Big Fat Facts Big Fat Index

Adoption Rights Dad Chooses Free WLS

You remember Gary Stocklaufer, right? Just a short while ago we were talking about the heartbreaking story of how a fickle judge took his adopted kid away from him because of his size. And while we were getting the word out and contributing to his legal fund, SilverSeraphim found an article noting that a gastric bypass clinic in Texas offered Stocklaufer free gastric bypass surgery. Free.

And, he's taking them up on it.

Stocklaufer hopes that the procedure will actually help him get his son back, though there is no guarantee.

I can't pretend to understand his position, or empathize with it. I can imagine that a parent would consider anything in order to get his or her son back. While Stocklaufer pursues the discrimination appeal against the state, he'll have WLS to have all his bases covered.

My heart still goes out to him, it really does. But this also makes me sick to my stomach.

Quick Fat Media Hits | The Revolution Will Not Be Organized?

amanda8501's picture
amanda8501
August 15th, 2007 | Link | Wow, just wow. So basically

Wow, just wow. So basically you must give yourself health problems so that our world will believe that you are a fit parent. I don't know about you but something seems wrong about that.

BabySeal August 16th, 2007 | Link | "My heart still goes out to

"My heart still goes out to him, it really does. But this also makes me sick to my stomach"

My feelings exactly.

rosenleaf August 16th, 2007 | Link | It's horrific to me that he

It's horrific to me that he should have to submit to a surgery that could well kill him for maybe five years of "acceptable" weight. Still, as a parent, I can tell you that in his situation, I'd be on my way to Texas. I would still fight for the cause, but I wouldn't let my kid languish in foster care on principle.

I just have to keep telling myself that this is still more craziness that may eventually cause society at large to take notice at just how f*ed up we are on the subject of fat.

rachelr's picture
rachelr
August 16th, 2007 | Link | This is truly heartbreaking.

This is truly heartbreaking. If judges are arbitrarily deciding the litmus of parenthood based on a person's potential to develop serious illness (which is, I assume, at the basis of the judge's decision), what's next? Gattaca? Does he forbid smokers also from adopting, or how about women who regularly visit tanning beds? If your mother had breast cancer, are you too now unfit to be a parent?

I just hope the next we hear of Stocklaufer isn't one in which he becomes one of those scary statistics rarely mentioned in the news - patients who die from WLS sugrery complications.

richie79's picture
richie79
August 16th, 2007 | Link | On an already bad day I

On an already bad day I think this story has depressed me to my very core. I too have real difficulty in condemning Mr Stocklaufer's decision. I mean they're going to deprive him of his son for crying out loud. But I do know that increasingly I find myself loathing this joke of a society and everything it stands for, and the men of power that force people into desperate actions such as this in order to enjoy what the 'elite' take for granted.

Rachelr mentions Gattaca - probably my favourite movie and one which always springs to mind when I hear of yet another innocent person being denied their human rights because of their 'potential morbidity'. With the current hardening of attitudes toward bigger people and a general obsession with healthy living as a measure of personal responsibility we are beginning to see many of the themes contained within this film, which like all the best sci-fi is rooted in the fears of the present, becoming frightening reality.

And this in a week where Social Services over here have once again utterly failed, repeatedly, in their remit to protect children from genuine danger.

I had kind of hoped that his case (and a number of similar ones) might have been the mobilising call that fat people everywhere needed to see through the veil of media-inflicted self-hatred and realise that what is being done to us is not right and not fair. Now I feel more defeated than ever. When are we going to have our Stonewall i wonder - that one defining, outrageous event that makes people sit up and say 'enough is enough'?

jmars August 16th, 2007 | Link | I think it's ridiculous that

I think it's ridiculous that this man is being forced to choose between having potentially life-threatening and certainly life-altering surgery or adopting a child who he's raised more or less since birth.

What makes this even crazier to me is that the child's own mother wants this man and his wife to raise the child. I don't understand what business it is of the state whether he is a "fit parent" or not. I'm the guardian of my sister's kids. If, God forbid, something should happen to my sister and BIL, will the state of NJ say that I can't have custody of them because I'm fat -- even though that's what their parents wanted? Couldn't his cousin have just relinquished custody to him directly? Maybe there's a money issue (by treating the cousin's kid as a foster child, he'd get payments from the state and maybe those payments would continue after an adoption), but is the money that he'll get to help raise the child going to be worth it? How will the costs of his post-surgical care be paid?

I suspect that, at least here in the US, the privacy argument -- that it's none of the state's business if my cousin wants me to raise her child no matter how much I weigh and that how much I weigh is none of my employer's damn business, either -- will start to gain traction as people come to realize that today it may be the fatties who are being attacked ... but tomorrow, it could be me.

Viola's picture
Viola
August 16th, 2007 | Link | I have mixed emotions about

I have mixed emotions about this. The man weighs 500 lbs, and I have no doubt that he wishes he didn't. Maybe in the back of his mind he sees this offer of free surgery as a benefit that has fallen into his lap that he can't afford to turn down. Regardless of whether it works or not, it is seen as compliance. How many times do parents have to comply to things that are against their beliefs so that the mainstream authorities don't take their children away? I've heard of it happening often enough in areas not related to weight. I mean women being forced into c-sections, infants having medical procedures done that are against the parents' beliefs, all in the name of complying to our mainstream concepts of what is healthy and right.

And on the topic of size, my sister had weight loss surgery over a year ago. She researched it a few years back and decided no way would she do it, and then there she was, changing her mind. I tried to bring up all the negatives and get her to consider those again, but she said that she wasn't going to read anything negative because she had to see it positively and envision a great outcome. That's always been the way she has been. She finally admitted that even though she knows the surgery has potential negative longterm effects, she just needed to get her life back. Yes, that is the way she sees it. Who am I to argue? I get so darn sick and tired of feeling like the answer is just to be positive. I'm not positive. I see so many examples of discrimination, and it's just getting worse and worse, yet there are plenty of people who won't even see what this man is doing as a sacrifice--cutting himself up and getting surgically altered because he feels like that is his only option at this point. They will just shake their heads and express disgust that he is so self-absorbed he can't even give up guzzling down on fast food and getting up off his butt to exercise. Yet if you try and talk about the very big impediments fat people have, the answer just seems to not let people treat you badly, people will always hate you for one reason or another, it's YOU that is making it about your weight. I'm so tired of it, really. It's all my fault that I'm fat, and it's my fault that people discriminate against me because no one can make me feel inferior without my consent. Yeah, right! Some days I just want to hide in my house and never have to see people again.

Sorry for the emotional rant, it's just how I'm feeling today. But yeah, I am ready for our Stonewall, I'm ready to make it happen!

fat_chic's picture
fat_chic
August 17th, 2007 | Link | this poor man

This poor man is over a barrel, and he's being scapegoated severely over someone else's moral dilemma/food/body disordered thinking. I hurt for him. As much as it may very well be the wrong thing to do as an individual, he really is doing the right thing as a parent.

I would hope that the plus community continues to write the judge and the agency involved in this mess, and seeks out some "expert" support that provides a more realistic and less prejudicial view over the parenting abilities of fat people.

You can find me at:
http://fatchic.dianarajchel.com
http://magickalrealism.etsy.com

bonoist August 17th, 2007 | Link | I live in SoCal, the hotbed

I live in SoCal, the hotbed of fat discrimination. My 15 year old nephew has been living with me for 3 years. My sister is not financially able to take care of him, so he lives with me and we have no formal, legal agreement. There have been occasions when my sister and I have clashed and I have been pushed by other family and friends to get legal custody. I've never pursued that route because I felt that I might not be considered a "fit" parent because I'm fat.

Never mind the fact that both my nephew and I work 3 times a week with a personal trainer. Never mind the fact that since living with me he has only missed 1 day of school compared to the 30-40 per year he would miss when he lived with his mom. Never mind that he's gone from being a bored, just getting by student, to an engaged, very high B student in an exciting charter school environment. Never mind that he, a very shy child, has recently completed a leadership internship program in diversity and social justice. All those things would certainly be discounted against the fact that I'm fat.

The fact that I have tried to create an atmosphere that has allowed him to become a well-rounded (no pun intended) person wouldn't even matter and that is very sad.

I love him so much and can't imagine a life without him around. If it came down to it, would I undergo that surgery in order to keep him. I don't know if I would/could. I'm sitting here in tears over the fact that someone else felt they had to make a choice like that.

ZoeC August 17th, 2007 | Link | I can't even work up an

I can't even work up an intelligent comment, this just makes me so sad. I can't imagine losing my son because some stranger decided I was too fat to be his mom and understand the desperation to do anything to keep him.

Meowzer August 17th, 2007 | Link | If this guy dies from his

If this guy dies from his WLS or becomes incapacitated from it, I think we should file a class-action suit against the judge who denied him his kid. Seriously.

Marshfield August 17th, 2007 | Link | Surely there's a middle

Surely there's a middle ground between the status quo and WLS that Stocklaufer could have pursued--maybe the route Manuel Uribe is following. There may be people who sail through WLS and its aftermath unscathed, but from my reading those people are the exception.

meiran August 17th, 2007 | Link | I've seen first hand the

I've seen first hand the complications and problems associated with WLS...

It's harder to wonder if your dad is going to die because of an elective surgery then it ever would be to just have an obese parent.

I don't even want to think about what this is going to turn out like...but I don't wager it will be good.

vidyapriya August 17th, 2007 | Link | I don't even want to think

I don't even want to think about what this is going to turn out like...but I don't wager it will be good.

And of course, if -- God forbid -- something does happen to him, it will still be blaimed on his weight, not the surgery. Few things have so strongly brought home to me what Foucault meant when he talked about discourse operating to exclude anything which challenges it's own norms, power and authority (i.e., thin = health). That a fat person might be healthy just as he is, and that losing weight might itself cause him to become ill -- these things *cannot even be said* under the rules of the current 'regime of truth', as the lipophobic norms of this society's discourse make such ideas appear nonsensical.

bugj9 August 18th, 2007 | Link | It's hard to know what to

It's hard to know what to think about this. But I'm a mother. I know if a judge told me "Have this surgery or lose your son" I'd be on the table in a minute. I think it just speaks to this man's dedication and commitment to the child that he will do this.

Stupid judge.

chondros August 18th, 2007 | Link | vidapriya, I totally agree

vidapriya, I totally agree about Foucault. I think that the modern system of thought surrounding size is a better example of his thesis than any of the subjects he actually wrote about.

We really are entering nightmare territory with the "obesity epidemic" hysteria. I hope, with richie79, that some decisive event occurs to awaken fat people and people of good will to the extent of the discrimination we face. I'm afraid, though, that we just may be in for more of the long downward slide.

goddess's picture
goddess
August 19th, 2007 | Link | I keep thinking about

I keep thinking about previous battles lost and (sort of) won: the holocaust, the civil rights movement, women's movement, gay rights, ethnic cleansing, and so on. There are lessons here for us, and we need to look carefully and learn from them. As a member of several historically oppressed groups, I believe that we do need to organize and mobilize. I don't know how to begin, except to recall the words of Pastor Martin Niemöller:

First they came for the Jews
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for the Communists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for me
and there was no one left
to speak out for me.

pjrichardson's picture
pjrichardson
August 19th, 2007 | Link | It's true - the pendulum

It's true - the pendulum swings, but it swings s l o w. And I don't think we've even seen it reach it's apogee yet. When the pendulum swings as far as it can and pauses slightly before its return journey, the ugliness will be mind-numbing, and I have no doubt people will die. Hyperbole? Perhaps, but I don't think so. Self-loathing has been and is continuing to be instilled in everyone with too much fat on their body, courtesy of our government(s), it is all about health (the hatred is just an artifact), and they're doing all this stuff for our and society's own good. Who will stop this? The truth of the anti-fat movement will not be televised.

DeeLeigh's picture
DeeLeigh
August 20th, 2007 | Link | People are already dying:

People are already dying: Weight loss surgery, heart valve damage from Phen/Fen and Redux. It's appalling.

persephone August 19th, 2007 | Link | With your kind permission, I

With your kind permission, I will proceed on a somewhat wild tangent.

This judicial ruling is indicative of a far more pervasive problem that has developed in our society over the past 50 years. It's the nanny government/quasi socialism that is so prevalent in much of Europe. The government has somehow managed to insert themselves into every aspect of our lives and found a way to tax it and regulate it.

This poor man and his family are victims of a system that is taking protecting its citizens to an ugly extreme. I, for one, am sick of it. Perhaps it is possible that I have become so jaded because I live in Southern California. They refuse to repair our crumbling highway infrastructure because they feel it will encourage people to take the bus. Another example of those in charge deciding what is best for you, as opposed to taking into consideration what you actually WANT.

Wake up, people. If you don't change your voting habits and get more involved, one day you'll awake to find that the government has come in and retroactively revoked your parental rights, your kids taken to be raised by the state.

This concludes this rant.

diane August 20th, 2007 | Link | "It's the nanny

"It's the nanny government/quasi socialism that is so prevalent in much of Europe. The government has somehow managed to insert themselves into every aspect of our lives and found a way to tax it and regulate it."

No, actually it's Nixonian and Reaganomic Republican Conservatives that have wreaked the way our Democratic Republic works. Nanny govt? New Orleans certainly would've benefitted from someone competent in charge! We have no checks and balances anymore, The Constitution and our Civil Rights are being violated with no oversight! Jobs are heading overseas where people get slave wages and the gap between the have & have moores and the rest of us grows ever larger. It's not a "nanny" or "socialist" government that's gone wrong.. it's the Conservative Corporate Fascists in our Goverment that have deregulated everything and is the cause of so much of our current troubles. Enron and the other's invited in Cheney's secret energy meetings are the ones who wrote our energy polcies! Do you think they wrote them to benefit everyday Americans or themselves? The Banks have rewritten the Bankruptcy Laws, two Corporate supreme court justices now sit on the Supreme Court-- --and so far all the rulings they've handed down hurt women, minorities and low-income people! The Pharmaceutical Companies had a hand in writing the "new" Medicade plan--- yeah, they sure did! No more negotiating the price because of buying in bulk, and they can charge whatever price they want and too freaking bad for the rest of us! That's not a liberal, socialist or even democratic way of doing anything. But it seems to be the new conservative republican way of doing things.

".... I live in Southern California. They refuse to repair our crumbling highway infrastructure because they feel it will encourage people to take the bus."

Please send me informaiton regarding this statement. I'm curious as to who the "they" are and who actually made the statment that will not repair "crumbling" highway infrastructure so people will take the bus. I guess this bus levitates? What non-crumbling road is "the bus" supposed to take? Sounds like you got your information from Fox News.

" Another example of those in charge deciding what is best for you, as opposed to taking into consideration what you actually WANT."

That sounds more like a Conservative than a Socialist Liberal upholding Democracy. A Socialist would give every help to this man in helping him to raise his children. A Liberal would enact laws and fund programs to aid this man in getting the help he needs. However, a Conservative would cut-funds, becuase they're needed for the war, and tell him to take personal responsibility for being so fat that the courts "had" to deny him to begin with! The Republicans would enact laws to privatize everything so that the fat-hatred prevelent in our society runs rampant and unchecked. Soo.... I'm thinking maybe you should turn off FoxNews.

persephone August 20th, 2007 | Link | I'm sorry Diane, it seems

I'm sorry Diane, it seems like you basically agree with me that the government is overly intrusive in our lives, you're just angry because you think I'm a conservative. I am a registered Libertarian and have been since I could vote at 18.

Saying that our government is not becoming socialist is ridiculous. The size of our government is expanding every year and they keep giving themselves new responsibilities, like telling people they can't smoke outside.

As to the comment about the California Highway system, it was a statement made by one of our congressmen about a year ago. I will locate it, but it will take some time, as I cannot remember which one it was.

DeeLeigh's picture
DeeLeigh
August 20th, 2007 | Link | Libertarians are the

Libertarians are the ultimate conservatives, in the classic sense (not this "social conservative" b.s.).

chondros August 20th, 2007 | Link | Please, no more extraneous politics

I'm so sick of the division between right and left intruding on fat acceptance. To a certain extent, I guess it's inevitable. But I think that, unless we can see that fat acceptance ultimately does not have a political orientation in terms of the current opposition between left and right, we're doomed.

I suppose one can argue in the abstract about fat acceptance being ideally liberal (because it's about equal treatment) or ideally conservative (because it's about freedom from state interference in one's personal life), but the fact is that there are plenty of politicians, activists and intellectuals on both sides of the divide who are dangerous to fat people. There are also plenty of people on both sides who are basically assets to our cause. We have to be pragmatic and we have to be willing to set aside our longstanding allegiances when it's necessary in order to make sure that the ongoing descent into mistreatment of fat people doesn't continue.

Voting for one party over another does not, in most cases, help or hurt fat acceptance in any clear-cut way. It's the particulars that matter. Mike Huckabee is bad for fat acceptance because he's bad for fat acceptance, not because he's a Republican. Hillary Clinton's frequent expressions of concern about childhood obesity make me suspicious of her -- but the fact that she's a Democrat doesn't add anything to my suspicions. I think we should be equally outraged whether someone uses fat hate as a weapon against Michael Moore or Rush Limbaugh. One may not like Fox News, for example, but if Neil Cavuto says and writes things that are helpful to fat acceptance, then he has my affection and support. (I apologize to non-Americans here for focusing on the American context, which is the one I know.)

I realize, of course, that there are other issues in the world besides fat acceptance. I have my political views on the full range of current controversies. But if our movement ever gains any traction, we'll all be forced to weigh fat acceptance against some of those other issues to determine which we think are more important in specific situations. I think fat acceptance is important enough that we have to be prepared to sometimes see past our other political commitments. If our other commitments always trump fat acceptance, then we've decided, in effect, that fat acceptance isn't important.

It's awfully nice to believe that all the good and all the evil in the world have neatly sorted themselves into two opposing sides. It's not so. And up to this point, fat acceptance has been so marginal in political and social discourse that the left and the right haven't even felt moved to take positions on it. If this ever begins to happen, then some of us will be faced with unpleasant choices. Until that happens, ALL of us will be faced with unpleasant choices.

I have no idea whether government will ultimately be the force that checks hatred of fat people or the force that magnifies and institutionalizes it. It seems clear to me that things could go either way. I also don't know who are the real fat acceptance stalwarts and who will abandon the movement as soon as it comes into conflict with their party or other affiliations. For the time being, I think we should all keep non-FA politics on the back burner and focus our energies as much as possible on the cause itself.

vidyapriya August 20th, 2007 | Link | I suppose one can argue in

I suppose one can argue in the abstract about fat acceptance being ideally liberal (because it's about equal treatment) or ideally conservative (because it's about freedom from state interference in one's personal life), but the fact is that there are plenty of politicians, activists and intellectuals on both sides of the divide who are dangerous to fat people.

Agreed. As a socialist (though I suppose most Canadians are socialist by American standards), I can't say that I've seen any more or less lipophobia on 'our' side versus the 'other' side of the political spectrum. What I *would* like to see is some sort of moratorium on politicians expressing any public views on these so-called 'health issues'. Everytime the words 'health' and 'government' appear together, it seems it has something to do with either the 'obesity epidemic' or promoting the allopathic-surgical industrial complex through "better access" to medical rape, mutilation, poisoning, and/or murder (oh, sorry -- "health care"). The press that the 'obesity epidemic' receives and the lack of any opposing viewpoint gaining voice is, imho, directly linked to the privileging by government, law, institutions and the media of a particular system of (so-called) medicine, and the marginalization, regulation, or even prohibition of dozens of other complete (and usually safe, ethical, and effective) systems of medicine that exist in our pluralistic society.

richie79's picture
richie79
August 20th, 2007 | Link | I agree that we should get

I agree that we should get behind those who support fat acceptance wholeheartedly,and condemn those who discriminate regardless of which side of the political fence they happen to take. But on the other hand as a life-long leftie I feel almost betrayed by the fact that many of the most vocal critics of fat people and subscribers to the false reality of an obesity epidemic are arguing from a progressive background.

I think Persephone has it right - a major part of the problem is with the increasingly 'nannying' nature of governments which are justifying intrusion into such areas as family life, health etc which wouldn't have been tolerated a decade ago, all in the name of it being for our own good. And like it or not such governments normally have a socialist slant.

This is particularly true in the UK, where every morning the papers are full of new social crises and the ever-more draconian solutions put forward by various think-tanks and ministers. Ban this, tax that, blitz the media with ad campagns to discourage the other. Bear in mind that we have an administration which, whilst economically very right-wing in its policies, maintains a 'big government' approach to social and welfare issues.

The simplistic, anti-obesity rhetoric is everywhere and I suspect that only reason we haven't yet seen all manner of draconian measures (besides what's going on in schools and the way in which food packaging has completely changed in the last year or so to take account of this new national neurosis) is that like all socialist governments ours is massively bureaucratic and has actually managed to implement very few workable policies during its decade in power.

Ultimately it does bother me that in order to get insightful sociological discussion of fat issues I have to go to Spiked (a British libertarian online magazine) rather than Indymedia, the Guardian or the BBC. I find myself disagreeing with almost everything else on their site. But the latter organisations, which wouldn't hesitate to delve into the complicated structures which underlie any other form of discrimination, seem to stubbornly refuse to acknowledge even the existence of an alternative sociological and medical approach to weight issues, choosing instead the simplistic 'fat is baaad' scare headlines and even banning pro-fat comments from their discussion forums.

For example the BBC has recently taken it upon itself to start describing a BMI of 25 as 'obese', no doubt pre-empting the ever-sharp WHO on this, and I don't think i've ever seen an objective analysis of the issue which doesn't begin with all the taken-for-granted assumptions of fat is unhealthy, caused by overeating / lack of exercise, influenced by fast food commercials etc etc. Even the pro-smoking group FOREST were given a regular platform in the run-up to the recent ban on smoking in the UK, but on the other hand it seems that the authorities could start rounding us up and putting us in weight-loss camps and the left-leaning media would still consider it A Good Thing.

It all makes me wonder, does being in favour of fat acceptance actually make me a conservative? I hope not - my dyed-in-the-wool Red mom would be mortified!

goddess's picture
goddess
August 20th, 2007 | Link | I also would like us to pull

I also would like us to pull back from the partisan aspects of our discussion--and, I want to underscore what chondros says--that fat hatred knows no political boundaries. I have my own allegiances and theories, which I won't bring into the fray. A lot of this doesn't even seem appropriate to this blog.
What I do think is worth observing is what I see as a trend toward people feeling they should be involved in everyone else's personal business--at least in the US, which is where I am. It's okay to judge our neighbors for the way they eat, raise their children, and spend their leisure time. It's therefore perfectly in line to try to correct the obviously wrong lifestyles of fat people.
For what it's worth, I believe al lot of this stems from the fact that fear has become our society's great motivator; we hover nervously over our children, put multitudes of hidden cameras all over (yes, it's real), saturate our surfaces with germ-killing substances, and live in terror of aging and dying. And, guess what: in spite of the wildfire spread of free-ranging fear, crime rates are decreasing in this country and life expectancy is rising.
My point in our context: people hate what they fear, they see fat people as embodiments of a slew of scary stuff, and they're now wresting the right to do something about it.
How about we wrest that right away from them and lock it up forever?

paul August 21st, 2007 | Link | Agreed on the politics

I agree with goddess on the politics, folks - we've seen time and time again that people on both sides of the political fence here in the US have anti-fat policies. It's not a Democrat or Republican issue and it's a disservice to brand it as one.

Trudi August 22nd, 2007 | Link | Not only in the USA

Apparently, this isn't limited to the USA.
http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,21956966-661,00.html

This Australian couple had their adoption application suspended until the woman loses another 50Kg. They gave her a BMI chart and said "when you get here, give us a ring".

c-woo's picture
c-woo
August 23rd, 2007 | Link | Low body weight an indicator of good parenting? On what planet?

As a high school teacher, I have seen so many young girls with negative body images whose parents are thin. These girls are either a) rail-thin because of pressure from their parents and peers to stay that way, b) average or a bit above average and full of self-loathing because they are not able to make their bodies conform to same said pressure, or c) fat and darn near suicidal because of the pressure society, their peers, their parents, and the media place on them to be something they can't/need not be. Who usually has the best self esteem and body image? Any child whose parents are overweight, EVEN IF THE CHILD IS NOT. Why? Because in most cases they grow up in a house where love is the center of the family, not looks. These are the girls and boys who strut down the halls with their heads held high, no matter what their size. These are the girls and boys who are usually popular and have a great deal of friends.

The idiot judge who made the ruling for this man to have WLS in order to be an adoptive parent should be thrown off the bench...however, I understand the man's willingness to have the procedure. I would do anything as a parent to keep my child. It's just disgusting and wrong that he has been forced to do this.

Marshfield August 25th, 2007 | Link | http://www.kansascity.com/115

http://www.kansascity.com/115/story/247004.html

Note that Stocklaufer has already lost nearly 60 pounds on his own. Surely that shows good faith--why the need for surgery? (Aside from the argument that weight discrimination shouldn't have come into play in the first place.)

This really is sad and mind-boggling. It sounds to me like his chances of getting the child back are slim, since it's already been placed in a potential adoptive home. He needs a pro bono lawyer, not pro bono surgery.

rebelle August 27th, 2007 | Link | This story made CNN today.

This story made CNN today. It was cast in the light you might expect: without so much as a blink from the slender reporter, let alone a question, let alone a hint of outrage. It was "fat man reforms so he can keep his kid! Hurrah! Good fattie, good fattie!" Barf!

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

© 2000-2020 Big Fat Blog and its authors, all rights reserved. Big Fat Blog, Big Fat Facts, and Big Fat Index are our trademarks.