Mum of 9 Files Lawsuit Claiming Her Reproductive Rights Were Violated When She Was Sterilised Without Her Consent

[Earlybird]

This emotive story is beginning to gain national play, and is causing an ethical, moral, social and economic discussion in America.

Many say what the lawsuit claims occurred was/is barbaric, but the Mum's personal past has become a sticking point in the court of public opinion.

Background highlights:

• Mum had her first baby at 13, and quit school at the same time
• Mum has 9 children from four men - first two when she was a teenager, subsequent 7 were conceived while in 2 long term relationships.
• Mum has never been employed and receives financial aid from the state for 2 of the 4 children who live with her (the other 2 are supported financially by their father)
• Grandmother has custody of 3 of the children, who live with grandmother
• Mum has a litigation history having sued a chain of chemists in 2001 claiming they sold her an expired spermicide which failed to prevent a pregnancy (she won)
• - Mum was sterilised when she was 35, so in theory, had quite a few reproductive years ahead of her.

Part of why the story is beginning to get national attention is the overwhelming outpouring of angry public sentiment toward the Mum.

Extremists hail the doctors as 'heroes'.

More measured/moderate opinions are finding it difficult to defend the Mum because 'rights come with responsibility' and this Mum has been 'irresponsible' by continuing to have children she cannot afford to raise.

news.bostonherald.com/news/regional/view.bg?&articleid=1222682&format=&page=2&listingType=Loc#articl eFull

What is your view?

lemonadedrinker, because taking action like this against someone, especially if it did happen as described here, crosses a line. Nothing that would happen as a result of not doing what is alleged to have been done is bad enough to make a draconian step like this right. There are lots of "shoulds" in the world. It does not mean that it would be right for "should" to become "must".

I really am not qualified to make a decision like that. I don't know what his background is, why he is a sex offender, what intervention he has had so far and if he has be rehabilitated. The woman has a part in this too, she has chosen to become pregnant by him after he abused her children, what are you proposing, that they are both done??? Perhaps we should do the kids pre-emptively with that gene pool, they don't stand a chance do they?

I am assuming that this baby will be on the at risk register and have a protection order slapped on it in utero and then placed in supervised care at birth? I think in these situations, as is sometimes done with women in very violent relationships, the mother can either leave the father or lose custody of the child. Again none of this is ideal but are you sure enough that all these people are so beyond help that neutering them is acceptable and justified.

so mshighwater you think it is more important to respect the "right" of a convicted paedophile to reproduce than it is to prevent the almost inevitable abuse of a child? Interesting.

thh - so it is better to bring a child into a dangerous situation only to hvae to remove them to care with all the associated costs and problems for both society and the child than it is to prevent people who have PROVEN they are neglectful and/or abusive parents from becoming parents again.

You asked me what should be done and I said what I thought would be done.

Of course it is a dreadful outcome for that child but better than suffering abuse. Of course it would be better if that life had not been created but contraception is available to the woman and indeed the man, it is a shame they were so fucked up they put their own wishes ahead of that of a child. Yes it's all wrong and sad but it just doesn't matter how many dreadful and harrowing scenarios you present, I ask you again who makes the decision???

You have avoided this by saying it would be difficult to implement but please tell me who has the right to make this sort of decision, perhaps we should open it up to the public vote - like I sad, very democratic.

You have to understand that although you are talking about nitty gritty practical applications and chucking a few horror stories in, you haven't really thought this through and don't have any answers about implementation. This also has real implications for us as a society philosophically, ethically and politically.

This is such a moral slippery slope lemonadedrinker, where would you draw the line?

well, you are proposing we, as a society, abuse thousands of people, lemonade, by assaulting them against their will. Doesn't actually give you the moral high ground.

Or does dressing up abuse in white coats make it somehow OK?

Dittany - yes they did, but that was long before birth control was readily available.

yes exactly what edam said

thousands of people edam? I certainly didn't say that.

thh - you have answered your own question as you yourself say that it would be better if that child wasn't born. As to who would make the decision, I think you would be looking at panels of people with a right to appeal etc. At the moment we have children removed at birth IMO that is far more inhumane to a mother.

lemonadedrinker, please answer my previous question as to where you stand on the sterilisation of those with severe SN.

Not trying to bait you BTW, just genuinely interested.

and mine about who and what the criteria are?

Also, would it matter if the woman did have a mental illness? Should the state sterilise those who are mentally ill?

tethersend - IMO that is a completely different issue and I do not have enough knowledge about the range of SN to have a view either way TBH.

Agreeing that it would be better for this child not to have been born is not the same a forcing someone to have a sterilisation. I doubt that there is anyone here who wouldn't say yes, this is all better avoided but not by any means necessary? What about forced abortion? Is that OK too if the situation warrants it in your opinion?

'panels of people' elected or volunteers?, accountable or unaccountable? the right to appeal, crikey that's not a money saver is it??? lengthy old business the legal right to appeal, could go on for years and many babies born in between.

Should this campaign of yours to stop undesirable procreating be about re-education, giving people choices, giving them some control over their destiny so they have something else so do with themselves apart from reproduce as a kind of emotional prop.

This is knee-jerk daily mail stuff. Appaling and terrifying that you believe you have more of a right to have a child than anyone else. You don't, it is just that simple.

lemoadedrinker, if you are talking about sterilising unfit parents, or parents who cannot look after their children without a large amount of state intervention, then people with severe SN would come under this remit.

It is not a completely different issue at all.

We do educate people, we do give them choices some of the NEVER GET IT. Appalling and terrifying that children have to be born to parents that are known to be abusive and neglectful simply because it offends your sensibilities to admit that not everyone is competent to be a parent.

WEll IMO it is.

tethersand - i don't think the SN thing is a different issue at all, it is all part and parcel of the same problem; controlling the sort of reproduction we deem as suitable and irradicating the sort we do not.

Again this is a ethical minefield but I do believe there is law in place to deal with this. If someone is deemed incapable then their family or medical professionals can apply to the court to supply contraception if they think that this person is at risk or as part of their condition maybe sexually promiscuous. This is a long way from forced sterilisation but of course does raise some ethical issues.

It is also possible that some of the paedophiles up in front of your proposed panel would have significant SN. The two things are not mutually exclusive.

not at all dittany I am using we as shorthand for the state/society.

"WEll IMO it is."

That's your argument?