Almost two weeks ago, I blogged on the Nadya Suleman case and its implications for reproductive rights. But I was stunned by public sentiment, and reader feedback, that suggested that we don't have an obligation towards Suleman's children. This sentiment runs afoul of numerous international human rights agreements, including the original 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Note, for example, Article 25 (emphases mine):
But this still leaves the question: Can the government can prevent similar uses of IVF in the future without violating the reproductive rights of women?
Let's look at some basic points on which I think most of us would agree:
1. The government never has the option of inducing an abortion against the pregnant woman's will. Period.
Regardless of IVF regulation, a woman--once pregnant--has the fundamental right to carry her pregnancy to term. This is understood both on the basis of the right to privacy as defined in Roe v. Wade, and on the basis of secondary fetal rights outlined in Roe and subsequent rulings. The government cannot impose abortion on a woman who does not want it.
2. The government cannot sterilize a woman against her will, or impose the use of birth control.
Forced sterilization violates the zone of privacy at the heart of all reproductive rights rulings, from Griswold v. Connecticut (1965) on.
3. The government has no right to imprison women for having children, no matter how many children they have.
I assume I don't need to cite the numerous human rights agreements and Supreme Court rulings that would back this position, since it seems a fairly obvious one, but public outrage surrounding Suleman has prompted some outspoken souls to suggest prison as an appropriate "punishment." For people in the civilized world, it isn't.
4. This means that any regulation of high-order births must deal with the IVF process itself.
If the government has no right to sterilize women to prevent pregnancies, has no right to terminate pregnancies once they begin, and has no right to imprison women as a deterrent, then the only viable point of government intervention is medical regulation surrounding the IVF process--regulation that would impact health professionals, not patients.
Now that we've established the fundamentals, I'd like to carry this argument a few steps further--into territory where reasonable people might well disagree.
5. The only compelling interests the government has, to justify the de facto invasion of the personal zone of privacy that IVF high-order embryo implantation laws would constitute, deal with the welfare of the eventual fetuses and the welfare of the pregnant woman.
IVF regulation cannot be based purely on economics because an economic rationale for IVF implantation would amount to eugenic population control, which is both unconstitutional and a violation of international human rights standards. Therefore...
6. All IVF implantation regulations impacting high-order births should be standard, and in no way contingent on social or economic factors.
Simply put: If an unemployed single mother can't be implanted with more than four embryos at once, then neither can anybody else--at least not in the United States. (The superwealthy can, of course, always afford to fly overseas to have these sorts of procedures done--there's nothing we can do about that.)
This could very well mean, barring medical errors, no more octuplets--because most octuplets come about due to IVF implantation. But if we're serious about a woman's fundamental right to make decisions about her own body, and if we're serious about not imposing selective population control as a rationale for national policy, then that's the only meaningful option we have.
(1) Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.Anybody who would suggest that the Suleman octuplets do not deserve to be fed or taken care of by the State because of their mother's actions is embracing the same kind of ethic of lebensunwertes leben--"life unworthy of life"--that the Universal Declaration, written in the aftermath of World War II, was intended to address. That notion of eugenic starvation has no place in the contemporary world. The children, if born, will be taken care of by a parent of some description or, failing that, by the government. That is the fundamental human rights obligation of any civilized nation, and it is a non-negotiable point. There are many issues related to the Suleman controversy upon which reasonable people may disagree. Care of the octuplets is not one of them.
(2) Motherhood and childhood are entitled to special care and assistance. All children, whether born in or out of wedlock, shall enjoy the same social protection.
But this still leaves the question: Can the government can prevent similar uses of IVF in the future without violating the reproductive rights of women?
Let's look at some basic points on which I think most of us would agree:
1. The government never has the option of inducing an abortion against the pregnant woman's will. Period.
Regardless of IVF regulation, a woman--once pregnant--has the fundamental right to carry her pregnancy to term. This is understood both on the basis of the right to privacy as defined in Roe v. Wade, and on the basis of secondary fetal rights outlined in Roe and subsequent rulings. The government cannot impose abortion on a woman who does not want it.
2. The government cannot sterilize a woman against her will, or impose the use of birth control.
Forced sterilization violates the zone of privacy at the heart of all reproductive rights rulings, from Griswold v. Connecticut (1965) on.
3. The government has no right to imprison women for having children, no matter how many children they have.
I assume I don't need to cite the numerous human rights agreements and Supreme Court rulings that would back this position, since it seems a fairly obvious one, but public outrage surrounding Suleman has prompted some outspoken souls to suggest prison as an appropriate "punishment." For people in the civilized world, it isn't.
4. This means that any regulation of high-order births must deal with the IVF process itself.
If the government has no right to sterilize women to prevent pregnancies, has no right to terminate pregnancies once they begin, and has no right to imprison women as a deterrent, then the only viable point of government intervention is medical regulation surrounding the IVF process--regulation that would impact health professionals, not patients.
Now that we've established the fundamentals, I'd like to carry this argument a few steps further--into territory where reasonable people might well disagree.
5. The only compelling interests the government has, to justify the de facto invasion of the personal zone of privacy that IVF high-order embryo implantation laws would constitute, deal with the welfare of the eventual fetuses and the welfare of the pregnant woman.
IVF regulation cannot be based purely on economics because an economic rationale for IVF implantation would amount to eugenic population control, which is both unconstitutional and a violation of international human rights standards. Therefore...
6. All IVF implantation regulations impacting high-order births should be standard, and in no way contingent on social or economic factors.
Simply put: If an unemployed single mother can't be implanted with more than four embryos at once, then neither can anybody else--at least not in the United States. (The superwealthy can, of course, always afford to fly overseas to have these sorts of procedures done--there's nothing we can do about that.)
This could very well mean, barring medical errors, no more octuplets--because most octuplets come about due to IVF implantation. But if we're serious about a woman's fundamental right to make decisions about her own body, and if we're serious about not imposing selective population control as a rationale for national policy, then that's the only meaningful option we have.
Comments
Okay. Your argument is flawed. No one wants to imprison this woman for having children, they want her imprisoned for DEFRAUDING THE GOVERNMENT FOR PUBLIC FUNDS. If you have been paying attention, this woman received over $165K over a period of 8 (?) years for an on-the-job back injury during a riot. During those 8 years, she’s been constantly pregnant (which is not something someone with a back injury would willingly do) and has been giving her children (2 at a time) “pony-rides” on that “injured” back. This woman drew worker’s compensation for a non-existent injury and has been claiming disability for her children to provide for their care. Additionally, she claims that she paid in excess of $100K for in vitro fertilization with monies she saved while working. Let’s do some math here…. she’s 33, has been out of work since 1999 (33 minus 10 years), so that would make her 23 when she received her injury. With child labor laws, she could have worked full-time from 18 years forward (23 minus 18) – so in 5 years she claims she saved up $100K+ for fertility treatment (what did she live on during that time??) Now, in addition to these lies that she saved the money while working, she never claimed she had money in savings when applying for public assistance (food stamps). How would I know this?? Because if she had means to feed her family, she would not qualify for assistance. So you are completely missing the point about imprisonment.
As for fertility treatment based on economic situations, if you are receiving government assistance, how can you afford it in the first place? The government regulations you site do not say that we, as taxpayers, are obligated to pay for impregnation. If you want to be a parent and have to pay for fertility treatments, then you should be doing it without the help of the government. We do not owe it to the American public to ensure that they can have a brood of children if they are reproductively challenged.
As for regulating IVF — for the health and safety of both the mother and child, it’s warranted when abuses such as the Suleman case takes place (and the other woman inseminated by the same doc who is now carrying quads).
Although your argument is thoughtful, it’s flawed on so many levels. What Suleman did is unconscionable and every law that needs to be set in place to prevent this from happening again I fully support those implementations.
Tactless, I never said she shouldn’t be imprisoned for other offenses, if she committed them. New mothers don’t get diplomatic immunity. My point is that she should not be imprisoned for having the octuplets, which has in fact been suggested.
Then I agree with you on that point… she should NOT be imprisoned simply for having children… BUT, I do believe she should be investigated for the criminal acts of fraud (which could or could not impose a prison confinement).
I agree, Tom! The children must be taken care of, no matter who their parents are or how many siblings they have. The thing that seems to have many people upset is the fact that Suleman is poor, the implication being that the wealthy should be free to have as many children as they want. Or that children in poverty should be allowed to die of starvation or lack of health care. I believe that legally, we should all have the right to have as few or as many children as we want, but I hope for environmental reasons, that people choose to have fewer children.
That said, legislation to limit the number of embryos that can be simultaneously implanted could be reasonably related to protecting the health of the mother/fetus, so I would support such legislation if there is data that shows at what point (3 babies? 4? 5?) the pregnancy, labor or delivery become high-risk.
A woman should be able to have as many children as she is able to care for. No woman, man, or couple has any “right” to have more.
While I have fought for the right to make your own choices,lost a leg to prove it. The right to have 14 children has never been in question here. It’s the fraud that this woman has imposed on the not only the taxpayers that are supporting her, and they are supporting her, but the general public that bleeds money for her lunacy!
A well researched and timely contribution to the junk hammered out for popular press and cheap publicity. These and further international human rights and childrens rights legislation, any one of which if enforced, may make the backlash against this family an offence in law. Indeed, it would be interesting from a legal perspective which if any number of legal arguments may be applied to such an appalling backlash, many I suspect. There is a place and time for genuine debate, this has not been it for the most part. No human should ever undergo public persecution on being born or in giving birth, irrespective of the issues raised. The abuse and trial by public opinion has no place in a civilised society with the media as magistrates and the public body as some kind of kanagaroo court. Not a quality debate but an attack, highly personalised, offensive and dammaging to motherhood, womanhood and childhood at psychological, ethical, philosphical if not legal levels; specifically to a young family that have every right to life without qualification or explanation to anyone. It is to their mother’s credit that she has managed to demonstrate such stability and strength when most of her detractors have not in a typically overexcitable and manic reaction in my opinion.
Shogun, what the $#@% was that? Your argument does not make sense.
Regarding Suleman: she deserves nothing except imprisonment.
I also think fertilization assistance should be abolished. If you can’t get pregnant naturally, then it’s your fate to not have children. If you really want one, adopt.
Right on Tactless!
The mentally ill need to be controlled when they are a harm to themselves and others. Criminals need to be held responsible for their actions.
If she is given a free ride, watch for all the copycat criminals.
I CAN SEE THE FUTURE FOR OUR CHILDREN THINKING THAT THEY CAN DO THE SAME THING AS SHE DID AND GET AWAY WITH THAT.
SURE SHE GOT WHAT SHE WANTED OUT OF EVERYBODYS POCKETS.
I HAD A CHILD AT 15 AND IT WAS HARD ENOUGH TO GET HELP.I HAD TO HELP MY SELF AND HERE WE HAVE THIS WOMEN THAT COULD NOT TAKE CARE OF THE KIDS SHE ALREADY HAD SHE WENT AND HAD EIGHT MORE. THET TELLS ME ONLY ONE THING SHE PLAINED THIS HOLE THING AND THATS SAD.
I FEEL SORRY FOR THE KIDS BECAUSE THEY ARE BEING USED FOR HER BENEFIT.I KNOW THOSE KIDS NEED HELP BUT NOT HER.WE ARE GOING TO HAVE A BIG PROBLEM ON ARE HANDS BECAUSE NOW EVERYONE IS GOING TO DO THIS FOR MONEY OR TO BE ON TV WHY NOT SHE DID.
Ok. I’m a mother. I love children. However, what this woman did is horrible. She deliberately brought children into this world she CAN’T provide for by herself!!!!! Any mother with any sense knows they need to be able to SUPPORT the child/ern they ALREADY HAVE before EVER considering having more. Honestly, she makes me sick.
Shogun is gonna get you, you nasty public. That backlash is already probably against the law! To heck with that dratted free speech. Shogun’s going to try the court of public opinion in the court of hmmmnh????
The children may enjoy “the right to a standard of living adequate for the(ir) health and well-being” but the mother sure as hell doesn’t because she is not in the shape she’s in due to “circumstances beyond her)control.” She created this mess and is irresponsible and unrealistic beyond belief.
IVF should be controlled in the USA just as it is in most European countries. Suleman and Kamrava violated the children’s rights before they were ever born. The octuplets had a right to be healthy, and it’s unlikely that many of them will ever be–and we’ll be supporting them (and perhaps their offspring) all their lives. Taxpayers have rights too: Nadya’s right to swing stops at the end of the taxpayer’s collective nose. Suleman is a fraud and a freeloader (she kind of reminds me in a small way of our business and financial leaders and the bought-and-paid-for politicians who are just great big Sulemans themselves. They deserve to be horse-whipped.
Ok, so why doesnt someone come in and take care of my kids/family, support them and pay for a trip with student loan money to Disneyworld. I am an educated mom and I work full time. We make too much for student aid for my college bound children. I make house payments. I want the state of Kansas to start supporting my family.
I think the best thing for this situation is to have these octuplets up for adoption. I have worked as an RN full time for 30 years now and raised two children. My husband and I have worked hard to support our family we would have wanted more but know we couldn’t afford a bigger family. The circumstances this woman created on purpose, her own choice. It just isn’t rational. She made it all public, that indicates to me what she thinks of other people, doesn’t care at all. I think she should be investigated for fraud as well. The people these children will bond with will be whoever spends the most time with them and one person can’t give the necessary care to 14 children. That is the outrage. she chose to do this when she had no way to support the plan. It makes her a monster and I don’t think she is capable of being a decent parent. My worry is for those children. I wish someone would take care of me and my family. It is the essence of exploitation, while the rest of us pay taxes. Sounds to me like she is exoloiting everyone including us. I believe you can’t tell someone how many children to have but I do believe a government can make things right for these children by adopting them out.
Selfish, selfish, selfish. That’s what I have got to say. If God had intended this woman to have 8 children at one time, he would have made her a dog.
i am in australia and i find the backlash against this woman quite curious. the level of hatred is pulpable and almost inconceivable to me. children are not a burden they are a resource for any country. Australia has an active immigration policy to try and build its numbers. the best increase in a country’s numbers are from reproduction rather than immigration. children provide workers and most valuable taxpayers for the future. the australian government has created various payents and suppliments to help families afford to have more children.
my only concern about having more than 2 children at a time is the stress to the mother’s body. it is conceivable that nadya could have had a stroke or heart attack or convulsions with pre-eclampsia. then there would have been 6 orphan children.
the words directed at nadya are extreme and unnecessary. violence cannot ever be condoned particulary simply for the act of birth. this sort of behaviour is like what happens in primitive societies. it is truely revealing where americans are in the animal kingdom. the world has to hear all the time how wonderful america is and yet this one incident has shown that human rights are just lip service and that china really doesn’t have to answer to anyone.
There is no evidence of any “welfare fraud” here – the “everybody knows” assumptions are actually based on pure speculation from a few people that on the net quickly turns into “confirmed fact”.
On the contrary, there is plenty of evidence that the local authorities took into account Nadya’s assets when deciding food stamps benefits ($490 per month for a family of 7 is not full benefits). She undoubtedly ran out of the money she had saved for in vitro (from overtime work and an inheritance and an injury settlement – which is hers to use any way she wants) by the time food stamps began (they seem to have been a fairly recent addition). The assets limitations for the food stamps program are much less stringent than for real welfare (which she was not on), since the purpose is to ensure that people get fed during periods of low income such as when the parent is going to school, which was the case with Nadya. Graduate students (working on master’s or Ph.D.’s) with children are frequently on food stamps and sometimes on welfare and other government assistance programs. The coursework is too intense to work much outside of school. Many people are on food stamps while working a job that just doesn’t pay enough either because of a cheapskate employer or reduced hours, as well as during periods of unemployment. You don’t need to get rid of all your assets to get on the program. And you don’t have to wait until you’re all starving.
There is no evidence of abuse of SSI disability funds for her children, either. Her autistic child (have no idea where he is on the autism spectrum) is only 3 years old – he couldn’t have been diagnosed that long ago (takes quite a while for clear signs to develop), so she couldn’t have been getting SSI disability payments for him for very long. Nadya herself has said that the other two children getting disability will be on it only short-term, as makes sense for their relatively minor problems that early intervention will keep from getting major. Again, all indications are that the SSI money has been used quite properly – even the media hounds were interviewing somebody who had been hired pre-media circus specifically to help the autistic child, for instance.
As far as Nadya’s own disability settlement is concerned – she was hit with a desk thrown at her by a violent patient while she was trying to restrain another patient when working in a mental hospital. I’m sure there was medical proof of real damage to her back from such an incident. She is obviously a very strong woman, but being strong does not mean painfree. I’ve seen other women endure considerable pain during their pregnancies in order to have children, so a painful back injury is not inconsistent with her continued pursuit of a large family. Her settlement was short-term and payments were ended by 2008. Again, no evidence of fraud here, no matter how much the lynch mob would like to say so.
Nadya was not “unemployed” –she was working at least part-time and also going to school (first for a college degree, then for a master’s). She was preparing for a job that, if her last in vitro procedure had resulted in the planned 1 child, would have allowed her to take care of all her children financially by herself. That’s why people go to school in the first place – to get a better job. She knew there were limits on what she could do (especially with the back injury) with just a high school diploma or even a college degree.
She did not plan on octuplets, but simply was using the last of her in vitro funds to transfer the last of her frozen embryos. If you want to blame somebody, blame the doctor for not saying “let’s be cautious this time and just transfer one at a time until one implants properly, I won’t charge you any more than for one procedure”. My guess is that either the doctor’s procedure was unusually effective for her particular problem (she had a history of improper implantation – ectopic pregnancies especially) or else something was normalizing. Nadya did not have the luxury of time (she started in vitro at the age of 25, after several failed pregnancies, and was told by doctors that she could not assume she would remain fertile for long), and so it is quite understandable that she spaced out her family as closely as she did.
The octuplets were not in the plan, and nobody (single or married) could possibly handle them without a lot of community help. The need to go to the media for publicity is also a reflection on the way things are done here in the US – donations would be crucial to ensure the needed help for housing, medical care, schooling, and childcare (especially of 8 infants). She seems to be in the classic “damned if you do, damned if you don’t” situation – she’s criticized for using government programs but then also criticized for using the media and asking for donations that would make government assistance unnecessary. If her local community had come forward with help rather than death threats and abuse, she would not have needed to go further. She had originally asked for privacy, but the hospital itself suggested getting a publicist.
In other words, all the hysteria is misplaced. Nadya simply does not fit the stereotypical image of a “welfare queen”. She has not been sitting at home with a beer in her hand, watching soaps all day. She’s been following a clear plan that included a large family but also getting an education that would enable her to support it. She applied for programs for which she and her family were eligible, as any intelligent parent would do. Typically society gets much more back in taxes and personal contributions than it invests in keeping families afloat during such periods. Such programs are not only very cost-effective for society, but as this article points out, the existence of such programs is a measure of how civilized a society is.
The uproar about Nadya, however, is a measure of how uncivilized we have become. A mother of septuplets who were born a few years ago said that they also received hate mail (she estimated about 10% of the total). The difference this time is that the hate mail, instead of being enclosed in a private envelope with a stamp on it, is now posted for free on the net. Hate begets hate, and the public frenzy continues to bring out the worst in people.
I also am curious about why segments of the US population that strongly oppose abortion have been so silent at the vitriol aimed at Nadya. None of us would even know her name if she had decided to abort most of those babies. Even her choice to go ahead with transfer of the remaining embryos was based on a similar feeling of “give life a chance”. She obviously did everything she could to give those children the chance for life – and that’s why all 8 of them are now deemed healthy enough to go home.
The questions raised about in vitro fertilization procedures are an entirely separate matter. A major problem here in the US is the way medical expenses are priced. IVF is no longer an experimental procedure, but like other medical services here – the cost is inflated and so people tend to transfer several at once to save on the cost. In Sweden, for instance, insurance does cover IVF (unlike the situation for most US citizens) but only for one transfer at a time. So they avoid all the health risks of multiples, but provide people with a way to build their families when there are fertility problems.
There are too many people on this earth. Ruining it at a faster rate than borer beetle eats a wooden house.
How stupid do you have to be to have even ONE child under these environmentally stressed conditions?
Well, multiply that by 14x. NS is therefore 14 times stupider than the average non-breeder and 14 times less considerate than the average non-breeder is – of this beautiful world we are exploiting at an enormous rate of knots…
Humans are the worst, most destructive plague the earth has ever encountered – and they KEEP BREEDING. Duh!
And they call themselves intelligent. It is too funny to even laugh.
great comment jwoolman. this needs to be explained better to everyone to stop this hysteria
Great comments jwoolman and Susan.
Susan, I am Canadian and I also think the hysteria and hatred against Nadya is very indicative of where the US is as a culture not supportive of a social safety net as well as SHORT TERM FOCUSSED. Yes, children ARE an asset! We’ll see how these critics feel when they get older and rely on the people of Nadya’s children’s generation to pay into their social security and pensions with their tax dollars.
It is exactly the kind of blatant fraud and abuse of the social safey net perpetrated by Nadya Suleman that erodes US support for it’s most vulnerable citizens. She belongs in jail. The children, on the other hand, are completely innocent and deserve to be placed with decent families.
One lengthy poster jwoolman makes all the same ASSUMPTIONS in favor of Suleman that he complains her “detractor’s” make. That’s why the whole things needs to be investigated. He has no more facts about her finances in the past ten years that brought all this about than anyone else does. I agree with “Tactless” that both the host Tom and jwoolman’s arguments are flawed.
I am responding primarily to #18, Susan:
You may not be aware of all of the extenuating circumstances here. This is not just about a woman who “accidentally” had 14 children. You might consider researching her history of irresponsible behavior.
This woman exhibits an alarming pattern of behavior which is probably indicative of a severe personality disorder. She appears to be incapable of caring for these children.
Any support which is given to this woman could be viewed as “enabling” her in her train-wreck lifestyle.
calpernia: please list the extenuating circumstances and links if possible
i run an internet based pharmacy in australia that sends medicines to uninsured americans. i find it unconscienable that people should be bankrupted due to some illness or that they would have to choose between food and medicine. if americans had universal health care then these high order multiples would not happen. ivf would be covered as it is in most/all industrialised countries with nationalised medicine. people would not gamble with their health by implanting too many embryos. people in australia are aware that some people are getting free ivf and no one is upset by it. the option is heartbreaking infertility. people are also not upset if someone gets a free heart transplant as the other option is death.
i wonder whether americans are capable of the paradigm shift in thinking to bring about nationalised medicine. one interesting side effect is when the government is the arbiter on what will be paid for these services they have a lot more leverage to dictate price. this means that it is actually more cost effective to have nationalised medicine. another thing the australian government did was put a cap on payouts for malpractice claims. this meant then that the insurance companies did not have as high premiums for their indemnity insurance policiies. the doctors could then budget more effectively as a consequence of all this is that they actually earn less money.
This is to Susan:
Check out Nadya’s interview with NBC’s Ann Curry; I don’t have an exact link, it may be up at MSNBC or even YouTube.
You can watch her alarming videos at Radar Online; you will have to do a bit of research to catch all of her lies, she appears credible at first, but after you read/watch for a while, you start noticing all the inconsistencies.
Dr. Phil McGraw (TV psychologist) has some interviews with Nadya; he also has one with Nadya and her mother–maybe someone can give you an exact link. There is some stuff at his website, drphil.com.
Nadya’s father, Ed, appeared on The Oprah Winfrey Show sometime in February or March, also very alarming–you’ll have to poke around for it.
You can also check nadyasuleman.com, a message board, which has some links to news stories. You can probably find links to all the videos I mentioned, and more.
Listen to her mother, listen to her father, listen to Nadya bad-mouth her mother, watch Nadya interact with her older kids, watch her lie to Dr. Phil McGraw, watch her lie to Ann Curry, look at how Nadya allowed her kids to destroy her own mother’s home and not offer to reimburse her for the damage or pay any rent while she spent thousands of dollars on IVF–sorry, I am ranting here.
After researching this case, you should find plenty to be angry about.
Nadya condemns herself WITH HER OWN MOUTH. If you have not seen the way she lies and manipulates, it is quite something to see.
This is also to Susan, regarding IVF and the pharmacy issue:
I don’t know what to say; I know that our health care system is sorely lacking. However, this woman, Nadya, has abused the entire IVF process. As a single, mentally ill woman, she probably should not have ANY children, much less 14. It is my opinion that she is far too self-absorbed to be a good mother. Her own mother, Angela, has done most of the childcare for Nadya’s first six children.
calpernia: do you have any issue with her kids getting help?
if you can be sure that she is not given money but rather support in other ways does your anger subside?
Susan, How about we sent all the kids to Australia. You can handle them, You must, Australia can do anything. Go for it……………
i have had a few people ask if we would take nadya and her kids. i gave it some consideration about whether she would qualify. australia wants educated people. in the past they were happy to accept people to work in factories but since china is now the factory for the world, those jobs are fast disappearing. the most popular visa category is the skilled migration category. i checked the immi.gov.au website to see if nadya would be eligible.
she would get points for:
1. having a bachelor’s degree and get i think 60 points for it (i think she can be called a child psychologist. is she registered to practice or must she complete her masters?)
2. she speaks english 25 points
3. she is over 18 and under 45 25 points
4. she needs to have worked in the last 3 of the the last 4 years in her field of education or some other skilled migration field (zero points – lost potential 10 points)
5. if she goes to regional australia (non capital cities) 5 points
6. gets employer sponsorship. this works best for regional australia and sometimes you can get the states to do the sponsoring. 20 points – if she can get it- she would have to work 1 year in her particular skill.
7. in demand skill – 25 points if it is – list changes. child psychologist is not on the list currently
8 does she have family in australia(no? zero points)
9. does she speak a community language (5 points- could do as her parents are both migrants)
10. did she complete her studies in australia?(no lost 5 points)
11. is the partner skilled (5 points missed out)
must get 120 points to definitely get in. pool mark is 100 points
she will need to get some work experience and then australia will take her regardless of how many kids. downside for nadya could be if the kids have serious developmental problems. from what i have read of the older 6 their diagnoses are not so serious as to stop migration. lets see what happens with the next 8.
To Susan:
Of course I want those poor children to get help. I would prefer that they be removed from Nadya’s care and adopted out in small groups to several different families. I believe that Nadya should have supervised visitation only.
I have no problem with the taxpayers supporting the children if necessary. I do, however, have a problem with the mother being a grifter.
This is to Susan, regarding your comment #32:
Nadya has a Bachelor’s Degree which is nowhere near qualifying her as a child psychologist. If she gets her Master’s Degree, she can work as a psycho-therapist, but still would not be a child psychologist until she got a Ph.D.
Nadya claims that she is going back to school next January. However, I don’t believe a word she says, due to her history of constant lying. Since she currently has nannies, this might be possible; however, she claimed that her school was setting up its childcare facility to accommodate her octuplets. I believe that a reporter did contact the school, and they know nothing about any such preparations. No surprise there.
To Susan in Australia,
Suleman has a bachelor’s degree in early childhood development and has not worked in 10 years (unless you count being a stripper for 1 year+)She has collected disability from an incident 10 years ago where she worked and has been pregnant and having children since. She still owes $50,000 in student loans and is going back for more. She has received plenty of government assistance here in the form of Food stamps, SSI (disability) for 3 of her older children, a multi-million dollar hospital bill payment for the recent 8. Please, even though the health system is flawed in the USA, don’t say we don’t help people. The issues go beyond that and I’m sure Australia doesn’t want to be cheated or defrauded. You say if we had universal health she wouldn’t have gone for the 8? Don’t be too sure about that one. She has stated she always wanted a big family and wanted to be famous and be a household word and it appears it doesn’t matter how she went about accomplishing her goal.
you have to be a little bit careful about what you believe in the media.
life is mostly boring and you would not bother to read it unless it was a little salacious.
i don’t believe that she was a stripper. i think those people were wanting their 15 minutes of fame
Phew! …. Is this the only lady in America with 8 kids on welfare?, hmm didnt think so, is she the only single parent? definately not. Dont you people have families of your own to think about? rather than vehemently critisizing someone else for making their dreams of a family a reality, or is it simply veiled racism, judging by the hateful comments!
The doctor who treated her is an idiot. I don’t know what the actual number of embryos he implanted, but it has to have been more than 8. Last number I heard was 12. ARE YOU KIDDING ME?! For a woman her age, and in her health condition- two embryos max. To give her 12 is asking for malpractice suit. Her case is such an out-lier. It is ignorant to base regulation on her case alone.
I agree with your point that we cannot force women with multiple embryos that take to abort “the excess”. They definitely have the right to take them to term.
We can avoid this problem all together by limiting the number of embryos per procedure/cycle. If the one/two embryo(s) doesn’t take, try again. If they all take, then at the most you’ll have twins.
She voluntarily allowed her doctor to implant her with over the recommended number- which risked her life, and her unborn children’s lives.
There was no “medical necessity” for her to go through IVF when she already had 6 kids. If she conceived naturally, then that’s her bad judgment. She would probably still get government assistance with her 14 kids. But to assist her and allow any chance of having 8+ kids in one pregnancy is ridiculous. There should have been many levels in that IVF program that should have stopped the procedure from happening. Based on sound medical practice, if that still exists in the US- it shouldn’t have happened… to anyone.
fendi sunglasses on
3340
noropook8 55
Dry skin care involves getting to the roots of the problem.
First it helps treat the bacteria on the surface of the skin that actually causes pimples.
Immediate dentures are more like individual teeth.
A highly polluted environment contains toxins.
We are sitting in most modern 21st computer century.