Tuesday, January 5, 2010

Personal Resposibility? Not Here.


A mother of nine in Boston is suing her doctors for performing a tubal ligation against her consent. While I agree that they were out of line, at what point are the taxpayers allowed to say "No more!"?

Tessa Savicki (photo below) claims that she consented to an IUD, a reversible form of birth control should she later decide to have more kids, but instead was permanently sterilized by her doctors. Naturally, a lawsuit has been filed. The incident in question occurred in December of 2006. Sounds like Tessa needs more money. Her lawsuit is claiming that she has suffered “substantial pain and emotional distress and incurred severe and permanent physical injuries.” Boo frickin' hoo.

Savicki's children are the product of several men. Three of her children have been produced with her current fiance, Angel Flores Tirado, 36. Tirado works full-time to support his children. A commendable action in today's world, I have to give him credit for taking care of his responsibilities. Tessa, on the other hand, seems to be the irresponsible one.


She has four children living with her, her mother has custody of three, and two are no longer minors. Her first child was born when Savicki was only 13, the age when she dropped out of the ninth grade. Two of the four children living with her receive welfare benefits, and Tessa herself receives SSI for non-Hodgkin's lymphoma.

Savicki has been through the court system before due to reproductive issues. In 2001, she sued a CVS pharmacy and a spermicide manufacturer claiming that she got pregnant with her now 12-year-old daughter because she had bought and used an expired spermicide product. The result was a settlement (of course).

“I would never have the right to tell anyone else ‘because you have this many kids that’s enough,’ ” she said. “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 do if I'm supporting them, honey. -- B&G]

“I take care of my kids. I love my kids. I was not ready to make that kind of decision,” she said of the permanent sterilization. [We, the taxpayers of this country and the state of Massachusetts, take care of your kids. --B&G]

While I agree that a signed consent form for the procedure should have been secured, at what point are the taxpayers let off the hook for the decisions she makes?

Tessa: If you have a job to support your children, then by all means; have as many as you'd like. Until then, why not take charge of your body and keep your frickin' legs closed? And should you get pregnant again and can't support the new baby, don't look for the taxpayers to bail you out. Your decision, your responsibility.

(Source: The Boston Herald via World Net Daily)

11 comments:

Spinsterpov said...

I'm a firm believer that anybody on the public dole should be subject to mandatory sterilization. My philosophy is that if you can't take care of yourself you have no business having children. Although i do acknowldge that it should be a non-permanent form as there have been people using public assistance for what it was intented and they eventually begin supporting themselves again. Once they are taking care of themselves they should then have the option for children.

How would you like to be the child that your mother sued over, claiming you as damages. There's a nice warm fuzzy feeling to give your child.

blackandgoldfan said...

Very well put, spinster! These people want the choice to have as many kids as possible but want everyone else to pay for them. That's just flat-out wrong.

Bungalow Bill said...

The Constitutional view of this is they had no right to tie her tubes without her consent. The words of James Madison come to mind when it comes to welfare. "I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents."

blackandgoldfan said...

It's a catch-22, BB. While no one (especially government) should infringe on personal liberty, no one should be forced to pay for the decisions made by another. That's an infringement of liberty as well.

The Keeper Of Odd Knowledge (KOOK) said...

the trick here to consolidate BB's views which I share,and Spinster's views which I also share...is to look at it like this:

If you are on the public dole, you are a de facto dependent of the state, as such you should be treated as a minor (like a child) parents make decisions for children all the time, and if my child was having un protecdted sex creating children I have to pay for them you bet your sweet hiney I would have them on birth control.

Basically what I am saying is that dependant children are not full citizens and neither should dependent welfare adults.

William said...

Pond scum like this gal makes me sick! There was a time when I wanted nothing more than to become a father. I didn't because there was no way I would bring children into this world till I knew I was secure enough to do so. By the time my thirties arrived, I became financially secure through real estate investments. Unfortunately, my wife who was a stealth, far left feminazi, [long story] was not interested in children, and to have any would have been disastrous.

I'm now fifty-five, and even though I'm in great physical condition and can out work, and out perform most twenty somethings in sports, responsibility still dictates. I think it would be irresponsible at my age to have kids; not that there are any prospects in my far left city to help parent them. But life is something you can't predict. I know this, which is why I'm a libertarian conservative. Still, it agitates me to see women like this little shit who lives on the dole with nine kids. Especially when there are others who would love to have children, and are responsible, but can't for various legitimate reasons.

blackandgoldfan said...

KOOK: Very nicely put, my friend!

blackandgoldfan said...

William: So sorry things worked out the way they did. You'd have made a great dad! It saddens me when those who would love to have kids can't and people like Tessa have them without being able to provide for them.

I'm with KOOK. If you're on the dole, you should be considered a ward of the state in regards to having children.

Ran said...

NO. DAMNIT, NO. I am a firm believer that anyone on the public dole should be kicked the Hell off. THAT is the answer.

No-one owns another. The "public dole" is NOT ownership. Pets are owned, and pets may be spayed, neutered and even euthanized by their owners. NB: owners.

God did not give me the right to fascisticaly decide for another whether that person has a "right" to reproduce. Neither does God give the government the power to own that woman.

Sorry Denise... I can not agree less with Spinster. She doesn't like people having kids on the public dole? Fine! Agreed! Let's end the fvcking dole then... but let us NOT play God.

Here's where I part with KOOK: Sir, suppose the Gov't makes your job illegal or kills its market. You are now on the dole, pal. That, or starve. I am SO not with KOOK on this. Even after a YEAR of unemployment, I will NOT go on the UI system or even food-stamps precisely because of the possibility.

Views such as Spinny's above scare the living Hell out of me. God gives every human the right to life - which includes procreation. The very FIRST commandment in the Bible is "Pru ur'vu" - "Go forth and procreate" - and it applies to us humans. It is a Right and a Responsibility.

Yeah, so the gal has more than one problem. But what the Government did to her was an unforgivable, sick evil. The medico ought to face jail: That was an ugly, ugly assault with genuine, permanent harm.

Better we boot her off the dole and as civilized people take her into our community and be there to raise the kids with her.

The Keeper Of Odd Knowledge (KOOK) said...

@Ran thank you for your very well thought out argument. I agree with you completely in principle. I believe you do have the higher moral position. I too would love to end the entitlement culture; I believe one way to begin to reverse it's effects is to limit a persons freedoms when they become a burden on society, this would be a motivation to become a productive member. People who make a lifestyle out of being on entitlements sold THEMSELVES into slavery. It is amoral and unconscionable to bring a child into this world that you cannot provide for.
One final point, I do not think any of us are discussing short term benefits or unemployment relief. I believe qe are talking about a lifestyle or culture of dependency where housing, healthcare, food, utilities, and spending money us subsidized. For heavens sakes man there are programs to provide help with a Car and a cell phone out there. It is insane.

Teresa said...

I think her claim would have some standing if she didn't have any kids because than she really would be affected greatly with emotional distress etc., but she already has children. Although, I do think the fact that the doctor violated her wishes and performed a more extensive surgery needs to be addressed. Maybe a reprimand letter by the hospital on file?

This is the way I look at it. If I went into have one surgery to fix something and my doctor did a different surgery which (not medically necessary) would render me infertile than would that be okay? NO.

As much as I don't like welfare free loaders taking advantage of the system I would much rather the person have the child than have an abortion. The problem is we aren't as community oriented as we were 50-75 years ago.