OK, let me start off by saying that if this article presents all the relevant facts, the woman may have a legal case. Regardless of what I, and any sane person, might think of her, if someone does something to your body without your consent or a legitimate legal requirement (i.e, tracking devices for felons on parole), you have had your rights violated and you should receive just and due compensation. Respecting the rights of people you disagree with isn’t just limited to supporting pornographers, racists, right-to-lifers, and homophobes. It even extends to welfare moms, and since the basis of all human rights is one’s ownership of one’s own physical body, a violation of that most essential piece of property is a violation of your rights, and it is (sigh….) the duty of the State to defend your rights. That is its only valid function.
HOWEVER….
There’s a big difference between acknowledging someone’s rights, and treating them with any kind of respect. The “Reverend” Phelps has a right to protest, as does Operation Rescue, even when their protests cause emotional pain and suffering, because we do not limit speech if it makes someone feel bad. Indeed, if you ban all speech which causes anyone to be upset, you ban all speech of any meaning. NONE THE LESS, I can and will openly despise, mock, jeer, and loathe those people, because doing so is part of my right to free speech, and if they want pity or sympathy when they’re arrested, or, even better, beaten to a pulp (but that would be wrong), they’re barking up the wrong kettle of fish in a barrel, or something. Ms. Savicki may or may not have had her rights violated — the courts will decide based on the facts — but she’s not entitled to the smallest smidgen of pity. By continuing to produce children well beyond her capacity to support them, she exploits the generosity of society as well as condemning the children she allegedly loves to inferior upbringing. She is not a good person. Hostility towards someone who squanders the resources of the pack is hard-wired into our genes. A monkey who tosses away his own bananas doesn’t bug us, but one who throws away the bananas the entire pack has set aside hits us in our hindbrain. Ms. Savicki lives off the generosity of society — contrary to what the leftists might think, there is no right to anything which requires the labor of others to produce. Whatever social support networks are put into place in a society are a gift from the productive members of that society to those who, at least in theory, want to support themselves but cannot, for reasons which, again at least theoretically, are out of their control. Recipients of such aid have, I feel, a moral duty to minimize their drain on the resources set aside, because doing so reduces the effect on the contributors and leaves more for each other person in need. No matter how the lawyers may spin this, people like Ms. Savicki aren’t robbing the Wall Street Fat Cats — they’re robbing the genuinely needy.
Mandating reversible sterilization for welfare recipients and capping benefits no matter how many kids you have is logical and moral. Not surprisingly, the right wing “right to life” folks oppose the former and leftists oppose the latter, so don’t expect it any time soon.