Committed to Subsidized Motherhood

From Boston, we have the story of the lady who (as I understand matters) asked for a reversible birth control procedure while in the hospital after giving birth. The procedure she had performed is not generally considered reversible. She is upset and wants satisfaction. A simple reading would seem to say that she has good basis for her complaint and should be given justice.

However, the following piece of the story struck me the most:

Savicki said she’s had eight of her nine children while in committed relationships and hoped for one more child with Tirado.

“It’s not like I’m jumping from guy to guy to guy to get pregnant,” she said. “I’m trying to make a healthy home for my children.”

The article did not say, but it would seem as though her “committed relationships” were at least three, but likely more, starting when she was a teenager (perhaps even as young as 14). Call me old-fashioned, but no relationship outside of marriage is a proper basis for having children.

Please realize that this lack of understanding on her part in no way justifies sterilization. I am not calling for sterilization of her or anyone else who insists on having children without benefit of marriage–just in case that point is not immediately clear.

Nonetheless, her actions appear remarkably juvenile and yes, selfish, when one considers that she:

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.

This situation is so messed up that one hardly knows where to begin. May the matter with the hospital be worked out on the facts of the issue and may the lady come to know that life is not simply about doing whatever one wishes–regardless of the consequences or cost to others.