Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Lawsuit Enters Senate Campaign
The Daily Oklahoman ^ | 09-17-2004 | Carmel Perez Snyder

Posted on 09/17/2004 9:42:20 AM PDT by Osage Orange

Lawsuit enters Senate campaign

By Carmel Perez Snyder

Capitol Bureau

Angela Plummer admitted Thursday that Republican senate candidate Dr. Tom Coburn saved her life in 1990, but she stands by her allegations that he sterilized her without her consent.

Plummer, whose 13-year-old medical negligence lawsuit against Coburn has become an issue in the campaign, said she is glad her experience with him is getting a public airing.

"He told me when I went in for my checkup," she said. "He took me in a room by myself and said, 'By the way, I tied your tubes but don't tell anybody because I'll get in trouble.' I was just kind of in shock. It changed my life forever."

Coburn said reports about the old lawsuit are nothing more than a political attack launched by his Democratic opponent U.S. Rep. Brad Carson, D-Claremore.

"This is about the politics of personal destruction," Coburn said. "Angela told me at the time that she was happy it was done. This is coming from Carson's campaign, along with the whisper campaign that I'm an abortionist."

The lawsuit by Plummer, then 20, alleged that Coburn, an obstetrician, sterilized her without her consent. It was dismissed in trial court, reinstated on appeal and then dismissed again when she failed to pursue it.

At a news conference Thursday, Plummer further explained her feelings about the operation Coburn performed.

"Yes, he did save my life," she said. "I will give him credit for that, and I am very grateful for that, but cutting and burning my healthy fallopian tube did not save my life.

"I am not up here to try and smear him. I am up here because I wanted to have more children, and he took that away from me."

Coburn has said he received oral consent for the sterilization just before the procedure.

His campaign released a statement Thursday from Sherri Yaussey, a registered nurse who was present when Plummer, then Angela Rosson, received medical care in October 1990.

"It was determined that she had a ruptured pregnancy and needed surgery to stop the hemorrhaging," Yaussey said. "I specifically remember the patient wanted her tubes tied. She begged Dr. Coburn to tie her tubes.

"In our urgency to get her to surgery, a written consent for the tubal ligation was not signed but that did not change the fact that the patient wanted to have her tubes tied. After surgery, I had occasion to visit the patient in her room. She was sitting up in bed and pale. Her statement to me was one of relief that she was glad that she wouldn't be able to have any more children."

Yaussey also gave a deposition at the time of the original court case.

Plummer's case was initially dismissed for a violation of the statute of limitations. She said that after the appeals court reinstated the case, she had difficulty finding a new attorney and later was notified by mail that the case had been dismissed because she wasn't present on her court date.

Plummer said she was not offered a settlement in the case but wants to make sure what happened to her doesn't happen to other women.

"I want it stopped. He needs to realize he's not God.

"He changed my life forever. He violated me. That's the same as being raped. He took part of my womanhood."

Coburn said that his actions were appropriate.

"If the same thing happened today under the same circumstances, I'd do it exactly the same way," he said.

Contributing: The Associated Press


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; Government; Politics/Elections; US: Oklahoma
KEYWORDS: carson; clinton; coburn; dnc; kennedy; slime; smear
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-36 last
To: wideawake
How is limiting family size not a higher end?

Limiting family size is only necessary when a new member of the family would prevent the existing family from obtaining necessary means of survival.

So survival is the only "higher end"?

21 posted on 09/17/2004 11:40:07 AM PDT by Know your rights (The modern enlightened liberal doesn't care what you believe as long as you don't really believe it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Know your rights
So survival is the only "higher end"?

Nothing I said would support such a view.

22 posted on 09/17/2004 11:49:07 AM PDT by wideawake (God bless our brave soldiers and their Commander in Chief)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: wideawake
Many times a womans tubes are scarred, and that is what causes a tubal pregnancy (the fertilized egg is trapped in the scar tissue unable to travel to the uterus to implant). In this case is was probably assumed if one tube was scared the other one may be to.

If she became pregnant again she has an increased risk of another tubal pregnancy, this is a life threatening condition. So although the tubal ligation was "elective" it was also "preventative". I am sure they did not have time to do a dye test to see if the other tube was in fact blocked (the tubal pregnancy necessitated an immediate operation), and the woman was given the option of having the tubal ligation done at the same time, so she would not have to undergo another surgery at a later date.

This is a common practice, although I agree a written consent should have been attempted.

23 posted on 09/17/2004 12:02:12 PM PDT by codercpc
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: wideawake
Are survival (of oneself or another) and those ends ordered toward survival the only "higher ends"?
24 posted on 09/17/2004 12:03:04 PM PDT by Know your rights (The modern enlightened liberal doesn't care what you believe as long as you don't really believe it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Bigmack55
This "lady's" lawsuit was dismissed the first time she brought the action and then she couldn't find a lawyer who would take her case.

Couldn't find a lawyer to take her case? That's one for Robert L. Ripley.

Michael M. Bates: My Side of the Swamp

25 posted on 09/17/2004 12:04:18 PM PDT by Mike Bates (Buy and read "Right Angles and Other Obstinate Truths." Well, buy it anyway, OK?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Know your rights
Are survival (of oneself or another) and those ends ordered toward survival the only "higher ends"?

They are the ends of the generative faculty. The generative faculty of the individual is ordered to the good of the individual who can choose to exercise or not exercise that faculty.

26 posted on 09/17/2004 1:03:59 PM PDT by wideawake (God bless our brave soldiers and their Commander in Chief)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: wideawake
How is limiting family size not a higher end?

Limiting family size is only necessary when a new member of the family would prevent the existing family from obtaining necessary means of survival.

Are survival (of oneself or another) and those ends ordered toward survival the only "higher ends"?

They are the ends of the generative faculty.

You miss my point. You stated that limiting family size is not a "higher end" unless necessary for the existing family's survival, which seems to imply that survival (of oneself or another) and those ends ordered toward survival are the only "higher ends." (If you didn't mean to imply that, then how was your 'survival' statement responsive to my question, " How is limiting family size not a higher end?")

27 posted on 09/17/2004 1:14:46 PM PDT by Know your rights (The modern enlightened liberal doesn't care what you believe as long as you don't really believe it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Know your rights
You stated that limiting family size is not a "higher end" unless necessary for the existing family's survival, which seems to imply that survival (of oneself or another) and those ends ordered toward survival are the only "higher ends."

I meant that purely within the frame of the generative faculty, it does not make sense to procreate a person whose existence will destroy the generative faculty itself and all the fruits of its past procreation.

Clearly the generative faculty must first exist before it achieves its end - the survival of the procreator precedes procreation. Survival is "higher" in that sense.

28 posted on 09/17/2004 1:19:26 PM PDT by wideawake (God bless our brave soldiers and their Commander in Chief)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: wideawake
So the moderate realist position is that the destruction of a faculty's ability to achieve its naturally ordered end is violative of that faculty and constitutes a mutilation of the person, unless that destruction is ordered to an end that is higher within the frame of that faculty?
29 posted on 09/17/2004 1:28:43 PM PDT by Know your rights (The modern enlightened liberal doesn't care what you believe as long as you don't really believe it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Know your rights
If we presume that the end of the generative faculty is procreation, the individual in question may be placed in a situation (i.e. uterine cancer) in which the destruction of that faculty may be necessary to save their life.

If this is the case, their death would not only result in the destruction of their generative faculty, it would result also in the destruction of their ability to participate in any ancillary way to the end of procreation.

A person deprived of their generative faculty by extreme necessity is still able to raise the other children they have or to assist others in the care and nurturing of children.

It is better to contribute to the end in a limited way rather than to cease all contribution.

30 posted on 09/17/2004 2:15:56 PM PDT by wideawake (God bless our brave soldiers and their Commander in Chief)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: wideawake
Is that a "yes" or a "no"?
31 posted on 09/17/2004 2:22:07 PM PDT by Know your rights (The modern enlightened liberal doesn't care what you believe as long as you don't really believe it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Know your rights

It's a yes.


32 posted on 09/17/2004 2:25:44 PM PDT by wideawake (God bless our brave soldiers and their Commander in Chief)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: wideawake
Got it. I can't see the logical necessity for the italicized constraint, nor can I support the conclusion that we must procreate until we're reduced to subsistence living.
33 posted on 09/17/2004 2:28:53 PM PDT by Know your rights (The modern enlightened liberal doesn't care what you believe as long as you don't really believe it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Know your rights
Got it. I can't see the logical necessity for the italicized constraint,

One can choose to use or not use the faculty. There is no need to destroy one's faculty unless their is a supervening necessity. If there is no supervening, such drastic measures are merely a matter of whim.

nor can I support the conclusion that we must procreate until we're reduced to subsistence living.

This conclusion only obtains if one accepts Malthusianism as a realistic construct.

34 posted on 09/17/2004 2:35:24 PM PDT by wideawake (God bless our brave soldiers and their Commander in Chief)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: wideawake
There is no need to destroy one's faculty unless their is a supervening necessity. If there is no supervening, such drastic measures are merely a matter of whim.

Yes, and the italized text places on the definition of "supervening necessity" a constraint for which I see no logical necessity.

nor can I support the conclusion that we must procreate until we're reduced to subsistence living.

This conclusion only obtains if one accepts Malthusianism as a realistic construct.

I meant "we" the family, not "we" the race. You yourself acknowledged that there might be cases where a new family member would push the existing family below subsistence.

35 posted on 09/17/2004 2:40:59 PM PDT by Know your rights (The modern enlightened liberal doesn't care what you believe as long as you don't really believe it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Osage Orange

Those 'Rats will stop at nothing to win. Hopefully, the shock value will subside by October and Coburn will regain the lead.


36 posted on 09/17/2004 4:38:27 PM PDT by Clintonfatigued
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-36 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson