The Observation Deck

Okay, I saw her all over the news, but not one of the news anchors actually asked her the question that we had been wondering.

How could someone who supposedly has no money, has 6 children, has no job (outside of the huge one of raising 6 children) get the money for invitro fertilization. As far as I know this is considered elective care by all insurance companies. And as far as I know this is very expensive.

Am I missing something here? Just curious.

she had a state job until recently. she spent most of that time on disability leave after being struck by an inmate at an insane asylum. at least, that is the story I read. they used a word different than 'insane asylum', but i cannot remember what it was.

I just read that there are some people in California who are trying to get the State to take away her children because she has absolutely no money to care for them. Of her previous 6 kids, 3 are disabled in some way.

The average cost to care for one premie baby in the hospital is 126,000$. She has 8 and the state is picking up the cost. That is just ridiculous.

The guy who gave her invitro was from Case too...

My question is why in the world this guy would give her in-vitro in the first place? If she wanted so many kids, adopt for cryin' out loud.

pro-life advocates can volunteer to help raise the kids. they can offer the woman money to get sterilized. humans only have 2 breasts: they should not have that many babies at once.

the fertility doctor was a man. Men have more of an instinct to score more points. his instincts went away from him.

I hate passing judgements on people but this case saddens me. My five children are very close in age, 5 in 5-1/2 years and two of them are special needs. I can't imagine trying to raise them on my own, I can't imagine not having a spouse to support me. This case angers me because of the children. The woman's mother has said her daughter was obsessed with having lots of children and while I see nothing wrong with large families I also feel that children deserve to have a family that can support them. It is impossible to raise 14 children under the age of 8 on your own. The children will suffer and that is the real tragedy.

This is how her PR firm *eyeroll* responded regarding her receiving not-welfare:

"In her view these are just payments made for people with legitimate needs and are not, in her view, welfare," Furtney said. "She just believes that there are programs for people with needs and she and her children qualify for some of them."

So, isnt this the very definition of welfare?

I agree, it's those children that will suffer the most.

Taxpayers should not be on the hook for self inflicted welfare. You could argue that most welfare is self inflicted...but in this politically correct day in age, it’s not wise to do so.

Charlie - IT IS NOT MOSTLY SELF-INFLICTED!

Let me take you around and introduce you to real live people, not someone's cousin's, sisters's friend down the street.

I've spent years working with women who were raising their kids alone, sick, disabled.

Don't say something like that unless you truly know. This woman is mentally ill. Is that self-inflicted? The doctor is culpuble for doing fertility treatments on someone who is not mentally and physically prepared to care for additional children. I can't believe that wouldn't be in the criteria for qualifying for fertility treatments.

I agree Sharon I cannot believe that she was able to get fertility treatment over and over and over and over again. So many things with this case are just unbelievable. Funny story when I was 28 and had my 5th child I wanted my tubes tied and because I was under 30 I had to have a signed statement in 28 days before the procedure, sounds like it was harder for me to not have any more children than it was for her to have 14. Strange strange world we live in.

I have really mixed emotions on this.

I really don't like the idea of the government telling me exactly how many children we have. When I can have my tubes tied etc.

We don't tell people that are retarded or mentally ill that they can't have children. We allow rich people and poor people both to have children. Drug afdicts and criminals can have babies. But we are very selective on who can adopt. If a women wants fertility treatments, should she have the rights of any woman who can conceive or should she be subject to the stricter rules of adoption.

Given the odds that most of the embryos that are implanted, will not become babies, and the cost of implanting embryos, should there be a law on how many could be implanted at a time? Most doctors are saying for 8 live babies, the doctor must have implanted far more than 8 embryos, which is being denied.

While I'm not pro-life, when she realized she had 8 babies and they medically wanted to do selective reduction, she shouldn't have had to. But chances are very good that some of these 8 will have disabilities given that decision.

Common sense should have prevailed. A single woman with 6 babies 3 of whom are disabled, living with her parents should feel like she has her hands full (and she does). She shouldn't want more children.

No doctor should have agreed to implant any more or if they did, they shouldn't have implanted so many. One would assume that he did this for money - but where did she get this kind of money?

The problem is now that the children are here through no fault of their own, what do you do? Social services can't just take the children because she has too many. They can't take them because she is poor. Apparently with her parents help, she was taking care of the other 6.

I believe that we should be able to make choices regarding our own life. But what happens when your bad choices affect so many other people, but you haven't committed any crime?

Lynn Farris wrote:I believe that we should be able to make choices regarding our own life. But what happens when your bad choices affect so many other people, but you haven't committed any crime?

You get your own personal bailout via welfare

Valerie Molinski wrote:This is how her PR firm *eyeroll* responded regarding her receiving not-welfare:

"In her view these are just payments made for people with legitimate needs and are not, in her view, welfare," Furtney said. "She just believes that there are programs for people with needs and she and her children qualify for some of them."

So, isnt this the very definition of welfare?

It may be. It also could be called child abuse. If no woman was involved, and there was some doctor in a lab creating babies, what would we call that (besides monsterous)?

.

the grandparents should succeed in filing a malpractice suit against the fertility doctor. The trial or settlement proceedings should not be long. it should take about 20 minutes.

Totally amazing. Reading this morning. The Doctor stikes again with a very similar situation, this one a little more understandable. Fortunately this woman only has 4 babies, not 8.

http://www.myfoxny.com/dpp/news/dpgo_another_octuplets_mom_in_la

According to the Los Angeles Times , a woman in her late 40s went to Dr. Michael Kamrava hoping to become pregnant with one baby.

The Times now says she is 5-months pregnant with quadruplets and hospitalized. The paper adds that the woman has no insurance so she was transferred to a county hospital where she will stay until the births which might not be for two or three months.

Charlie Page wrote:I agree, it's those children that will suffer the most.

Taxpayers should not be on the hook for self inflicted welfare. You could argue that most welfare is self inflicted...but in this politically correct day in age, it’s not wise to do so.

Why isn't it wise to do so? You just did but not directly. Cowardly isn't the same as unwise. If you didn't want to say it, don't. If you do, say it. You said and take responsibility for it.

I think it is easier for those that have what they need to assume that those that don't are purposely doing less to get the help. I think if anyone ever really had to deal with unemployment, a severe lack of funds and the necessity to look to the government for help they would have a different opinion.

But it helps people sleep easier assuming that they are right about poverty and welfare , I guess.

So say it and take responsibilty for that belief. Why hide behind the shield of politcal correctness? I find it odd that the only people that cite political correctness are usually people who want to say things like this.

I hope you still have your job, home and investments still in place. I would hate for you to lose it all and then deal with the fact that people you feel as like-minded will then think of you as a slacker who brought the problems on yourself.

Good luck with that.