Mother of 9 sues doctors for making her sterile

[MonkeyPie]

Date: 1/6/2010 4:24:00 PM
Author: EBree

Date: 1/6/2010 3:12:48 PM

Author: elledizzy5

That''s a very scary slippery slope, allowing people to decide who should be sterilized.

I may not agree with people''s decisions, or the fact that we financially support those decisions as a country, but there''s no WAY I''d support people deciding to sterilize other people because they think they''ve had too many babies! Sick!

I completely agree.

For the most part, I agree with this. I think this woman is fully within her rights to sue, and I hope the doctor that did it loses his license to practice medicine (if what she claims, is what really happened). It wasn''t his decision.

However...I live in a state that is predominately hispanic, most from Mexico. I have worked with Medicare/Medicaid for over 5 years, and have seen a lot of people come in and out. While the majority of them truly need the help - and work hard for what they do have - there are always quite a few that abuse the system. THAT is what I have a problem with.

When you are on welfare, but show up to the office in an Escalade with 7 children...there''s a problem with the system, and they need to do something about it.

 

[Lauren8211]

Date: 1/6/2010 4:55:46 PM
Author: MonkeyPie

Date: 1/6/2010 4:24:00 PM
Author: EBree

Date: 1/6/2010 3:12:48 PM

Author: elledizzy5

That''s a very scary slippery slope, allowing people to decide who should be sterilized.

I may not agree with people''s decisions, or the fact that we financially support those decisions as a country, but there''s no WAY I''d support people deciding to sterilize other people because they think they''ve had too many babies! Sick!

I completely agree.

For the most part, I agree with this. I think this woman is fully within her rights to sue, and I hope the doctor that did it loses his license to practice medicine (if what she claims, is what really happened). It wasn''t his decision.

However...I live in a state that is predominately hispanic, most from Mexico. I have worked with Medicare/Medicaid for over 5 years, and have seen a lot of people come in and out. While the majority of them truly need the help - and work hard for what they do have - there are always quite a few that abuse the system. THAT is what I have a problem with.

When you are on welfare, but show up to the office in an Escalade with 7 children...there''s a problem with the system, and they need to do something about it.

Sterilization is not the answer, though.

Once you start deciding who is worthy of having kids... well.. it could be you next!

Eugenics is just a hop-skip-jump away.

Delster - thanks for the link! That''s exactly what I mean by "slippery slope"

 

[jewelz617]

Date: 1/6/2010 4:55:46 PM
Author: MonkeyPie

Date: 1/6/2010 4:24:00 PM

Author: EBree

Date: 1/6/2010 3:12:48 PM


Author: elledizzy5


That''s a very scary slippery slope, allowing people to decide who should be sterilized.


I may not agree with people''s decisions, or the fact that we financially support those decisions as a country, but there''s no WAY I''d support people deciding to sterilize other people because they think they''ve had too many babies! Sick!

I completely agree.

For the most part, I agree with this. I think this woman is fully within her rights to sue, and I hope the doctor that did it loses his license to practice medicine (if what she claims, is what really happened). It wasn''t his decision.


However...I live in a state that is predominately hispanic, most from Mexico. I have worked with Medicare/Medicaid for over 5 years, and have seen a lot of people come in and out. While the majority of them truly need the help - and work hard for what they do have - there are always quite a few that abuse the system. THAT is what I have a problem with.


When you are on welfare, but show up to the office in an Escalade with 7 children...there''s a problem with the system, and they need to do something about it.

Agreed. I got on Medicaid for 6 months because my husband lost his job 2 weeks before I was due to deliver my daughter. After he got insurance at his new job we simply went back to paying for insurance, but let me tell you Medicaid saved my life. I was so glad it was there when I needed it. We are hard working, tax paying US citizens and I had no problem taking the help when I needed it. But I know so many people that abuse the system and just take, take, take. Very entitled attitudes.

 

[MonkeyPie]

Date: 1/6/2010 4:59:37 PM
Author: elledizzy5

Date: 1/6/2010 4:55:46 PM

Author: MonkeyPie

Date: 1/6/2010 4:24:00 PM

Author: EBree

Date: 1/6/2010 3:12:48 PM


Author: elledizzy5


That''s a very scary slippery slope, allowing people to decide who should be sterilized.


I may not agree with people''s decisions, or the fact that we financially support those decisions as a country, but there''s no WAY I''d support people deciding to sterilize other people because they think they''ve had too many babies! Sick!

I completely agree.

For the most part, I agree with this. I think this woman is fully within her rights to sue, and I hope the doctor that did it loses his license to practice medicine (if what she claims, is what really happened). It wasn''t his decision.


However...I live in a state that is predominately hispanic, most from Mexico. I have worked with Medicare/Medicaid for over 5 years, and have seen a lot of people come in and out. While the majority of them truly need the help - and work hard for what they do have - there are always quite a few that abuse the system. THAT is what I have a problem with.


When you are on welfare, but show up to the office in an Escalade with 7 children...there''s a problem with the system, and they need to do something about it.

Sterilization is not the answer, though.

Once you start deciding who is worthy of having kids... well.. it could be you next!

Eugenics is just a hop-skip-jump away.

Delster - thanks for the link! That''s exactly what I mean by ''slippery slope''

Oh no way, I agree - sterilization should NOT be mandatory. As a mom of an "oops" baby I would be stupid to say that! But I also know whether or not I can raise this baby, and had I not been able to, either adoption or abortion (ugh) would have been there for me - NOT WELFARE.

 

[mayachel]

I am not torn at all. It is very clear to me, that the simple facts of the matter are the only ones that are relevant to the story. The doctor who sterilized her without her consent should loose their license. It is not within a doctor''s scope of practice, nor should it be, to start deciding who should and should not be a parent.
Basic patient''s rights that I would expect in ANY medical situation include:

-receive information necessary to give informed consent prior to the start of any treatment or procedure;
- be advised of any change in the plan of care, before the change is made;
- refuse treatment within the confines of the law and to be informed of the consequences of his or her action;

Everything beyond her civil liberties as a patient is superficial to the case.

 

[Lauren8211]

Date: 1/6/2010 5:03:43 PM
Author: MonkeyPie

Date: 1/6/2010 4:59:37 PM
Author: elledizzy5

Date: 1/6/2010 4:55:46 PM

Author: MonkeyPie

Date: 1/6/2010 4:24:00 PM

Author: EBree

Date: 1/6/2010 3:12:48 PM


Author: elledizzy5


That''s a very scary slippery slope, allowing people to decide who should be sterilized.


I may not agree with people''s decisions, or the fact that we financially support those decisions as a country, but there''s no WAY I''d support people deciding to sterilize other people because they think they''ve had too many babies! Sick!

I completely agree.

For the most part, I agree with this. I think this woman is fully within her rights to sue, and I hope the doctor that did it loses his license to practice medicine (if what she claims, is what really happened). It wasn''t his decision.


However...I live in a state that is predominately hispanic, most from Mexico. I have worked with Medicare/Medicaid for over 5 years, and have seen a lot of people come in and out. While the majority of them truly need the help - and work hard for what they do have - there are always quite a few that abuse the system. THAT is what I have a problem with.


When you are on welfare, but show up to the office in an Escalade with 7 children...there''s a problem with the system, and they need to do something about it.

Sterilization is not the answer, though.

Once you start deciding who is worthy of having kids... well.. it could be you next!

Eugenics is just a hop-skip-jump away.

Delster - thanks for the link! That''s exactly what I mean by ''slippery slope''

Oh no way, I agree - sterilization should NOT be mandatory. As a mom of an ''oops'' baby I would be stupid to say that! But I also know whether or not I can raise this baby, and had I not been able to, either adoption or abortion (ugh) would have been there for me - NOT WELFARE.

Yeah, I just hate to even hear "welfare" and "sterilization" in the same discussion. Mandated sterilization is not an answer, it''s just another problem, and a scary one!

I am quite thankful we all have the ability to make choices regarding our own lives... I cant imagine taking that away from anyone!

And of course, welfare abuse is sad. No one likes to see that.

 

[that_someone_special]

OK, it''s too bad it happened.... but I can''t say I feel that bad for her. She must feel violated- but... her other 9 children... I wonder if they want MOMMY TO HAVE MORE KIDS TOO!


OK. That''s all I''m going to say.

 

[swimmer]

Date: 1/6/2010 3:46:29 PM
Author: Delster
Anyone who assaults another person against their will must answer for that - any patient who asks for procedure A and is subjected to procedure B is perfectly entitled to sue their doctor not just for negligence but for assault and battery to boot.


I can understand wanting to place a limitation on welfare if the recipient consciously does something while on welfare that worsens their situation. However, it would just be unworkably subjective to try and make decisions about whether welfare recipients had been irresponsible or not. What happens if a woman on welfare is raped and becomes pregnant and decides to keep the child? Does the State force her to give it up for adoption because otherwise the State will have to pay her welfare for that child?


As for the comments on her needing to be sterilised, or there being no better person to sterilise - honestly I can''t fathom that attitude. Some of the posts on this thread remind me of this passage from Buck v Bell:


''We have seen more than once that the public welfare may call upon the best citizens for their lives. It would be strange if it could not call upon those who already sap the strength of the State for these lesser sacrifices, often not felt to be such by those concerned, in order to prevent our being swamped with incompetence. It is better for all the world, if instead of waiting to execute degenerate offspring for crime, or to let them starve for their imbecility, society can prevent those who are manifestly unfit from continuing their kind. The principle that sustains compulsory vaccination is broad enough to cover cutting the Fallopian tubes... Three generations of imbeciles are enough.''

Ditto... Eugenics was embraced by the Nazis, the most ardent of all supporters of sterilization. The Nazis sterilized among others, the mentally challenged, mentally ill, epileptics, homosexuals, blind, chronically poor, the Gypsies (Roma and Sinti), and communists; before they started openly killing members of some of these groups. No need to sterilize a group that you are going to kill; sterilization or otherwise limiting reproduction of a group is sometimes the first stage in a genocide. See Powers "America in the Age of Genocide" for more details if interested. Or the Holocaust Museum for a brief refresher on what controlled reproduction can lead to link

 

[icekid]

Date: 1/6/2010 3:36:19 PM
Author: Maisie
If the woman definitely didn't sign the form then they had no right to sterilise her. They can't just take it upon themselves to decide that she has had too many children. Even if she is on welfare.

I agree with you, Maisie. While this woman clearly does not need more children, they should not have done that (if they did.)

However, I am very curious as to why this woman believes that she had a tubal ligation. Inserting an IUD is a vastly different procedure from a tubal. I don't really understand how this could have been done without her knowledge. In addition, she is suing FIVE people (three physicians and two nurses). It is difficult to believe that so many people could have been involved and allowed this to happen.

ETA- Being a physician who works in an operating room, we all check consents repeatedly. This whole story just does not sound right.

 

[vespergirl]

Date: 1/6/2010 5:29:46 PM
Author: swimmer

Date: 1/6/2010 3:46:29 PM
Author: Delster
Anyone who assaults another person against their will must answer for that - any patient who asks for procedure A and is subjected to procedure B is perfectly entitled to sue their doctor not just for negligence but for assault and battery to boot.


I can understand wanting to place a limitation on welfare if the recipient consciously does something while on welfare that worsens their situation. However, it would just be unworkably subjective to try and make decisions about whether welfare recipients had been irresponsible or not. What happens if a woman on welfare is raped and becomes pregnant and decides to keep the child? Does the State force her to give it up for adoption because otherwise the State will have to pay her welfare for that child?


As for the comments on her needing to be sterilised, or there being no better person to sterilise - honestly I can''t fathom that attitude. Some of the posts on this thread remind me of this passage from Buck v Bell:


''We have seen more than once that the public welfare may call upon the best citizens for their lives. It would be strange if it could not call upon those who already sap the strength of the State for these lesser sacrifices, often not felt to be such by those concerned, in order to prevent our being swamped with incompetence. It is better for all the world, if instead of waiting to execute degenerate offspring for crime, or to let them starve for their imbecility, society can prevent those who are manifestly unfit from continuing their kind. The principle that sustains compulsory vaccination is broad enough to cover cutting the Fallopian tubes... Three generations of imbeciles are enough.''

Ditto... Eugenics was embraced by the Nazis, the most ardent of all supporters of sterilization. The Nazis sterilized among others, the mentally challenged, mentally ill, epileptics, homosexuals, blind, chronically poor, the Gypsies (Roma and Sinti), and communists; before they started openly killing members of some of these groups. No need to sterilize a group that you are going to kill; sterilization or otherwise limiting reproduction of a group is sometimes the first stage in a genocide. See Powers ''America in the Age of Genocide'' for more details if interested. Or the Holocaust Museum for a brief refresher on what controlled reproduction can lead to link

Just wanted to mention that eugenics was also supported by Margaret Sanger, one of the founders of the modern feminist movement, and the founder of Planned Parenthood. The reason that she was such a proponent of birth control and eugenic sterilization was because of the social work that she did in the slums - she couldn''t stand to see any more children suffering at the hands of their ignorant parents.

How does everyone feel about TEMPORARY sterilization for women on welfare, as opposed to permanent? I mentioned IUDs and surgically implanted hormonal devices like Implanon. They both are over 99% effective and are effective for several years after being implanted my medical professionals, and can''t become innefective due to the human error of the women who have the devices. So, if a woman decides to accept welfare benefits, she would also have to agree to TEMPORARY sterilization through IUD or Implanon, which could be easily reversed once her financial situation changes and she becomes independent from the government. If she opts out of the IUD or Implanon, then no welfare. How is this infringing on civil liberties? She still has a choice.

 

[somethingshiny]

Vesper~ I think temporary sterilization should be AVAILABLE (which it is) but not mandated. My best friend had an IUD and ended up with a horrible uterine infection and they had to remove it. If a welfare recipient was also in this category, would that mean she "opted out?" Additionally, what do you do about the father?? Is he allowed to go around impregnating as many women as he wishes and leave a dozen children fatherless and on welfare?? Then do we require paternity tests for every child born to track them to the father in case we need to sterilize him because he can't afford the children?? Why does the mother take all the blame??

There are very responsible people who use the system and it would be a shame to force them into these decisions. There's very few who abuse the system compared to the vast number who truly NEED it and appreciate it. To make rules to keep the minority in check would be immoral.

eta~ Also, not to get into a different conversation....Those who cannot ever be off welfare (some handicapped, mentally challenged, disabled, etc) would then NEVER be allowed to have a family?? Again, immoral.

 

[y2kitty]

I don''t think medical procedures should be performed without written consent from the patient, which it appears they cannot produce, so I guess I side with the woman. I feel sympathy for her that she was raped at a young age and became pregnant. I feel sympathy for her nine kids because none of them asked to be born so I do think they should receive Medicaid and food stamps. However, the assistance system in this county is being exploited by some people and that makes me sad for the children born into it.

 

[cara]

Date: 1/6/2010 5:42:19 PM
Author: vespergirl
Just wanted to mention that eugenics was also supported by Margaret Sanger, one of the founders of the modern feminist movement, and the founder of Planned Parenthood. The reason that she was such a proponent of birth control and eugenic sterilization was because of the social work that she did in the slums - she couldn''t stand to see any more children suffering at the hands of their ignorant parents.

How does everyone feel about TEMPORARY sterilization for women on welfare, as opposed to permanent? I mentioned IUDs and surgically implanted hormonal devices like Implanon. They both are over 99% effective and are effective for several years after being implanted my medical professionals, and can''t become innefective due to the human error of the women who have the devices. So, if a woman decides to accept welfare benefits, she would also have to agree to TEMPORARY sterilization through IUD or Implanon, which could be easily reversed once her financial situation changes and she becomes independent from the government. If she opts out of the IUD or Implanon, then no welfare. How is this infringing on civil liberties? She still has a choice.

And Susan B. Anthony was deeply against abortion, many first-wave feminists were also in the temperance movement. Just because these pioneers of women''s rights held these opinions doesn''t mean they are somehow beyond reproach.

As for *requiring* welfare recipients to go on birth control, how about requiring them to join your church? (What if birth control interferes with their religious beliefs?) What would you require of men that get disability or are otherwise needing government assistance for their lives, or would you only require women to take hormones temporarily sterilizing them? What about women that have a bad reaction to the medicine, or a problem with the IUD?

Basically, while I am sympathetic to what you are suggesting, and think that birth control should be widely taught in schools and offered to people on welfare, I think that dictating medical treatment as a condition of receiving aid further infantilizes welfare recipients and is ultimately both counterproductive and dehumanizing. Even if it would be constitutional - I think the best way we can implement temporary aid programs is to structure them in a way that encourages people to take responsibility for themselves through job training, requiring birth control education and providing free birth control, rather than interfering directly with their medical care.

And just as a logistical issue - you know that part of the problem is the ridiculous doublespeak coming from our government on birth control right? If abstinence is the only way, why require medical birth control of anyone? And abortion is wrong and children are blessings, so just take some responsibility and abstain - but if you fall to temptation and have an opps, celebrate it! Maybe if we could get some solid sex ed widely taught in our schools and inexpensive birth control readily available and a culture that addresses sex and sexual desire in a more straightforward manner, we could expect perfect rational and responsible behavior from people on welfare. But not even our politicians can keep it in their pants or speak reasonably about such things...

 

[E B]

Great points, shiny, esp. touching upon the man''s role. What penalties should men face for helping to create these children?

As elle said before, slippery slope. I''m curious to see if anyone can come up with a foolproof plan to punish only those who abuse the system (by means of sterilization).

 

[Lauren8211]

I am seriously shocked that people could possibly think its OK to force a medical decision upon someone!

I don't care if its temporary! Copper IUDs can cause painful, heavy periods. Other options are all hormonal, and as suggested by MANY women on PS, hormonal birth control can have terrible side effects for some. Not to mention, with IUDs there is some risk of perforation, and that could cause permanent sterilization.

Think of the ramifications of this stuff - what if someone doesnt like how you parent and decides to take your fertility away from you?

Fix welfare, not women!

ETA: And for that matter, where are the MEN who are knocking these women up? They get to keep their genitals in tact, while women have surgery, forced hormones, or devices implanted in them? Sick.

 

[E B]

Date: 1/6/2010 6:25:23 PM
Author: cara

Basically, while I am sympathetic to what you are suggesting, and think that birth control should be widely taught in schools and offered to people on welfare, I think that dictating medical treatment as a condition of receiving aid further infantilizes welfare recipients and is ultimately both counterproductive and dehumanizing. Even if it would be constitutional - I think the best way we can implement temporary aid programs is to structure them in a way that encourages people to take responsibility for themselves through job training, requiring birth control education and providing free birth control, rather than interfering directly with their medical care.

And just as a logistical issue - you know that part of the problem is the ridiculous doublespeak coming from our government on birth control right? If abstinence is the only way, why require medical birth control of anyone? And abortion is wrong and children are blessings, so just take some responsibility and abstain - but if you fall to temptation and have an opps, celebrate it! Maybe if we could get some solid sex ed widely taught in our schools and inexpensive birth control readily available and a culture that addresses sex and sexual desire in a more straightforward manner, we could expect perfect rational and responsible behavior from people on welfare. But not even our politicians can keep it in their pants or speak reasonably about such things...

 

[meresal]

Date: 1/6/2010 6:26:02 PM
Author: EBree
Great points, shiny, esp. touching upon the man's role. What penalties should men face for helping to create these children?

As elle said before, slippery slope. I'm curious to see if anyone can come up with a foolproof plan to punish only those who abuse the system (by means of sterilization).

I just wanted to comment... women still have a personal responsibility NOT to put themselves in this position. If you are a woman with children, and you are on welfare, then you SHOULD be looking out for yourself.

What about the men that get stuck raising a child after the mom runs away. Are you going to make the same arguement for the man, about how do you punish the woman? What did the woman do... seduce the man and force him to make a baby?

What happend to self pride and doing everything possible to better the situation for your family? Maybe I'm alone in this thinking, but if I'm a single woman on Welfare, the last thing I am thinking about it sex. I'm consentrating on working my way off of it for my family, and THEN I'll think about a relationship.

I don't agree with blaming the man, unless the sex wasn't consentual. If you don't want anymore kids, then don't have sex or at least take birthcontrol to prevent the situation from possibly occuring.

Ebree- The only way I can see successfully forcing the system, would be something like this: You require that every person have 2 children by the age of 35. Upon the birth of the 2nd, the hospital is required to tie the tubes of the women and snip the men (if they are there... it won't matter if they aren't eventually, becasue if you tie all the women's tubes, the men become pointless anyway). If you don't have 2 by your 35th birthday, then it will be done no matter what. LOL! Of course, you would need government healthcare and hospitals in order to track every person's healthcare records... does this sound like anything yet??

ETA: I am refering to a certain "type" of government... not the one here in the US. My post is in no way politically driven.

 

[poshpepper]

Date: 1/6/2010 3:12:48 PM
Author: elledizzy5
That''s a very scary slippery slope, allowing people to decide who should be sterilized.

I may not agree with people''s decisions, or the fact that we financially support those decisions as a country, but there''s no WAY I''d support people deciding to sterilize other people because they think they''ve had too many babies! Sick!

Big fat ditto to this... I do not want to even imagine the path that our freedoms would take if we started to let other people make decisions for things like this...

 

[somethingshiny]

st wanted to comment... women still have a personal responsibility NOT to put themselves in this position. If you are a woman with children, and you are on welfare, then you SHOULD be looking out for yourself.



I don''t agree with blaming the man, unless the sex wasn''t consentual. If you don''t want anymore kids, then don''t have sex or at least take birthcontrol to prevent the situation from possibly occuring.

Women do have a personal responsibility. My point was not to blame the man for everything but to understand that it does take two.

It''s not as if EVERY woman who has been on welfare STARTED with that in mind. (Obviously some do and others don''t even consider their consequences)

My sis WAS on BC, got pregnant, married the man, 2 years later they divorced. She was working 3 jobs and had to have some public assistance. She wasn''t irresponsible by getting pregnant. She wasn''t irresponsible for trying to make a family. She wasn''t irresponsible for getting a divorce from an abusive husband. She wasn''t irresponsible for NEEDING assistance when it all fell apart.

There''s always an exception to the rule. For that reason, no broad judgement can be made nor can any stipulations about welfare. IMO.

 

[meresal]

Date: 1/6/2010 7:44:02 PM
Author: somethingshiny

I just wanted to comment... women still have a personal responsibility NOT to put themselves in this position. If you are a woman with children, and you are on welfare, then you SHOULD be looking out for yourself.



I don't agree with blaming the man, unless the sex wasn't consentual. If you don't want anymore kids, then don't have sex or at least take birthcontrol to prevent the situation from possibly occuring.


[/quote]


Women do have a personal responsibility. My point was not to blame the man for everything but to understand that it does take two.

It's not as if EVERY woman who has been on welfare STARTED with that in mind. (Obviously some do and others don't even consider their consequences)

My sis WAS on BC, got pregnant, married the man, 2 years later they divorced. She was working 3 jobs and had to have some public assistance. She wasn't irresponsible by getting pregnant. She wasn't irresponsible for trying to make a family. She wasn't irresponsible for getting a divorce from an abusive husband. She wasn't irresponsible for NEEDING assistance when it all fell apart.

There's always an exception to the rule. For that reason, no broad judgement can be made nor can any stipulations about welfare. IMO.

___________

Shiny- I agree, and with the exception of people that grew up in a household where being on Welfare was admired, I don't think that ANYONE seeks out welfare. I actually know a girl that lied about her boyfriend living with her, so that she would quailfy for Food Stamps. I didn't know her at the time, but I found this out from another person after meeting her a couple times. You could say she cheated the system becuase she lied about her "household" income. I can't say I know why she did it, because I don't... but I definitely don't agree with her doing it.

Regarding you sister: Your sister had her child BEFORE being on assistance. My arguement as well and most of the others are based on the people that continue to have children AFTER being on Welfare. My opinion is, that if after you are on welfare and you continue to reproduce, it is your own fault if you continue to make your situation harder by having more children.

Welfare is there for people like your sister.

 

[packrat]

I think I''m going to be dodging stones and running from the torch wielding villagers. I''m quite certain nobody will like what I have to say.

I will say that at some point, I think people need to take responsibility for their actions, men and women alike, and I do believe that accidents happen, I just don''t believe they happen repeatedly. (I accidentally took my clothes off and accidentally had sex? And it accidentally happened with 8 different guys on 8 separate occasions? And I''m on 27 methods of birth control but they accidentally didn''t work? )

I don''t think Dr''s should have the right to do procedures without patient''s consent or just b/c the Dr thinks it''s right.

I think if you''re going to accept help from someone/something, in some ways, you do need to accept the fact that it might come with stipulations, and that it''s not going to be given freely forever. (Someone in an accident/losing their job needing welfare for their kids for several years is not what I''m referring to) At that point it ceases to be help and becomes..what? A crutch? A really easy job? A way of life? Entitlement?

It breaks my heart that there are so many babies born to people who clearly use them so they can work the system-this saddens me much more than the screeching of a woman who already has several kids by several fathers.

Hows about...the Sterilization Selective Service? At 14 it''s mandatory to be sterilized, boys and girls. At 25, IF you have the means to support a child, you can choose to have it reversed. If you are still living in mom and dad''s basement eating ramen every night and no job, then..no. If you lose the means to support that child, you get sterilized again.

And..while I''m doing my stretches and putting my running shoes on..we''re so obsessed w/reusing everything and being green and throwing as little away as possible..what about all the babies/kids in the world that have essentially been THROWN AWAY and are in orphanages, praying every night that somebody, somewhere, will give them a home???? What about parents who give their kids up for adoption b/c they already have kids at home on welfare, adding more and more kids to the adoption circle? Shouldn''t there be an "enough is enough" rule? Why should all these kids have to suffer and some never the feeling of having a parent who loves them just b/c some feel the Gov''t shouldn''t have the right to tell them what to do? What about the kids that will have less opportunities and less chances to do something good and productive with their lives, rather than continue the cycle of welfare?

Homosexuals have a harder time adopting, even if they have means to support them, am I right? But yet, we let straight people on welfare go out and reproduce like rabbits just b/c it''s their right?

I just refreshed (this has been a work in progress w/kids supper and bathtime) and saw Shiny''s post about her sister. I want to say that I think that''s a different situation entirely, that''s time and unforeseen circumstance, as my gramma says. I would file it under the heading "Things Happen" not "working the system" Sometimes people DO need help, and I think it should be available to them when they need it.

If JD lost his job tomorrow and we needed to go on Welfare, I would cry, but we would do it and in the mean time we would be busting our humps to get back on our feet-that''s why it''s called help. If someone falls, do you extend your hand to help them up and expect them to continue on their way once they stand up? Maybe say "Oh, I see your shoelace is untied". Or, do you rush out and build them a cart and wheel them around for the rest of their life so they don''t trip over their shoelace again, rather than just tying it? Because, clearly, they''re well w/in their right to never tie their shoelace again and take responsibility for themselves? If my shoelace kept coming untied I''d double not that sucker or get velcro shoes.

I see the fires a burnin in the distance, so I''ll be on my way.

 

[E B]

Date: 1/6/2010 7:11:56 PM
Author: meresal

I don't agree with blaming the man, unless the sex wasn't consentual. If you don't want anymore kids, then don't have sex or at least take birthcontrol to prevent the situation from possibly occuring.

I think that we're in agreement (for the most part), but I have to address the portion above, just in case I'm misunderstanding you. Are you saying you feel that the blame should fall solely on the woman simply because she's the one who bears the child? IMO, women should be able to enjoy sex just as men should, and BOTH parties should be responsible for having safe sex if they want to avoid pregnancy. It shouldn't matter how many children a woman has, or how much money she collects from the government. It takes two to create a baby, so in the scenario where we're sterilizing the 'unworthy,' I don't think the men should go punishment-free. (Not that I'd agree with any scenario in which sterilization is forced.) Condoms are a cheap, effective (when used correctly) and non-invasive form of BC that can be used in addition to whatever the woman uses, so there's really no excuse for men to go without them if they want to stay child-free.

As for the men being stuck raising the children, sure, it happens. But not NEARLY as often as the "father" abandoning his family. Nonetheless, anyone who abandons his or her family should face the consequences, no matter their sex.

 

[sparklyheart]

Date: 1/6/2010 3:37:10 PM
Author: luckystar112
Okay, this link is saying that there was never a consent form in her file, nor was there ever. Apparently she asked for a IUD after her 8th baby and they forgot to put it in. So she requested the IUD again for her 9th baby and they made her physically carry it into the hospital room with her. That seems weird to me. Isn''t the uterus kind of streettttcchhhed to hold an IUD at that point?

Anyway, that article also says that she does not have a high school diploma. She''s working on her G.E.D. First baby at 13 was the product of rape. And she''s a grandma already. Oh vey.

I''m teetering between judgement and sympathy.
By her past lawsuit against CVS and her requests for IUDs it sounds like she wasn''t opposed to putting effort into not getting pregnant (however slight), but now she is upset because her current boyfriend told her that he wanted to try for one more boy.

Raped at age 13 and became pregnant=Sympathy.
Kids #2-9=I''m judging you because my paycheck is paying for them.

Birth control is so much cheaper than a child.. Although I have heard kids talking about how "my mom said I need to start having babies so I get welfare." While I understand that the government is there to help people in need, I have no sympathy for people who continue to have children when they can''t afford them but yet they can always afford their iphone (which I can''t afford!), coach purses, diamonds, and nice cars.

Back to the original topic though.. Regardless of what everyone thinks of her having 9 children, performing a medical procedure without her consent is just wrong and very scary..

 

[vespergirl]

Date: 1/6/2010 6:27:03 PM
Author: elledizzy5
I am seriously shocked that people could possibly think its OK to force a medical decision upon someone!

I don''t care if its temporary! Copper IUDs can cause painful, heavy periods. Other options are all hormonal, and as suggested by MANY women on PS, hormonal birth control can have terrible side effects for some. Not to mention, with IUDs there is some risk of perforation, and that could cause permanent sterilization.

Think of the ramifications of this stuff - what if someone doesnt like how you parent and decides to take your fertility away from you?

Fix welfare, not women!

ETA: And for that matter, where are the MEN who are knocking these women up? They get to keep their genitals in tact, while women have surgery, forced hormones, or devices implanted in them? Sick.

Talking about personal freedom, where''s my family''s freedom from having to support a bunch of people living off entitlements with our hard-earned money, while they sit around with nothing better to do but make more babies for responsible citizens to support?

I''m not saying that anyone should have medical decisions forced on them - unless they are looking for a free handout from the government - then maybe they should have some conditions they need to accept if they want to take MY tax dollars to support them. If they don''t want to accept those conditions, then they are on their own - there''s nothing preventing those people from supporting themselves. No one is giving my family any money to do a good and responsible job of raising our children, so I don''t see why crappy parents should be subsidized by the government.

Regarding the men on welfare, if there was a way to temporarily sterilize them, I would be in FULL SUPPORT of that. Please, science, come up with a pill that can do that for us too!

Regarding some other points that were made - I do believe that people like Shiny''s sister are the exception rather than the rule. She is not a lifelong welfare receiver, and also did not continue to have children once she began to receive benefits. I am talking about people who are already on benefits an continue to have kids.

Regarding Cara''s post, no, I would not require anyone to join my church, because my family is agnostic and we don''t belong to one. I still believe in separation of church and state, so if someone is Catholic and refuses birth control based on religious belief, but still demands welfare, then the government shouldn''t have to support them - let the Catholic Church do it since they hate birth control so much.

I totally agree with Cara that we need more and better sex education at much earlier ages, and also free access to birth control, sterilization and abortion services. I would far prefer to pay for those than for choldren to be born into a life of misery, poverty and foster care.

 

[softly softly]

Date: 1/6/2010 5:03:43 PM
Author: MonkeyPie


Oh no way, I agree - sterilization should NOT be mandatory. As a mom of an ''oops'' baby I would be stupid to say that! But I also know whether or not I can raise this baby, and had I not been able to, either adoption or abortion (ugh) would have been there for me - NOT WELFARE.

Yes but can you imagine having to make such a choice? I agree that public assistance is often abused or taken to it''s illogical extreme by some, but I''m glad it''s there for those who need it. Anyone who wants to see what life was like for the poor and destitute before welfare should read ''The People of the Abyss'' by Jack London, where any catastrophic event could lead to homelessness for even the most hard working people.

I am fortunate enough to never had the need to use public assistance, but I do truly believe that our on balance our society is better for it. As for forced sterilization, I find the thought abhorrent. Reminds me of the unwritten policy the government here in Australia had in 50s and 60s of taking the babies of unmarried mothers without their consent and placing them up for adoption.

 

[neatfreak]

Vesper Did you read my posts above on family caps? Welfare these days IS NOT an entitlement. There ARE a lot of conditions you need to meet to receive it. And even if you have more kids-you don't get more money except maybe in one state. And there is an "at a time" limit of 2 years and a LIFETIME limit of 5 years. So the days of people living off welfare for their entire lives are over. States do have some discretion over what they want to do, but most are stricter, not more lax.

Before you go spouting off about welfare policies maybe you should understand what they are.

 

[musey]

The jerk within me wishes that people had to be licensed to procreate

When I was going through driver training, I remember saying that they should have something like that for people who want to have kids. They can take their courses, put in babysitting hours, take a test or multiple tests, then they'd be given their procreation license. The tube-tying or vasectomies that had been done at birth would then be reversed.

Obviously that's way too callous and WAY beyond my (or anyone's) prerogative to determine, but it's the evil thought that still crosses my mind sometimes. Usually more in response to physically/emotionally abusive parents than abuse of welfare.

In practice, of course - nowhere CLOSE to okay.

 

[drk]

Date: 1/6/2010 5:37:14 PM
Author: icekid

Date: 1/6/2010 3:36:19 PM
Author: Maisie
If the woman definitely didn''t sign the form then they had no right to sterilise her. They can''t just take it upon themselves to decide that she has had too many children. Even if she is on welfare.

I agree with you, Maisie. While this woman clearly does not need more children, they should not have done that (if they did.)

However, I am very curious as to why this woman believes that she had a tubal ligation. Inserting an IUD is a vastly different procedure from a tubal. I don''t really understand how this could have been done without her knowledge. In addition, she is suing FIVE people (three physicians and two nurses). It is difficult to believe that so many people could have been involved and allowed this to happen.

ETA- Being a physician who works in an operating room, we all check consents repeatedly. This whole story just does not sound right.

I''m with icekid on this. There''s a HUGE difference between inserting an IUD (which I can''t imagine is done at the time of having the baby when the uterus is still contracting back to normal size), a procedure which can be done with no meds in your doctors office. Barely worse than a pap smear. I''ve heard of needing an anesthetic to have the IUD removed (if the strings disappear, or it''s somehow embedded in the uterine wall), never heard of anyone being put under to have it inserted. Having a tubal ligation, on the other hand, requires an anesthetic. And any normal hospital has multiple people checking the consent forms, the patient confirming the procedure to all before they go to sleep.
The story''s just a little too weird.

 

[somethingshiny]

Mere~ I understand completely what you''re saying. But, how would you (or others) feel if the Duggars went on welfare? They didn''t start out that way but they''d be a drain on the system. And, if she continued to have babies (undoubtedly) and we all know it''s their religion, you can''t do anything about it. That''s my point. There are too many IFS to make a solid change regarding welfare for children.

Welfare for adults could be much different.

I agree whole heartedly with the poster who said what welfare needs is more educational programs like career building, BC 101, etc.

 

[somethingshiny]

Packrat~ although your post seems a bit ruthless...I think the basic concept is "give a man a fish...." I agree. Welfare is for HELP. I expect that there are currently very high numbers on welfare. I expect the majority of them will get back on their feet. That''s what public assistance is there for and that''s what I choose to focus on rather than those who have no intentions of bettering themselves.

and, re adoption: It also sucks that if you''re "too young" "don''t make enough money" or "don''t live in the right area" that you can''t adopt either. So many things in our government need fixed. I''d say adoption tops the list. Give those babies and children to a loving parent(s). Obviously this would reduce our nations debt immediately. Then those children being raised by responsible and loving adults would grow up to be responsible and loving.

Wow, seems like this horse is dead....lol