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?

But I have a similar point of view to THH- how do you explain that?

tethersand, you and me must be lilly livered liberals eh?

thh - what do you think about children being removed at birth from their mothers? Is that Ok?

Apparently so, THH... and have no idea of the horrors that go on in families...

Actually, I wish that were true.

No of course not, we have gone over this haven't we. I agreed that of course not being born i the first place was of course preferable but that did not justify enforced sterilisation or forced abortion, it supported contraceptive advice and availability.

Removing babies from their mothers is a dreadful thing for everyone but if mothers chose to stay in abusive situations or indeed are abusers themselves then it is preferable to leaving that child where it is.

I have answered you again so answer me, how the hell would this work?

Apparently, my questions don't get answered either...

It's ok tehersand, I understand....

But you think it is less bad than preventing the birth in the first place, so not only should the mother have to go through something traumatic your solution is that the child should to?? We currently have mechanisms for deciding which babies are removed at birth I don't think it is too much of a leap to see how a system could work on the broadest level.

I keep answering your questions sorry if you don't like the answers.

Tethersend - what do you think about the sterilisation of people with SN?

It is a massive ethical leap when you cannot yourself provide any real solutions or suggestions for how it works. You are going round and round the houses but still the questions raised by me and tethersand have been ignored. Come on, give it a go...

I reckon i know what tethersand is going to say........

I have just answered it thh. IMO you haven't answered my questions but you have given an answer so I am not going to keep badgering you.

err did i miss something?????

We currently have mechanisms for deciding which babies are removed at birth I don't think it is too much of a leap to see how a system could work on the broadest level.

Flipping heck, was this the answer???? I was hoping for a bit more padding out than that - that's tres vague no?

The mechanism for removing babies at birth (and having them adopted) is a formative assessment mechanism, it allows for the possibility of the mother going on to address issues in her life, having another child and it remaining with her.

In some cases (when the child is fostered, not adopted), the mechanism allows for the mother to address her issues and have the child returned to her.

What you are proposing is final, and in no way allows for the possibility of a shift in circumstance. This makes it quite different from the mechanisms we as a society currently have in place.

are you going to answer my question tethersend?

I think the sterilisation of those with SN is wrong under any circumstances, lemonadedrinker.

But I thought you didn't want to talk about that?

So, please answer mine- how, if I work with the same kinds of children and families which you seem to, can I hold a different opinion to you? Is it just possible then that the opposing point of view to yours is not bourn of ignorance?

can i ask? was that your answer to me or am i missing something?

not bating, really asking....

tethersend - Do you think shuttling children back and forth between foster placements and birth mother whilsts mother sorts her issues out is beneficial to the children?

tethersend - I have never said anyones position is bourn of ignorance I have simply said that my position has been shaped by my experiences and others who have not had those experiences may have a different opinion if they had. My work has certainly changed my opinions.

Now, now, lemonadedrinker, I answered your question- are you going to answer mine?

One question at a time, don't get greedy

oh crikey lemonade stop with the rhetorical questions - no one thinks that no one with half a head can think that is ok. No one is saying that these things are good but taking away human rights from one person by another - that's completely wrong. That's the point. That's what we are all saying, there is a bigger issue of liberty and freedom at stake.

that's why when i ask how this would actually work and who would make a decision it does demand to be answered because by providing some sort of panel for this kind of final decision would imply that the people on the panel have more rights and are in some way superior to those subject to a panel - that's why it need addressing, because that is the crux of it. And go on, do tethersand a favour and just answer the question will you?

And all I am saying is that I don't think ideals such as reproductive liberty and freedom are completely sacred given that we are talking here about women who HAVE HAD children.

And with the greatest of respect you and thh have spent the last few pages firing questions at me so don't complain when you get a few back.

YEs THH it does imply those things and yes i do think some people are superior at making judgements about caring for children than others. If you think everyone is equal in all ways then you are sadly deluded.