I didn't see that part. WTF??? Not just the bringing it in like she's bringing her own food to the movie, but I wouldn't think you'd want to put an IUD in immediately after delivery. I know she had a C section, but still, shouldn't your uterus have some time to get back to normal?

Actually, after delivery is an ideal time to have an IUD inserted, since the cervix is flexible and open, so there is little need for extra dilation. IUD's are most easily inserted in women who have had a child, for the same reasons. Although they can be inserted in women who have not yet had a child, it can just be more painful/difficult...in these instances, it's best done during/right after the menstrual cycle.

;) Ask me how I know. hehehe, I love the NHS.

For the GC Legal Eagles:

Is it odd that she waited 4 years to sue the Hospital?

This happened in December 2006.

It's 3 years.

Also, can somebody explain what so called constitutional right was violated?

I was told you had to wait until your 6-week check up, since during that time, your uterus is expelling all the extra stuff left over from the pregnancy?

Dunno about that end of it, I had mine as a non-baby haver. I kind of blocked that part of the lecture out. The guidelines are/were different in Britain as well. It's pretty difficult for a woman my age without children to get an IUD in the states...most OB/GYNs are pretty hesitant about it. Some of my friends have had their drs refuse to do it, and had to go to PP to get it done. My own OB/GYN in the states stood their questioning me on it for a good half hour. What part of "I don't want to take pills and I don't want children" isn't clear?

Her RIGHT to have more kids than she can support!

(hehehehe)

Not really ODD per se. Sometimes there are other factors going on such as attempts at settlement that are taking place before the actual suit is filed. I'm not saying that is what happened here though.

I wonder how the SOL and SOR are affected by waiting so long.

So did the doctors do it on purpose or was it negligence?

If it is the former, then yeah, they deliberately violated her rights.

Yeah, that's what I was thinking too but couldn't think of a way to put it that wouldn't freak the men out. :) I'd think they'd want you to have at least one period before putting it in.

Again, YUCK!!!!!! at the whole concept.

for people who decide to breastfeed, it can be over a year before you have your first period after childbirth...

Here's my thing. The article states this...

"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. Two of her children are no longer minors."

But then she goes on to state this...

"“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."

Pardon me while I scratch my head.

How do you take care of your kids when you are unemployed, receiving social security, government assistance and mom has custody of 3 of them?:confused:

This woman is a frickin' moron. She is just as bad as octomom! :mad:

She also seems quite sue happy, since she sued once before she got pregnant (claimed that she was sold expired spermicide :rolleyes:)

I don't feel sorry for her whatsoever.

I also feel that since the doctors can't tell "their side" of the story, that we aren't getting the "whole" story. For all we know she could have signed something agreeing to a tubal ligation and is now pissed because she can't have baby number 10 (that too would end up on government assistance).

This is bullshit. So what are we doing now, telling people how many kids they can have? Ancient Chinese Secret horse shit.

ASUADPi hit the nail on the head. She is on public assistance, but then she claims she is "taking care of her kids." I hate when people say that. Why do people say, "My kids are always dressed in name brand clothes, I take care of my kids." I hear people talk all the time about how they provide for their children because their kids are the best-dressed or have the nicest toys. Taking care of your kids does not mean sitting them in front of a television set, eating government cheese and sipping on Mountain Dew.

This b**** needs to get a job and get a clue. Personally, I think we should sterilize anyone who LIVES on the system for a certain period of time. If you keep having children and you constantly get them taken away from you or you are living on the sytem their entire lives, you need to be sterilized. As a former Caseworker, I can say that if you lose your parental rights to any of your children, you should be sterilized. I'm gonna' get flamed for this, but in times like this, I say screw constitutional rights. Some people are too stupid to make decisions for themselves. Wrong! It is NOT just her body. It is the lives of her children that she brought into the world with little stability.

Wow, this story really got me mad!:mad:

That is not the least bit relevant to this story. I don't think people should have babies and not take care of them, but this isn't really about that. Allegedly this woman elected to have one procedure and they performed a different one. Whether you like her lifestyle or not, if this is true, then it is basic medical malpractice and you can't have people deciding the merit of her case based on whether they agree with her having so many kids.

*Claps*

Again I ask, what constitutional rights have been violated? Yes I do do agree human rights have been violated, but what does this mess have to do with the Constitution?