There has been much uproar in MA about a woman named Tessa Savicki who is suing Baystate Medical Center, 3 doctors, and 2 nurses for allegedly permanently sterilizing her against her will after the birth of her 9th son in 2006. In the suit, she claims that she had signed a consent form for an IUD, but instead awoke to find out she had undergone a sterilization process called a tubal ligation.
In this linked Boston Herald article, journalist Jessica Flagen writes:
This is the second time Savicki has sued over reproductive issues. In 2001, she reached a settlement with CVS and a spermicide company after she became pregnant with her now 12-year-old daughter after claiming she bought and used an expired spermicide, according to federal court documents.
Savicki has nine children from several men, is unemployed and relies on public assistance for two of the four children who live with her. She receives supplemental security income, or SSI, for a disability, non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, she said. Her mother has custody of three of her children.
Despite the fact that I would not have an abortion under any circumstance, as a woman I support reproductive choice. Choice, of course, being the operative word. The allegation of Ms. Savicki's right to choose being taken away raises serious concerns about the state of human rights in this country. Our bodies are our own; they are not our family's, our community's, our country's, and especially not our politicians to politicize for career gain. Our bodies and what we do we it are personal issues and nobody else's business.
That being said, I also understand some concerns about Ms. Savicki's clear inability to provide a stable, healthy environment for her children. While I believe that the welfare system helps those who deservedly need it, I also believe that because the system is inherently flawed, it has been abused to the benefit of a few bad apples. Being in the welfare system has become an inheritance of sorts for some, wherein generations of the same family live off of it. This cyclical welfare dependency burdens an already floundering system, and encourages a sense of entitlement over self-reliance and accountability. The welfare system can only be effective when enacted short-term, but detrimental in the long run. The system must be changed so that people such as Ms. Savicki do not go around receiving benefits, unchecked. More stringent guidelines and limitations, as well as periodic and exhaustive reviews, must be implemented. In so doing, more jobs would be created for the understaffed and overworked social workers. As a taxpayer, I would much rather see my money go to funding more jobs to weed out welfare system abusers than go to the aforementioned welfare benefits abusers.
On another issue, I wonder about the fathers of Ms. Savicki's children. Save for her current fiancé who she claims has been helping to support her, there is no mention of Ms. Savicki's former boyfriends. What role, if any, do they play in their children's lives? From the articles, it could be inferred that these sperm donors, like Ms. Savicki, choose not to be accountable for their choices and decisions in life. If they are not paying alimony, it is unfair for the responsible members of society to take up their slack. Of course the children are innocent and should not be penalized for the sins of their parents; what I am saying is that these men and Ms. Savicki ought to find gainful employment and contribute to the financial and mental well-being of their children. Yes, the unemployment rate is high given the economic crisis, but minimum wage jobs do exist. There is no shame in working the night shift at CVS or the nearby 24 hour McDonald's. So I wonder if it is an issue of not wanting to be employed and instead choosing to live off of the system because they feel like they are entitled to it. Welfare is a form of aid and not a gift; it is intended as a crutch to help people rise from their disadvantaged circumstances and better themselves.
At the end of the day, I view Tessa Savicki's case as more than your average controversy. Her
story is about an intersection of violations on different levels: the possible violation of a woman's body and her right to choose, a man's disregard for his responsibility to his children at the cost of taxpayers' money, and the abuse of an already weak welfare system. A change must be enacted in the system itself to dissuade system abusers and would-be abusers.
At the end of the day, I view Tessa Savicki's case as more than your average controversy. Her
story is about an intersection of violations on different levels: the possible violation of a woman's body and her right to choose, a man's disregard for his responsibility to his children at the cost of taxpayers' money, and the abuse of an already weak welfare system. A change must be enacted in the system itself to dissuade system abusers and would-be abusers.
