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

Skip to comments.

Mother of Nine Sues Massachusetts Hospital After Unauthorized Sterilization
www.abcnews.com ^ | Jan. 5, 2010 | SARAH NETTER

Posted on 01/05/2010 3:57:52 PM PST by Millicent_Hornswaggle

A Massachusetts mother with nine children who had asked a hospital for post-delivery birth control was sterilized instead without her consent, according to a lawsuit against the Springfield hospital and several doctors and nurses.

Tessa Savicki, 35, claimed that doctors at Baystate Medical Center had agreed to insert an intrauterine device, or IUD, that she brought to the operating room, but instead performed a tubal ligation that effectively ended her chances of having more children.

"They've done something. They cannot correct this," she told ABCNews.com. "You think you're safe at the hospital. You're not."

Savicki's attorney, Dr. Max Borten of Waltham, Mass., a licensed obstetrician-gynecologist who practiced for 30 years, said his client was devastated when she found out about the tubal ligation shortly after a December 2006 Cesarean section.

Awake with only spinal anesthesia, Saviciki "realized that when she was still on the table," he said.

Savicki's children range in age from 3 to 21 and she is a grandmother of one with another grandchild on the way. She had her first child, a boy, at age 13 after being raped, she told ABC News.

Getting back on her feet after a rough start -- two of her children are on welfare and she is unemployed -- Savicki said she's working toward her GED.

Her three youngest children are with her fiance, Angel Tirado, who she said was hoping for one more baby. Their youngest, Manuel, was recently diagnosed with autism.

"He was talking about trying for another boy," she said.

She understands that she would not be able to adopt, given her financial situation.

(Excerpt) Read more at abcnews.go.com ...


TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; Government; US: Massachusetts
KEYWORDS: prolife; sterilization; welfare
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100101-110 next last
To: Little Pig

The hospital claims she asked to be sterilized.


81 posted on 01/05/2010 5:53:48 PM PST by ladyjane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies]

To: Millicent_Hornswaggle

While I don’t agree with her irresponsiblity I also hate the fact that someone did this to her. This is not communist China and the government has no buisness telling people how many kids they can have.

IMHO it would be better to tell them that $X is the maximum amount of money the state gives and figure what a family of 4 would get, that alone would stop a lot of this unhindered reproduction.


82 posted on 01/05/2010 6:13:46 PM PST by chris_bdba
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DLfromthedesert

“Welfare” is run by local/state governments, who decide the eligibility requirements. Any money that comes from the Federal government comes with a work requirement. The things that you say you want were adopted in 1996, when “welfare as we knew it” was changed,

For instance, take this case. It is heinous but rare - its very rarity is why it is making the news. TAFDC, which is the Massachusetts “welfare” system, is partially funded by US benefits, the rest by the contributions of MA taxpayers, and its eligibility requirements are decided by the Commonwealth. Any US benefits come with a five-year lifetime limit and work requirements - as directed by the law passed in 1996. There are exceptions of health problems, and for the elderly.

A little bit of googling uncovers this information:
Info on the Massachusetts “welfare” system - Transitional Aid to Families with Dependent Children: how much is spent, where the funding comes from, how many children are living with parents, grandparents, in foster homes, etc.
http://www.childrensdefense.org/child-research-data-publications/data/state-data-repository/cwf/child-welfare-financing-fact-sheet-massachusetts-2006.pdf

The Federal program that gives money for “welfare” is called TANF, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families
http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/ofa/
Here’s a chart of the moeny that was spent on this program in 2008, and how it was allocated to the individual states:
http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/ofs/data/2008/tableA_summary_2008.html.

The total amount was almost 6 billion for all states - Massachusetts receiving ^9 million, less than states such as Georgia, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Tennessee and Missouri.

The entire federal budget for 2008 was $2,979 Billion - which does not include $188 billion for GWOT.

A history of the welfare system in the US - a good one, written by a Conservative
http://morganwrites.wordpress.com/2008/03/08/welfare-system-in-the-united-states-part-2/


83 posted on 01/05/2010 6:33:33 PM PST by worst-case scenario (Striving to reach the light)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]

To: worst-case scenario
I raised 5 without welfare, this woman is nuts...As Bill Cosby once said, We have 5 children because we don't want 6!

I came to the conclusion that if there is such a thing as reincarnation, I'm coming back sterile...

Love my kids, all in their 40-50s. Raising a large family once is enough...

84 posted on 01/05/2010 7:20:23 PM PST by goat granny
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Morgana

“This does disturb me, if it happened to her it could happen to any other woman.”

##########
No, this is a set-up. This woman is using the system and her nine kids to “find” a lawsuit. She’s not new to suing:

“The suit against Baystate is not the first reproductive claim Savicki has filed. In 2001, Borten confirmed, Savicki won a settlement against CVS and a spermicide company after she became pregnant using expired spermicide.”

She sued because she became pregnant in the above case. Now she’s suing because she can’t become pregnant.

The point of law in this is the 30-day consent for surgical sterilization. I’ve been through this scam many times with Medicaid patients.

The consent for surgical sterilization must be signed within 30 days of surgery and if the patient calls to cancel/delay the surgery, and the R.N. or M.D. doesn’t check the date, they are held accountable.

It’s a common scam and she is a pro.


85 posted on 01/05/2010 7:30:15 PM PST by JouleZ (You are the company you keep.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: ladyjane

But they can’t produce a consent form. This leads me to believe the woman.


86 posted on 01/05/2010 7:30:26 PM PST by Politicalmom (Charity is no part of the legislative duty of the government. -- James Madison)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 81 | View Replies]

*


87 posted on 01/05/2010 7:43:31 PM PST by TornadoAlley3 (Obama is everything Oklahoma is not.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Spike Knotts
put a limit on their human right to “unhindered” human reproduction until they were of the means to support themselves and their little gifts to society.

Simple way around it... Norplant while they're on welfare. When they're off of it, the Norplant implants can come out, if the woman decides that's what she wants. However, permanent surgical sterilization without permission reeks of eugenics.

Mark

88 posted on 01/05/2010 7:48:28 PM PST by MarkL (Do I really look like a guy with a plan?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: MarkL

That’s exactly what I’ve been advocating, but the liberals in this thread believe everything is for the “childrenz.”


89 posted on 01/05/2010 7:50:53 PM PST by randomhero97 ("First you want to kill me, now you want to kiss me. Blow!" - Ash)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 88 | View Replies]

To: goat granny

I hear ya! From a large Catholic family myself - as the oldest kid, I had to ride herd on the younger 5. Talk about work!

But hey - we did it all on fried bologna and macaroni, canned peas and fish sticks, and a lot of love. We all grew up to be honest and hard-working, too.

However when it came time for my own family, it just wasn’t possible to have more than the one we have, for health reasons.

It may have been a bit more luxurious for our one, but I bet it wasn’t any happier. I wouldn’t give up my siblings for the ruling the world.


90 posted on 01/05/2010 7:53:00 PM PST by worst-case scenario (Striving to reach the light)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 84 | View Replies]

Comment #91 Removed by Moderator

Comment #92 Removed by Moderator

To: worst-case scenario
I have been fortunate as all my kids are very close. With 13 grandchildren, we do hold group birthdays for those born within a 2 month period reguardless of age, and nieces and nephews are out of the running for birthday presents from aunt and uncles at 18. But they still show up at the parties and enjoy watch the other grandkids blow out candles..

One of the parties we had 4 and just kept relighting the candles and singing happy birthday to the next in line .....everyone was laughing..

It sounds silly but I have a feeling that all the grandkids will remember the group birthday parties...

Of course grandma gives to all reguardless of age....

93 posted on 01/05/2010 8:49:52 PM PST by goat granny
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 90 | View Replies]

To: Morgana
He doesn't have a point, just wanton cruelty.

Others have constructively made the point that the welfare household loop is a bad thing.

94 posted on 01/05/2010 8:50:03 PM PST by Dr. North
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 92 | View Replies]

To: Morgana
A bad way of saying it?!

Spike Knotts I care as much about her little brood of monsters as I do about the children who died screaming in Dresden

That's not a bad way of saying it. These children didn't ask for their situation.

95 posted on 01/05/2010 9:15:06 PM PST by DJ MacWoW (Make yourselves sheep and the wolves will eat you. Ben Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 92 | View Replies]

To: Morgana

“.....if the hospital can produce the paperwork, stating that she authorized to be sterilized, are they off the hook?”

########

No. They violated a state law by using her “out-dated” consent to sterilize her. Even if the consent was one hour outdated after she delivered, the consent is not valid.

She had a C-Section and in the hustle of that the time expired on her sterilization consent. She’s using that against the hospital. She’s a player. She’s not the first. Beware, taxpayers!


96 posted on 01/05/2010 9:23:05 PM PST by JouleZ (You are the company you keep.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 91 | View Replies]

To: driftdiver

It is not her fault we turned the government into Uncle Sucker. If welfare was not available to her, she would stop having kids or they would be taken away from her and adopted out if she was unable to care for them.

Americans warped the constitutional role of government and that has warped our society to accomodate this kind of immoral abuse and stupidity.


97 posted on 01/05/2010 9:32:30 PM PST by SaraJohnson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Millicent_Hornswaggle

I think the problem here is that the role of government has been morphed from being a very limited entity, the intended glue to hold the Union together to national problem solver and the effect this role shift has on society. The fight against this kind of encroachment is nothing new. Even Thomas Jefferson and James Madison fought it because they knew it leads straight down the road to enslavement and tyranny when we no longer take care of ourselves, but look to the government for the answer to every ill.

The position I take on this is similar to the one I took on TARP and the subsequent whining about how the CEO of BofA was treated. When one participates in socialism, one has to take the ‘good’ with the bad of it. This woman did have a choice in the matter and chose to live off public assistance, thus opening the door to the possibility of this kind of thing happening to her. If it did indeed happened to her, it was probably a citizen who dislikes the idea of what she was doing and took it upon themselves to solve it, which of course is unlawful, but I can hardly blame them.

But here is an example of exactly what happens when our Constitution becomes rather meaningless to the government, it also becomes meaningless to the public because there is no way that the ideas and expectations of individualism and self-determination embodied in that document can coexist with socialism. They are entirely different societal goals that are diametrically opposed to each other.

And really, it is up to us as a nation to make a choice regarding which road we want to follow because in the end we really cannot end up having our cake and eating it too.


98 posted on 01/06/2010 4:57:45 AM PST by dajeeps
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Politicalmom

See post #85.


99 posted on 01/06/2010 5:52:58 AM PST by ladyjane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 86 | View Replies]

To: SaraJohnson

‘It is not her fault we turned the government into Uncle Sucker”

Each of us is part of the problem or part of the solution. I choose not to do things because I don’t have the money rather than steal it from others.

She decided her wishes were more important than anyone else. Instead of blaming the ‘govt’ for our decisions its far better to teach personal responsibility and condemn the leaches in our society.


100 posted on 01/06/2010 6:06:42 AM PST by driftdiver (I could eat it raw, but why do that when I have a fire.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 97 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100101-110 next 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