1 I don't know, we only hear her side, did it really happen? There's a lot of "she says" around the facts of the case not a lot of what the hospital says. She's already sued over getting pregnant after using expired birth control deal.

If it happened, well, mistakes happen. That's why people write, "Wrong leg" on the..uhhh.. wrong leg before surgery.
Of course, if it happened, there's going to be suspicion (deserved or not) about whether it was "accidentally on purpose".
But I don't know if that makes sense. What the hell does a doctor care? He gets paid, right?

2 If she's actually produced the 'we can't find your tubal ligation consent form' letter, I think she's likely telling the truth.  Especially since a nurse said she brought an IUD in.

3 Wouldn't surprise me at all if this happened.  And no matter what I think about her having that many kids, it's her body.  If she did not want that done, then it's wrong.

4 If this woman is getting ANY public assistance then I don't give a crap if they did it on purpose or not. Assuming she's getting some assistance, well, I'm sick of paying for stupid bitches like this. This is why I hate the federal government getting involved in our lives, it ends up giving them a say in our lives. Now, if she doesn't receive assistance then I hope she sues them for everything everyone of those assholes owns.

5 I would personally vote for anyone who was for forced sterilization of a woman on welfare, public housing, etc that continues to have kids. It's not her body, evidently it's ours and she doesn't mind us paying for it and determining where she will live and how much money she receives a month. We will inevitably be housing her offspring also, in the local pen.

6

Sadly, it didn't even make it to vote, but there were a few Louisiana state congressman who were discussing introducing a requirement that any woman applying for welfare with more than two children be sterilized for free.  I would be okay with my tax dollars going to that.  Pay for it once, at least I'm not then supporting the rest of her kids for the next 20 or so years.

And, damnit, Alice, I was going to post it, but I got distracted by Facebook. 

Anyway.  It's her body to do with as she wants.  This is why there needs to be a limit on welfare; if you cannot support your children, they should be given to someone who can.  My husband and I made damn sure we could comfortably and safely afford our daughter before we had her. 

'Course, in many ways, foster care systems can be so flawed that you might as well just leave the kids on welfare ...

7 You guys are racists, and white supremacists, and soon I will take someone else out of context to prove that you are.

8

I got into an arguement at work with our sales manager over Socialized Healthcare a while back. He's a typical leftist hippie douchenozzle, who lost his brother last year to diabetes. (and Wilferd Brimley couldnt save him) His brother had no insurance, couldn't get it because it was a pre-existing condition, yada yada yada. He had the brass balls to call me a hypocrite for not supporting Obamacare, becausemy family gets gov money, cause my wife is disabled. (laundry list of health problems too long to go into) The asshole was screaming at me in our parkinglot at work, that my wife and I should have never had a baby, if we knew we couldnt afford it w/out gov help. Never mind that my wife didnt become disabled till our son was 3 years old. I soooo wanted to throttle him and plant my size 11EEE workboot up his ass.

And did I mention his wife works for the IRS??

9 So which came first, the chicken or the egg?  Since she's getting aid, does the medical system have the right to sterilize her - or even the obligation to the system to reduce the future burden on the system?  

10

Since she's getting aid, does the medical system have the right to sterilize her - or even the obligation to the system to reduce the future burden on the system?  

I think that last bit is an interesting question.  Does it ever become the right of the system to deny someone reproductive rights?  You cross into dangerous territory with that.  If one argues, for example, that having children makes them happy, isn't forced sterilization taking away their right to the "pursuit of happiness"?

11 I rarely post anything, I'm mostly a lurker, but this story struck a nerve with me.  1st?  I think she's looking for attention and free stuff.  She's already sued before and dragged her children into the fray.  She's had 9 children with several different fathers and I think she's incredibly irresponsible to have done so.  (You'd think she could have figured all this out.  She's 35 and her oldest is 21?)  All things said, she did go in to have an IUD put in.  They're safe and VERY effective for up to 10 years.  No doctor had the right to sterilize her against her knowledge. 

I've been in the camp of forced sterilizations, but with some of the birth control options out there I wouldn't support that anymore.  I will, however, not mind using my tax dollars to have IUDs put in, and then when they want them removed, show proof of income and husband for longer than 1 year before they were allowed to remove them.

12 and husband for longer than 1 year before they were allowed to remove them

But what about women (throughout the orientation spectrum) who choose to have a domestic partner rather than a husband?  Or who choose to have children without a partner?  Requiring a husband forces an old-fashioned, conservative, heteronormative ideal on someone who might not believe in marriage, might not believe that a father (or a partner of any sort) is necessary to raise a child, or might not be oriented in a way that means she would have a husband.

13 Alice, I totally understand your questioning of my opinion. I know that there are women out there completely capable of taking care of themselves and a child as well by themselves.  I never meant to imply that it couldn't be done.  (And I'll look really really stupid if you're saying this sarcastically and I'm just not getting it) I said husband, because I happen to believe that a husband and wife are best suited to raise stable children.  The commitment that's (supposed to be) inherent in marriage is essential to the well-being of the child.  The reason I state my preference for a rule like this to be a factor in having the IUD taken out is the fact that this woman (and many like her) are having multiple children with mulitple fathers, and the "sperm donors" never stick around long enough to take care of the result of their "hook-up".  The children then end up in the care of the people, whether we want them to or not. 

14 I don't blame her at all for suing.  She's got 7 kids at home and lives on government assistance with a dead beat. 

The fact that whatever settlement money she gets will probably go to a big screen TV and a couple of over priced cars is too bad, but whaddya gonna do?

15 I'm more playing devil's advocate than actively dissing your opinion, 2keyboards.  I have mixed feelings about this situation myself, which is why I thought it would be a good slapfight topic.  I've often said that when the government starts controlling your health care, the government has an investment in your body and may try to make decisions about what you do with your body.

There's also the issue that an IUD is considered by some to be a form of abortion, as it works by keeping a fertilized egg from implanting.  Asking the government to fund IUD implantation could be as offensive as forcing pharmacists to dispense the morning after pill or paying for abortions with federal funds, or requiring a welfare recipient to get an abortion.  And then there's the potential lawsuit if the IUD recipient is for some reason unable to get it removed and replaced on federal funds - those things fall apart after a while, my OBGYN said she had to take one out in pieces that a woman had left in for a few years after the expected IUD life.  Or the lawsuit if the worst case thing happens and the IUD punctures her uterus and she's sterilized.

Some government or another (not sure if it was federal or state) did a thing in Oklahoma (I have a relative there who took advantage of it) where a woman on welfare could get a free Norplant.  The upside was that the Norplant had a really good pregnancy prevention rate, the downside was that Norplant had a whole host of really nasty side effects that were so awful that the manufacturer offered free implant removal if you agreed to not sue the company.  (disclosure - I had a Norplant, not government funded.  It made me completely insane, and that's not an understatement.  I took advantage of the 'get this thing out of me and I won't sue' offer.)

16 During this historic time, pointing out the socialistic agenda of our new President, does nothing to help him achieve the changes he hopes to bring.  The President clearly pointed out to the Republicans that they should not listen to you.  Sadly given the vote this evening in the house, too many of them are not following the guidance of the President.  If you continue to speak such truthful things about our President, the minority party will only strengthen their resolve to stand firm against the President's wishes.  Please remember this every day you are on the radio.

17 There's also the issue that an IUD is considered by some to be a form of abortion, as it works by keeping a fertilized egg from implanting.  Asking the government to fund IUD implantation could be as offensive as forcing pharmacists to dispense the morning after pill or paying for abortions with federal funds, or requiring a welfare recipient to get an abortion.  And then there's the potential lawsuit if the IUD recipient is for some reason unable to get it removed and replaced on federal funds - those things fall apart after a while, my OBGYN said she had to take one out in pieces that a woman had left in for a few years after the expected IUD life.  Or the lawsuit if the worst case thing happens and the IUD punctures her uterus and she's sterilized.

18 She's got 7 kids at home and lives on government assistance with a dead beat.  I don't blame her at all for suing.

The fact that whatever settlement money she gets will probably go to a big screen TV and a couple of over priced cars is too bad, but whaddya gonna do big boy!!!!

19 A beautiful and high quality information.this paper is accurate to be useful. Thanks to the author.

20 very nice post is also very lively and attractive you look .every one who wanted to congratulate you You look super.

21 welded steel bar grating

22 http://www.newerahatsfactory.com/ Faced with this sort of thing or laugh it off, pleased to accept reality and admit that the setbacks are inevitable, and it is temporary, it is best to look for their own gap to overcome the shortcomings, continue to work hard.