In my prior piece written on February 2nd, I asked who will bear the cost for the California Octuplets? Upon reading a news article today, I did receive that answer and yes, it will most likely be the debt-ridden state of California.
The AP is reporting this morning, "A big share of the financial burden of raising Nadya Suleman's 14 children could fall on the shoulders of California's taxpayers, compounding the public furor in a state already billions of dollars in the red." This is unjust and unfair given the fact she already had six children dependent upon public tax dollars.
In reading that she received, "$490 a month in food stamps, plus Social Security disability payments for three of the youngsters. The public aid will almost certainly be increased with the new additions to her family." I find her decision to become impregnated with eight more children reprehensible given the fact that many families are struggling today and with some living out of their cars.
When the State of California is roughly $42 billion-dollars in debt without the cost of the care of these octuplets being disclosed, the care for them may in fact fall upon the citizens of that state as well Americans living coast-to-coast.
Los Angeles Times columnist, Tim Ritten opined of the Suleman story as being "grotesque" as he also opined, "It appears that, in the case of the Suleman family, raising 14 children takes not simply a village but the combined resources of the county, state and federal governments,"
The conundrum I do see is while I opine that she should be bear all costs of their care, should that occur much less be carried out, it will be the children who will suffer. This is where the private sector must take an active role should they wish to safeguard these children instead of putting that on the backs of the American and Californian tax payer. Is it correct to ask those 10,000 state workers who Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger may have to lay off to bear her burden? No, it is not. They have enough problems already. Many of those 10,000 workers have their own families to worry about and tremble thinking of how they will feed their families.
When she told NBC news in her recent interview with Ann Curry for Dateline NBC, she did not consider the public assistance to her as welfare: Let us get this straight, it is.
In a column I started working on after viewing that interview, I wrote, “On Tuesday night, Ann Curry of NBC News interviewed, Nadya Suleman for Dateline NBC. In this interview, she expressed her need to have as many children as possible as if they were possessions. What I viewed was a woman who clearly resembled cat-hoarders. Not to belittle these precious children, but even cats do suffer at the hands of these hoarders.” One only has to view Animal Planet’s “Animal Precinct” for proof of that fact.
When I heard that one of her subsequent children age three has autism and two others having special needs my immediate thought was someone should have intervened on those children’s behalves. Someone like her doctor should have told her NO! Who is to say what birth defects these eight babies will have growing up? Premature babies stand a higher risk of having them and she may not be able to cope both financially or emotionally.
In that interview, she stated that the sperm-donor signed a contract not to have any financial responsibility for these children or be a part of the upbringing of any of them. On behalf of the tax payers, the state should look into having that contract dissolved especially if he knew of any instability exhibited by her.
She has set up a web site asking for donations and I find that unconscionable given the fact she made this calculating decision. By the way at the end of the AP article they did link the reader to her web site, but in this piece, I will not.
I brought to light in my previous piece of couples making a hard decision not to bring children into this world because of these harsh economic times: Yet you do not see them setting up web sites asking for donations for any children they so desire. Their decision is truly the responsible one and it must be hard on them as they read of her situation.
Many students are finding it hard to obtain student loans due the fact that banks are not lending right now to extend them these lines of credit and it is important for any reading this piece to pay attention here: "In the NBC interview, Suleman said she will go back to California State University, Fullerton in the fall to complete her master's degree in counseling, and will use student loans to support her children. She already owes $50,000 in student loans, she told NBC. She said she will rely on the school's daycare center and volunteers." So, she will be using student loans to care for her children? Isn't that fraud? Student loans are used to pay for education and not the rearing of children. If I were an aspiring student trying to get a college loan, this would anger me.
She already owes $50 thousand dollars and instead of going back to college she should be thinking of ways to pay down that debt since it is her responsibility. Many families are working one, two or three jobs if they have not been laid off and the actions of this woman are selfish. There are many students who work while in college to pay for it and they too are the responsible ones.
The AP also reported, “For a single mother, the cost of raising 14 children through age 17 ranges from $1.3 million to $2.7 million, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture.” I was correct in stating that she may have become the recipient of a stimulus package paid for by you and me. I would rather see any stimulus money go to the thousands and now millions of Henrietta Hughes of this country who through no fault of their own or calculating decision find themselves on the street and living in cars.
I think it incumbent upon the California State Attorney General to look into this matter to see if charges can be levied upon the doctor who performed these treatments given the fact the state of California maybe responsible for their care. I would look into his holdings and seize them to recover the cost that the state may have to bear in relief to the tax payers.