that, my dear, is none of your business.

[LisaL]

123. In all likelihood, she can still breed.

Maybe octomom's doctor could help her.

[Nikki Stone1]

126. No she can't--not without very expensive procedures

And your obsession with "breeding" is interesting. Have you had a problem conceiving?

[LisaL]

127. That's why I said that maybe octomom doctor can help her.

Octomom had 14 with blocked tubes.
She better hurry though, as his license could be suspended.

[Nikki Stone1]

131. You didn't answer my question about your obsession with "breeding" though

I'm waiting....

[LisaL]

137. How is it any of your business?

[bertman]

112. Wow, this story really hit home for me. I have a relative who is a mentally-impaired, physically-

impaired man-child in his late 20's. He is totally dependent on the state and on relatives for his well-being. After living with his equally impaired mother and equally impaired brother, at age 26 he was given a shared apartment by social services.

The family rejoiced that he had finally gotten out from under the dreadful domination of his mother. The state workers who were his caretakers explained that it might be a long process to get him to the point where he could function on his own--or even a semblance of on his own. They were right.

He is a helpless shell of a person whose life revolves around comic book fantasies, computer wizard/war games, and internet girlfriends. After two years with a roommate he now has his own apartment. Progress, you say. Well, in a sense, I suppose.

This guy has no schedule, no routine, no sense of personal hygiene, his nutritional intake is extremely limited because he doesn't "like" healthy foods, and would be composed strictly of fast foods if he were left to his own devices. He never cleans his apartment and only does his laundry when we force him to by telling him we will not allow him into our vehicles smelling like a skunk. He has so many physical and mental problems that he is on a myriad of medications.

My wife, the maternal matron of the family, and I, the occasional helper, try to steer him into decisions and activities that might make him able to function independently. She is constantly reminding him of what to do and when to do it. A 25% correct response rate would be a high rate for his followup.

This young man has the full resources of our state including housing, food, clothing, transportation, and medical care. He is only able to function because of this.

Now, through the miracle of the internetz, he has met a young woman and fallen in love. His first comment to me when I asked him how he and his new girlfriend were doing was "We're planning on getting married as soon as we can and having kids." I just about flipped out. I asked him how in the world he could possibly consider bringing a child into this world that HE will be responsible for WHEN HE CANNOT EVEN TAKE CARE OF HIMSELF. He said "well, we'll take care of our children."

This is an individual who has never done ANYTHING worthwhile for himself. He is incapable of holding down a job. He has tried taking computer classes because that's his first love, but he cannot grasp the information and cannot pass the tests required to get certification to do computer work. He has no interest in nor aptitude for anything else.

I'm about as liberal as it comes when helping our fellow citizens is involved, but this situation has really made me rethink some of my convictions. If this person and his girlfriend are both fertile, they could have a child. That is the scariest possibility I can imagine. (She is also very simple, but is somewhat more physically well off than him). I am all for the state helping him to live a decent life despite his many problems. I AM NOT for the state subsidizing his procreation and bringing a child into the world who will be a ward of the state from its first day on the planet. To me, that is totally wrong.

[liberal_at_heart]

118. I would say that to help those who are impaired we need social programs

set up so that they can get support in raising their children. I have an 11 yr old autistic son and he has many of the traits you describe. I want a full and happy life for him. He wants to get married when he grows up. A few hundred years ago these people were stuck in institutions so they wouldn't be a bother to the community. Since then attitudes have changed. We use our social programs and taxes to send these kids to public school. We use social programs and taxes to get local businesses to partner with the high schools and find jobs for these individuals. We even use social programs and taxes to pay for these individuals to have their own apartments and personal living assistants. There is no reason why someone who has a disability couldn't have children. They probably would need a living assistant to help out but I believe that people with disabilities deserve to live a rich, full, and happy life and this is what I hope for my son's future. I hope we never go back to the day when we think disabled people should just be put away in an insitution so that they won't bother us.

[Beacho]

117. Is this Buck v Bell Redux?

I'm hearing a lot of the same arguments that led to the same horrific conclusions with Eugenics laws in the 20s

Buck v. Bell


Civil Liberties, IOW control of our own bodies, trumps outrage and even common sense. That being said, people also have the right of free speech to call this woman an irresponsible idiot, no matter how foul the wording

[silverhandorder]

130. At this point we have to choose between civil rights or social justice.

It's becoming apparent that we can not sustain this. Every program we make to help is being abused. With our president selling out on war we can't even save money there. I think it is time for drastic actions. People that can't support children (aka anyone that requires any government assistance) should not be allowed to have children.

[Quantess]

132. A sad song, just for her:

[Odin2005]

133. Eugenicist think is alive and well in this country. Disgusting.

As somebody with a genetic neurological condition (Asperger's Syndrome) these attitudes terrify me. There are people out there that would be perfectly happy sterilizing me just because there is a strong chance that any kids I have will also be on the autistic spectrum.

:puke:

First they came for poor single moms, and I did nothing because I was not a poor single mom...

[guitar man]

136. Good grief

I can in no way condone this woman's actions. However, neither can I condone the doctor's actions. Should she have chosen to be sterilized or otherwise taken measures to not become pregnant? Absolutely . Should the doctor have been able to take upon himself or herself to sterilize this woman? Absolutely not.

When I say I am pro-choice I mean I am pro-choice. Reproductive choice has to work both ways or it doesn't work at all.Even if it's going to cost me a little bit more money in my tax bill I am still pro-choice. If we want to talk about what irresponsible actions are costing us in this country we can start with the trillion dollar Bush war in Iraq , or the bank bailouts, or a number of other corporate welfare programs we have to pay for whether we like it or not. If we want to start carping about what the actions of irresponsible people cost us let's start at the top with the people who tout themselves to be the most responsible. I'm sure what we spend on people like this pales in comparison to what we have shelled out in corporate welfare.

We've been down this road before. If you open the door to targeted forced sterilization of groups there are people who will walk right through that door and take advantage of it. Powerful evil people.

Do I like the actions of this woman, especially with what the poor children have to go through? hell no. I find it revolting. But sometimes the cost of freedom it's just that. Cost.I guess we are going to have to grow up and deal with it. Should we be too permissive with actions such as this we might create a monster that we won't like at all.