Mother Of Nine Says She Was Sterilized Against Her Will

[Liberal_in_LA]

Mother Of Nine Says She Was Sterilized Against Her Will

She wanted doctors to give her a birth control device. Instead, Tessa Savicki of Springfield, Mass., says they sterilized her.

Savicki claims doctors performed a tubal ligation on her without her consent. Now, the 35-year-old mother of nine is suing Baystate Medical Center in Springfield, as well as three doctors and two nurses.

Savicki's nine children range in age from 3 to 21. She tells the Boston Herald she wanted doctors to implant an intrauterine device after the birth of her son, Manuel Flores, in 2006. She specifically wanted a device that would be removable in case she wanted more children, she tells the newspaper. Instead, according to papers filed in Hampden County Superior Court on Nov. 24, 2009, doctors performed the tubal ligation.

The Herald reports Savicki receives medical insurance under the MassHealth program. Under state and federal rules, a MassHealth patient must give written permission for permanent sterilization at least 30 days before the procedure. Savicki claims she never gave that consent.

---------

The Herald reports Savicki's nine children have several fathers. She reportedly is unemployed and relies on public assistance for two of the four children who live with her.

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."

http://www.parentdish.com/2010/01/04/mother-of-nine-says-she-was-sterilized-against-her-will/

[ORDagnabbit]

1. should have done it after the 2nd one. n/t

[damntexdem]

38. We may not approve of the choices, but she has a right to the choices.

This is a denial of basic reproductive rights, just of denial of access to abortion services is.

[ORDagnabbit]

42. I disagree if we didnt have to support those 9 kids with tax dollars. Its my society too not just

people like this.

identify the people unable to take care of themselves and prevent them from having children who immediately become a drain on society and further prevent the individual from becoming self sufficient.

[FLAprogressive]

2. She's right.

[Electric Monk]

3. Nine *isn't* enough?

Oh, the lawsuit is simply for funds to raise the ones she already has... got it.

[noiretextatique]

10. it is illegal to sterilize someone without her consent

end of story. she has a valid case and she will win.

[hlthe2b]

16. Yes... though to say she's not a sympathetic figure

rather underestimates the depth of her irresponsibility. But, she is right, she has a valid case; she will win.

[noiretextatique]

23. the law is in place precisely for people like her

poor, uneducated, undereducated, etc. the law is in place because in the past women were routinely sterilized without their consent...if they were poor, or black or young, or whatever. everyone has the right to make their own choice, even if the choices are stupid.

[rd_kent]

34. I agree with you but it sucks that the rest of us have to pay for those stupid choices.

One of the flaws in the system, IMO.

[noiretextatique]

36. no, it is not a flaw...it's called social welfare

and it's a pathetic, paltry, pittance compared to what we also pay for, like the illegal war in iraq and the foolish escalation in afghanistan, and the wall street bailout. i'd much prefer to give more direct aid to people than to continue to bailout corporations with the *hope*, and little more than hope, that some of it trickles down to the rest of us. i have no problem paying for the least of us, because that's what we should do...that's what all civilized industrial nations do...except us. i have a big problem paying to enrich the military-industrial complex in the vain hope that they will drop some crumbs for the rest of us to fight over.

[rd_kent]

44. You and I are in agreement completely.

And I am for social welfare, with restrictions and limitations. The lady in this story certainly justifies some restrictions and limitations, dont you think?

[noiretextatique]

52. i'd like to see some restictions on my tax dollars

paying for private contractors who torture people, and the billion dollars that went "missing" from the pentagon. how many children could we house and feed with that billion? what can this poor woman possibly give to...anyone? she gets subsistence, at best and if anything, i'd like to give poor people more money, along with more education and more real job opportunities. unemployment is at an all-time, jobs continue to outsourced to other countries...when will it end? when we are all begging on the streets for a dollar?
i am glad we are in agreement, but i'd like to see some restrictions on banks; it seems they are actually getting more and more greedy. i was overdrawn by $4.00 today, and my bank would not let me cash a state check, one that i wanted to deposit into their bank. i had to go to a check cashing outlet to cash the check (one that is probably owned by the same bank) to avoid an overdraft fee, then deposit cash into the account. i've had an account with them for several years, and that's the treatment i got. and WE bailed out these fuckers. sorry...i can't begrudge feeding, housing and educating the poor. it's a far better investment in the long term than throwing billions at corporations.

thanks for a civil conversation...rare on Du these days.

[nadinbrzezinski]

55. Let me play a little devil's advocate

and no, not her right to her body, but a planet that has a smidgen of an over population problem. Do you think that the price we are paying for that as a species, see weather global change, will lead to limits in fertility?

And I mean that... as a real question we should now be asking. After all there is a real limit on how much the earth can supoort, and it goes beyond our imaginary devices called money.

[Arkansas Granny]

17. Absolutely right. Whether you agree with her or not, this is a matter of reproductive choice.

You can't support choice for some and not support it for all.

[cutlassmama]

46. Agreed. n/t

[Laura902]

4. Really torn

having too many children is one of the worst things you can do for the environment, but if it is the case that they abused their power and preformed a procedure that she did not want, I am in agreement with her. It is not within their rights.

[donheld]

60. Having children she can't or won't take care of is even worse.

[Lance_Boyle]

5. easily enough resolved - let the hospital produce the written permission

If they can, then she can STFU and quit lying. If they can't, she's not going to qualify for public assistance for those two kids anymore after winning the lawsuit.

[votingupstart]

47. agreed - either they got her permission or they didn't n/t

[pipi_k]

6. We need a license to drive a car...

But any twit with properly operating gonads can pump out innocent children...as many as they want, without a thought to the safety or quality of life of those kids.

I hope she loses her case.

[brendan120678]

22. Right, because...

reproductive choice is a silly concept anyways.










:sarcasm:

[liberalhistorian]

25. Really? So doctors should have the right to perform procedures

on patients without their consent because of what THEY think and/or the state demands it? Really? You really and honestly believe that?

[EOTE]

29. Really? Just where would you draw the line?

Is it OK for mothers of 8 to be sterilized against their will? Perhaps only if those 8 children are from multiple fathers? At just what point does it become OK for someone to be sterilized against their will? This isn't a rhetorical question, I'm very much interested in an answer.

[mtnester]

45. Yeah! Because it should always be OK for doctors to perform medical procedures on you without

your permission any time they feel like it for whatever reason they feel like


now, back to the real world...where everyone's head is NOT up their own rear end



(do I really need a sarcasm tag?)

[varelse]

51. We need a license to drive a car on public roads

A person's body is private, not public property.

We don't need a license to live - at least not in the US.

[JTFrog]

53. So if someone crashes more than two or three times we'll just cut off their arms so they can't drive

Sounds about right. :eyes:

[GreenStormCloud]

7. She is right, but neither should she be able to demand that society...

absorb the cost of her irresponsibility. That is one of the great difficulties of being a compassionate person. The ones who would be punished if society were to stop the aid to her would be her innocent children. But living on welfare and pumping out kids is wrong too.

I am not sorry to see her sterilized. There should be some sort of legal proceeding for situations like this, that say, "Enough". Does the world need more of her DNA in future generations?

[dixiegrrrrl]

39. Wow....eugenics raises its head again.

"Be careful about deciding what is best for the other guy.
He may be deciding what is best for YOU".

[noiretextatique]

8. why not sterilize the woman on teevee with 19 or 20 kids?

:eyes:

[WillParkinson]

11. Because she's on TV and famous...

Duh. :P

[noiretextatique]

12. but of course

so it really isn't about the number of kids, just who pays for them, per some of the posters here. DU sickens me more and more each day, present company excluded :hi:

[liberalhistorian]

31. Because Mrs. Duggar and the other "quiverfuls" are

the "right" kind of people, so that's different. :sarcasm: :sarcasm:

[Spike89]

9. No brainer. A woman's body is hers

Doctors, society, judges, etc. have no right to take away any woman's reproductive rights.

[patricia92243]

13. You are right. My first reaction was that she had more than enough children, etc. Then I read

your post. It reminded me that if women loose control of their bodies in one instance - they will loose them again and again. Thanks for the reminder!!

:)

[Lance_Boyle]

14. I find it very hard to believe this was done without the required permission

and there should be evidence of that written permission to settle the matter.

On the other hand, it could be that she requested an IUD and received a tubal ligation, and it may not have been a mistake. What is the hospital's/surgeon's side of this story?

[Hekate]

57. It used to happen routinely to anyone deemed "less desirable" -- now it is more rare.

As much as I am appalled at her "choice" to have 9 kids starting at age 14, there are laws in place now that forbid sterilization on the unwilling or unwitting. A favorite tactic was to ask for consent forms to be signed after the woman was drugged-up from childbirth or for surgery. I think she is likely to have a case.

Hekate

[donheld]

64. The state of Nebraska made my ex-sister-in-law get this done

She had 4 children, all on welfare. This was in the early 80's

[Name removed]

15. Deleted message

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

[noiretextatique]

30. please report for your forced sterilization

since you are so eager to force that upon others. thank you.

[AngryAmish]

37. Are you familiar with the case Buck v. Bell?

[cmkramer]

65. I am n/t

[LiberalFighter]

18. I wonder if she has told the truth.

[Quantess]

27. Remember the girl who had 52 stars tattooed on her face,

and then claimed that she only asked for 3?

She finally admitted that she asked for all 52 stars on her face but regretted it the next day.

[noiretextatique]

28. it's really quite simple

either she informed about the sterilization or not. if she wasn't informed, as she claims, she has a valid complaint and lawsuit. if she was informed, she doesn't.
i just had a hysterectomy recently and they asked me if i knew i would be sterilized so many times it was absurd. i am 51, so i could care less about having a uterus. but i live in california, so i am not sure if the requirements are as stringent in come other states. i suspect they aren't.

[Odin2005]

19. That's assult. Jail the docs.

[get the red out]

20. She is correct

If they won't do it for mercy to the damned religious nut-cases that are treated worse than brood mares by their raging, patriarchial male owners then they shouldn't do it to this woman because her kids have different fathers.

[Lance_Boyle]

21. Hrm... she's profited from this sort of suit before...

"In 2001, the newspaper reports, Savicki reached an out-of-court settlement with CVS pharmacy and a spermacide company after she claimed she was sold an expired spermacide."

And apparently she's fired the first lawyer she hired for this case. "In response to a request for her medical records, a former attorney for Savicki received a letter from the hospital last May..."

I wonder what her history of slip-and-fall suits looks like. She may be worse than unsympathetic - she may be the face of lawsuit abuse.

[brendan120678]

24. So she's more of a poster-child for...

litigation reform, not a sympathetic victim of reproductive rights abuse.

[Romulox]

26. Put me on the jury--I'll award her $1.00. nt

[Hello_Kitty]

32. If what she alleges is true, the doctors involved should lose their licenses.

If she didn't authorize the procedure, they shouldn't have done it.

For the record, I think she's nuts and I feel sorry for those kids.

[rd_kent]

33. "I take care of my kids" - No you don't the state does!

But it is her right to have as many kids as she wants. It sucks that our system enables people like this to make stupid choices with little or no consequences.

[Solly Mack]

35. The hospital/staff had no right to perform that surgery without her consent.

None.


This isn't about her decisions...this is about the decisions of the hospital/staff.

Her actions don't make their actions right or moral or legal.


She might not be a role model but that doesn't mean she loses her rights. If it bears out there was no written consent then the hospital/staff is in the wrong.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

41. yup

[La Lioness Priyanka]

40. i hope she is lying because otherwise they did a terribly unethical and immoral thing

[Brickbat]

43. This is horrible. That poor woman. This is not unheard of, of course.

[KittyWampus]

48. I don't believe she did NOT give permission. Sorry. And who knows, maybe it was part of some legal

agreement she's too fucked up to remember making.

Amazing so many DU'ers are happy to take what she says as the truth.

[MrsMatt]

49. I'm having some trouble understanding

something about her story. She claims that SHE brought the IUD into the operating room, in the box, unopened.

1. Why an operating room - aren't most IUDs inserted on an outpatient basis?
2. IUDs are not something one can pick up at the drugstore, right? Why would the patient be bringing in her own IUD.?
3. I've never heard of anyone getting an IUD at the same time as having a Caesarian, as she's claiming.

It just seems so fishy.

[LeftyMom]

56. There are some research studies looking at IUD insertion during a c-section.

I haven't found any results, but some places are doing it. The worry seem to be that some women won't show up for follow-up appointments, so inserting the IUD during a section or prior to hospital discharge for vaginal deliveries seems to be catching on. I imagine that considering her history that looked like a real reasonable option- if the doctors told her to come back in 10 weeks she'd probably bring #10 with her.

Also, doctors show patients the IUD or a model in advance as part of patient education. If it was "her" IUD and not a demonstrator, it would have been wrapped in clear plastic for sterility and come with a little plunger dealie for insertion.

[Hekate]

61. Interesting. I hope it works out well for women healing from a C-section. nt

[varelse]

50. If this was done without her written permission

it was wrong. Such an act is a violation of human rights.

[scheming daemons]

54. About 6 kids too late, if you ask me

[mrs_p]

58. i am having a hard time believing her

i mean, there is too much these doctors and nurses would have risked for this one patient. plus, she is my age and started breeding at age 14 (well, probably 13 to have had the baby at 14) - there just seems something mentally ill about that...

:shrug:

on edit: plus, how did she just bring in the IUD and hand to the nurse? and, can you even have an IUD implanted at a C-section? i mean, if this really happened, it is bad - but i'm just not sure it did.

[spoony]

59. Damn some of you are scary

Talking about sterilising the poor and bitching that "your" tax dollars are spent on their children. Who needs RWers when we have conservative talking points in such abundance.

[leftstreet]

62. +1

:scared:

[Hekate]

63. Yup.

[WildEyedLiberal]

66. WOW - when did bitching about "your tax dollars" for people on "welfare" become a liberal value?

For fuck's sake, did I stumble on free republic by mistake?

Here's a fucking hint, people: "reproductive rights" don't solely entail the right to have an abortion. It means the right to have YOUR BODY and YOUR FERTILITY belong solely to YOU without some fucking authority figure forcing you to have more/fewer children. It means if this lady wants to have nine kids, THAT'S HER RIGHT. It also means that if she had instead had nine abortions, THAT IS ALSO HER RIGHT. What is so FUCKING HARD to understand about that?

Do I personally approve of her decision to have nine kids by multiple fathers? Not really. Would I approve if she'd had nine abortions? Not really. Does it matter what the fuck I think? NO! Her RIGHTS are not subject to the approval or disapproval of any other busybody in the entire goddamn country. Jesus H. Christ I can't believe I have to define the essence of civil liberties on DU of all fucking places.

Beyond that, the fact that some of you are openly advocating for sterilization and eugenics for people who've made "the wrong choices" is positively bone-chillingly fascist. For fuck's sake, and to think some of you call yourselves liberal.