The Octo-Scam
Giving birth has long ceased to be newsworthy, but using it as a scam is something relatively recent. With the economy in a downturn, attention is now on how to save money and cut corners. So when the news of Nadya Suleman and her IVF-induced octuplets came to light, the first thing a lot of people asked is, “how is this possibly a good idea at this time?”
And you can well imagine, the nation sputtered in outrage when it came out that Ms. Suleman is unwed, unemployed, and has six other children. Despite that, she was able to afford multiple sessions of in vitro and received state assistance. This assistance, which, mind you, she does not refer to as ‘welfare.’
The American welfare system is heavily biased towards families, to the point where if a childless or childfree person were to apply for state aid, one of the foremost reasons for rejection is, “You have no children.” Conversely, if someone has a child, regardless of whether they could afford said child or not, their approval is as good as sealed.
Before the octuplets were born, Suleman already had six children, one of which is autistic. Some of the octuplets are liable to have similar problems, since this is the case with many IVF-sourced multiples. Developmental disabilities like autism are lifelong conditions that can drive even one- or two-child families into bankruptcy. How can Suleyman cope, given she has fourteen children in toto?
Currently, the worldwide economy is in a downturn severe enough to rank as a depression. People have gone unemployed for months, some past a year; food costs are soaring because the supply cannot meet the demand. Do you recall when your local bakery had a sign posted that due to rising costs of flour, the bread costs would go up? That was not too long ago, and the number of the unemployed has been rising steadily ever since. Medicaid, disability – all welfare spectrum services – have been stretched to capacity. The government aid Suleman will receive for fourteen children is liable to total up to five figures monthly, in an economy where, let’s face it, a job that even pays $30,000 is not easy to find.
Of the myriad of reasons people quote for having children, the one that stands out as the paragon of egoism is the one for “having a little me.” It’s with reasons like this, as well as the gem for “someone must carry the family name,” that having children becomes an ego-stroke for the parents rather than simply bringing up a member of society. The current baby-centric culture did a nice job of inflating having children as the be-all and end-all that the media seizes upon so readily. A single mother can end up in her situation in a myriad of ways, from choice to circumstance. But to be a single mother multiple times, without steady income, and to continue doing so deliberately, is definitely an ego trip for the mother.
Do you suppose Suleman asked her existing children whether they’d like another brother, or sister, or eight additional siblings?
My bet is no.
Initial delight over Suleman’s babies is turning into outrage. One question comes to mind, and it’s one that we have all asked:
Since when is deliberately having eight children, in addition to the six one already has, without a source of income in a strapped economy, a good idea?
The budget of California State is strapped, to the point where the state has considered rolling back tax credits, including those for research and development. People with a genuine need for state benefits, who have been without work for months and who, perhaps, do not have children, suffer without aid from the government. They are also the ones that are going to have to tighten their belt notches even more because one woman’s case of baby rabies. Would paying for this passel of kids be more beneficial to society than sustaining the equal number of fully-grown adults who have issues with finding work?
What, effectively, is this octuplet birth, other than a well-engineered money scam?
Suleman says she is living off student loans. To maintain eligibility for most student loans, she has to be enrolled in a minimum of one class at a school for the loans to be issued. Second, she is receiving state payments for her prior six children, which will more than double with her new brood. As such, she will make more in a month tax-free, in addition to whatever media endorsements that she may receive, than most people are lucky to see over multiple months.
In an depressed economy, responsible couples without children are choosing to have none, or to delay parenthood, for reasons from finances to overpopulation. While many of us have encountered at least one instance where someone would find a way to live off state assistance deliberately, Suleman is taking things to a new low.
To think, the time when accepting welfare was considered something to be ashamed of was not that long past.
What is interesting is that while the media would often inflate cases like this for media endorsement – the Duggars and the McCaughey septuplets are only a couple of such examples – the majority of the reaction this time has been different. What Suleman got instead of the donations that she hoped for was vitriol from the taxpayers who have unexpectedly found themselves in loco parentis as far as financial support of this brood goes. More questions arise: how does Suleman intend to continue her education with fourteen children in the house? Who will take care of those children? How many of those children will have debilitating disabilities, which will drain the California budget even further? And why should Suleman rake in the money when childless and childfree taxpayers must still run a gauntlet in getting state support simply because they have no children?
For all the negative publicity the case had received, it has at least brought a glaring spotlight onto the fertility industry. The doctor who implanted Suleman’s embryos is now under investigation. The developments, undoubtedly, will continue to arrive and as they do, the spotlight will continue to expand.
Copyright Katharine Wyse. Published 1 March 2009 in Editorials.
Reader comments
Commenting is closed for this article.