Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It's my understanding as long as their mother is their legal guardian, the children would be on state aid regardless of who is taking care of them. Kind of like foster care.
No the children should have been sent to families who wouldn't end up raising another generation of welfare whelps.
And why is someone who is essentially living on taxpayer funds supposed to just have one after another after another? I said she may well have a case. I don't know but there is a history of a prior lawsuit so who knows? The judge may be willing to hear the case, he may not.
I don't look well on someone who knows how to play the system and trust me she does.
20YrsinBranson has some self-respect.
Ahhhh, now you're advocating for the GOVERNMENT to take children away from their mother just because she is "poor" and has had too many children according to some "government rule"????...(Who establishes that number, you?)....I don't think that qualifies for removing children from their parents in this country unless there is some kind abuse.
Yes, there is a history of ONE prior lawsuit where she TRIED to use birth control, but apparently the drug store sold her spermicide which was EXPIRED.
Hey, the "judge" has not thrown this case out, and it was filed Dec. 15th. You don't know what you're talking about with "the judge may hear this case, he may not." Btw, did anyone ever tell you that there are women judges out there these days? Do you know who the judge is in this case? Of course you don't.
Are you aware that what you are advocating regarding childbirth in this country is similar to what is done in China? You like the way people live in China? You want to restrict EVERY COUPLE in this country to, say, two children?
The woman receives public assistance for TWO of her 9 children. TWO. Certainly you don't really think that some guy in a long ago "committed relationship" is going to pay child support, do you? The courts have a hard enough time collecting child support from LEGAL biological fathers who divorce the mothers.
It is a shame that she expects to "pull on the heartstrings" of society for her situation, however, I would suggest that self-defense is rather natural when you're being attacked. Even if she does not have the self-awareness to understand that NOBODY is going to understand her situation or care what happened to her, she's going to instinctively try to defend herself.
I'm surprised to see you say that you would personally have assisted in the FORCED sterilization of a woman in this country. What happened to individual freedoms and individual rights? Would you seriously advocate for the forced sterilization of ANY WOMAN in this country?
Oh boy, Austin, we could go 'round on this one!
I don't think any woman has the right to reproduce irresponsibly. If she can't properly care for children (basic shelter, food, clothing, medical care), she shouldn't have them. Period. If I had my way, birth control of some sort would be mandatory for anyone who is on welfare.
I don't think any woman has the right to reproduce irresponsibly. If she can't properly care for children (basic shelter, food, clothing, medical care), she shouldn't have them. Period. If I had my way, birth control of some sort would be mandatory for anyone who is on welfare.
On yet another topic, we will have to agree to disagree. I totally disagree with any requirement for birth control for anyone on welfare. Catholics may be on welfare from time to time.
It's my understanding as long as their mother is their legal guardian, the children would be on state aid regardless of who is taking care of them. Kind of like foster care.
You want to explain jury nullification for everybody?
Sure. It's a bit different in a civil case like this one than a criminal trial, but if jurors feel that the "legally mandated" outcome in a case is unjust, they can go with their hearts instead, and vote for what they feel is most just.
Which is to say, if this case survives motions to dismiss and a motion for summary judgment, and is referred to the "trier of fact" (the jury), the jurors can choose to find the doctors not liable, regardless of the facts presented. That is up to the jurors. That's why we have juries at all.
it is LOST. That is MY explanation, anyway. All it would take is a typo while scanning the form, and it would be lost.
Okay. Let's say she signed a consent form. And let's say it is lost. In court the question is, who is telling the truth? Did she not sign a form? Or did she sign a form and the hospital lost it? If the hospital/doctors are telling the truth and she did sign a form, then they have to figure out a way to PROVE to a jury that there was indeed a signed consent form even though they lost it and cannot produce it.
They have to try to PROVE that there was a signed consent form within the rules of court. It's kinda complicated actually.
Okay. Let me just say this. It's my opinion that "court" is not about ultimate truth. It's about what you can PROVE within the rules of evidence. I think it's kind of a paradox......it's not about truth, but the truth can be found. Also, besides questions of fact, there are questions of law. It's just not as easy as it looks on television.
Let me ask you something. When you have an ORIGINAL signed consent form, and you scan it into a computer, what do you do with the ORIGINAL? Why is the ORIGINAL lost if you scan it into a computer? Are there not any hard copy files anywhere in hospitals and doctors's offices these days? I don't understand.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I totally disagree with any requirement for birth control for anyone on welfare. Catholics may be on welfare from time to time. 
