Saving...Mother of 9 Asked For IUD Got Sterilized
Under the heading of Holy Crap! That's a lot of Kids.
Apparently, 35 year old, mother of 9, Tessa Savicki has claimed that she went to the hospital to have an IUD inserted after a Cesarean section but was permanently sterilized instead. having her tubes tied, means that she will not be able to have any more children, whereas the IUD is a temporary form of birth control.
According to the article, "Savicki has nine children from several men, is unemployed and relies on public assistance for two of the four children who live with her. She receives supplemental security income, or SSI, for a disability, non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, she said. Her mother has custody of three of her children. Two of her children are no longer minors."
Naturally the world is in an uproar. Folks take one of two sides;
1. She has 9 children that she cannot care for, why should she have more?
2. Nobody has the right to take away another person's reproductive choices.
Me? I fall on the #2 side.
Surprised? Here is why this is a horrible thing;
I think that when we put our trust in another person's hands for medical care they have a duty to follow through with what you have consented to, not to just do what THEY think should be done. If everything she says is true, then it means that she, in goof faith, asked the doctor to do a procedure that
- he agreed to do
, and then he decided that he knew better and had the right to overrule her choice.
It is a really short jump from a person being forcibly sterilized to people being forcibly sterilized. One person may not be much, and really there are plenty of reasons in the article that jump out as viable justifications for sterilization, but...it comes too close to eugenics and having another person decide if we are worthy of reproducing or not. I don't like the icky uber-controlling feel I get when I think about all the reasons that people who would be designated as not good enough to have children. What criteria is okay? Who gets to decide... nah, not good.
What do you think?
Should her case be tossed as frivolous (and there are plenty of odd "facts" here that don't seem to add up)?
Learn About A Different Type Of Highly Effective Contraception.
http://www.different-birth-control.com/
Sorry i fall on #1. Though its tantamount to taking away her right without her consent but, let’s take the psychological and emotional health of the children into consideration. She can barely fend for the ones she has and, she’s hopeful for more? To be realistic, it doesn’t make too much sense cos, the ones that’ll come later will probably be in a worse situation than the ones she has currently. I’m personally of the opinion that, the children’s welfare should be put at the forefront.