I couldn't agree with you more! I always thought that you get evaluated before getting fertility treatments. Where did she come up with the money for the treatments when she and her mother can't afford the 6 they have? And now, the local news here is asking everyone to donate strollers, cribs and carseats! I don't mean to seem insensative, but why did she get fertility treatments when she doesn't have the $$ to afford the things they're requesting donations for?

I read the story, and it's a shame it's getting any press period (more incentive to do such stupid stuff). No one has the right to bear 14 children when they don't work and can't afford them (or for any other reason in an overpopulated world). The doctor who artificially inseminated her should lose his/her license. The kids need to go to good homes - far away from nutso mom. Grandparents need to learn some tough love and stop supporting a woman who cranks out babies and nothing else plus ought to be paying their own bills and creditors instead of filing bankruptcy. The mother needs to be in a mental hospital (or jail). And, none of us should be paying for this record book stunt that required 43 doctors and nurses and goodness knows the bill in total. I don't like to be cold, but there's no excuse for having 6 kids in seven years and then cranking out 8 more at once. For starters, it's not fair to the kids. And, take it from there . . . 

I had heard that this woman lied to the fertilitiy specialist by telling him that she didn't presently have any children. She likely knew that she would have no chance with IVF if she told the truth. Does anyone know if this is true?

I agree with both of you. I always thought fertility clinics checked you out thoroughly. I heard the physician implanted 8 embryos in this woman. They usually implant 2-3 embryos at the most. What was this doctor thinking at this time I do not know. He should lose his medical license.

I just read the following on the Internet "The woman who gave birth to octuplets conceived all of her children through in-vitro fertilization, is not married and has been obsessed with having children since she was a teenager, her mother said." I just do not understand why a single woman with 6 other kids would get in-vitro fertilization treatments when she didn't have the $$$$$ to raise them. 

There's a story today saying she expects to appear on Oprah and write a book about child care and her experience having 8 babies, which will generate enough publicity and money to help her pay for everything.  She must have a very warped view of reality. What's scary is others will probably try to do the same thing - have lots of kids to generate sympathy and gifts from strangers and gain some fame.

I'm frankly a little glad that someone else is not thrilled about this and has had the courage to speak up on this thread.  I've got to tell you that it really creeped me out to see this woman and those eight babies.  Back in Biology class, we were told that among the other special advantages human beings have is that we don't reproduce in LITTERS.  Being able to have one or two offspring at a time is considered to be a plus for survival and a bunch of other things too.  This woman had a LITTER.  That might have been terrible enough even if it just happened accidentally but to think that someone might have engineered all this deliberately is unthinkable and downright unholy somehow.

They've got to watch these fertility treatments.  I remember years ago reading in either the Chicago Tribune or old Daily News that a woman in Italy had gotten pregnant from fertility treatments, had carried the pregnancy to about three months and then suddenly pumped out 34 little embryos that never had a chance to survive.  If someone really cares about human life, they should have cared about that.

One more thing, and then I'll stop -- some of you may remember my review about "17 Kids and Counting"?  Well, I just want to go on record as saying that what I admire the Duggars for is NOT that they had 18 kids but that they seem to be taking care of them all without depending on outside help.  If someone does a show called "14 and Counting" about this other woman, you can bet I'm NOT going to watch it! 

Well, everybody -- have a nice Super Bowl! 

 

Good question. We may not know these answers until she writes her book. It truly makes me ill BUT on the other hand I am pro choice. I don't want her to tell me I have to have 3 kids when I want two and I can't tell her 6 is enough. Having said that when special ed and Medicaid, etc. etc.  will be given out I think "we" have the right to say 6 is enough. PS I'll have to do some research on the fertility treatment issue. I read though that she didn't go to a clinic. I know a gay couple who used a turkey baster to inseminate one of the women though somehow she had to get 8 so gosh I'm bantering and I have no idea.

Anna, I wonder if anyone (other than some doctors who believe they don't have the right to interfere) applauds this woman? Even those who due to religion and don't use birth control I think would be very careful after 6 and not only wasn't she careful she did this on purpose.

As far as being "investigated" fertility clinics USUALLY do need quite a bit of background information as well as meeting the prospective father. Of course in this situation she was using a sperm donor and if she was vetted it probably would have shown that she had a good support system in her parents and that she was healthy. It probably also showed that she had had one successful pregnancy. 

However, on the subject of fertility clinics, they like many others are in it for the numbers.  I was told that IVF was the ONLY way that we could conceive -- and yes I already had two children. While I did get pregnant on IVF, we also concieved naturally - after surgery to repair damage so I could conceive.  The reproductive specialist said that it was probably done that way because I was a good candidate and could help their numbers. 

Actually the number of fertilized embroyos implanted is your choice. Most offices make recommendations as to how many you should implant, in my case 4 the first time and 5 the second.  But they are your property and only you can make the absolute decision. The doctor is required to implant those that you decide on.

I don't know her intentions, but I do know experience in this. You either have to be crazy or really really really really want children to go through this sort of experience.  It is painful and costly, emotionally, mentally and physically draining -- and when successful absolutely worth every minute and every bruise from the shots.

Her rights end where mine begin (and every other person paying taxes and the tab). Who has a right to say how many is too many - 6, 8, 12, 14? I say the personal right ends where you can't support them - period.

I love kids. I considered having another. I wasn't sure I could pay his or her way without help. End of discussion.

Our public support system (welfare) was designed (I think) to kick in during emergencies. It was not meant to be a free pass to pump out 14 babies in 7 or 8 years for someone who was already playing the system for educational support. Free tuition. Free books. Add babies and free food and . . . plus she's shopping for a TV deal like Kate and her Eight (which is also pretty sick when you look close).

You are so right! We are ready (have been ready a while, actually) to have a 2nd, fiscal preparedness included, and it angers me that my husband worked/s hard and I work hard at home, to make that happen when this woman is living off of all of our paid taxes when she choses to be a baby factory! It's so selfish and careless! And now she plans on being on Oprah and having a book deal!?! She'll be more infamous than famous for it. I won't buy her book, that's for sure! . . . I wonder if she's sick in the head or a narcacist!?!

LisaCarey said…

As far as being "investigated" fertility clinics USUALLY do need quite a bit of background information as well as meeting the prospective father. Of course in this situation she was using a sperm donor and if she was vetted it probably would have shown that she had a good support system in her parents and that she was healthy. It probably also showed that she had had one successful pregnancy. 

However, on the subject of fertility clinics, they like many others are in it for the numbers.  I was told that IVF was the ONLY way that we could conceive -- and yes I already had two children. While I did get pregnant on IVF, we also concieved naturally - after surgery to repair damage so I could conceive.  The reproductive specialist said that it was probably done that way because I was a good candidate and could help their numbers. 

Actually the number of fertilized embroyos implanted is your choice. Most offices make recommendations as to how many you should implant, in my case 4 the first time and 5 the second.  But they are your property and only you can make the absolute decision. The doctor is required to implant those that you decide on.

I don't know her intentions, but I do know experience in this. You either have to be crazy or really really really really want children to go through this sort of experience.  It is painful and costly, emotionally, mentally and physically draining -- and when successful absolutely worth every minute and every bruise from the shots.

---

I think this was such a wonderful answer, Lisa, but I have been researching more about this gal on the Internet today.  Apparently, there is a difference between wanting to be a parent and wanting to have babies.  According to her own family, this lady craves the experience of being pregnant and giving birth. 

As far as parental support is concerned, things look a little murky there.  If news reports are even half correct, this gal's parents tried to talk her out of it and her own mother has gone on record as saying that she "won't be there" when this lady comes home from the hospital.  The baby's grandfather is going back to Iraq to try to earn money in a military job there (so I guess HE won't be there EITHER.) 

I suspect that this will be this eager mother's first run-in with really having to take care lf all the kids she has had.  Speaking as someone who has never had kids at all, I am already humbled by seeing what Mommies do for one, two, or three kids much less 14. 

But this lady thought she wanted all these kids and now may come the wake-up call.

What an interesting thread this was, by the way!  Thanks, Jo!

 

 

Well said!!   I agree, the right to have a litter ends--when one can not support, love
and properly care for them --without any and all tax-paying persons footing the tab!
Basic,and practical --shoes, clothing, and food are not small items.  What about an education in the future?   Unfortunately, too often we see the next generation, do
a repeat --of what lived, seen, etc.   ?? more litters then?!   Makes one wonder how she had enough $$$ for the procedure; and was $$$ the important issue to the clinic/doc--rather than if she really was an "appropriate" candidate.

The father of the baby machine momma is from Iraq. He is not going back as part of our American military (but perhaps on our military dime). He will go to translate etc. That's a needed skill. No doubt about that. But, if I had a daughter who cranked out 14 babies and pushed me into bankruptcy, then I might be glad to go anywhere other than home to a house packed wall to wall with little ones needing attention and no way to provide it with this number.

The mother of the 8 is an Americanized citizen. Legal? I think - but not sure. Her kids are definitely, since they were born here.  

The grandmother (mother of the baby machine) says she's checking out, but it's doubtful. I'm sure she'd love to, but when they are your grands, it's hard. The tough love needed to have started way back. By the time that babies are involved, it's hard to walk away. The babies sure didn't ask to be brought into this world. They are the losers here.

The oct Mom needs a wake up call, but the babies didn't play a part in the stupid decision. Sadly, there's probably not much that can or will be done unless she's proved to be unfit or abusive (and that's a darn hard thing to prove in this country - even if a case where some nut cranks 14 babies in 7 yrs). And, who wants to back off enough to put infants in that sort of sitution? I doubt it's going to be Grandma who runs off, since she has been taking care of the other six. I'm sure she'd fed up, but what do you do?

I understand that the grandfather won't be working for our military in Iraq and you can bet the chat boards are jumping about THAT out there today.  My understanding is that this is how desperate this family is for money, that grandpa has to go out and earn some more!

Well, I'll catch up with you guys tomorrow.  Gonna eat dinner now -- I'm getting fashionably late about dining! 

Bye bye to all for now!

 

 

No, individual rights do not end when you reach the point that you cannot support your kids. This women got pregnant via IVF, but what about others who cannot financially support kids but get pregnant and have kids anyway? How would we control something like this? Force them to take birth control pills? What if they claim they are taking the pills but then get pregnant anyway? What would we do then? Fine the woman for not obeying her limited rights? If you stop someone from having more children by IVF because they cannot finacially support their children, than you have to stop others from having children through the natural means- it's only fair . And how do you propose we stop other people from conceiving? Do we outlaw sex among the young? Outlaw sex unless yoru income is above a certain level? I can just picture our crazy government officials trying to enforce laws such as these! It would be a debacle even more insane than the war on drugs, and even less successful.  

This debate would, of course, eventually extend far beyond the issue of supporting children. Once you restrict rights based on financial means for supporting children, you will have opened the door to restrict rights in other areas also. Should a person with low income be prevented by law from owning property? There is, after all, a good chance he/she will not be able to pay property taxes and insurance on that property, leading to foreclosure, bailouts by the FDIC, and the use of taxpayer funds to pay for individual misdeeds. Does that mean that this right should also be restricted by law? Maybe we should also take away the right to vote unless income is at a sufficient level because, after all, those people without much income shouldn't have any say in laws that could potentially encourage them to behave in a financially reckless way. What other rights could also be restricted? The possibilities are endless,  which is precisely why we can never allow our insane, unetchical, immoral government officials to enjoy power at this level. It would take time, but they would most certainly abuse this authority and use it as a means to repress others. No, everyone in government would not do this. But you wouldn't need to have every government official abusing his/her authority. It would only take a few people to push their brand of authoritarian control on any group they choose. And they would use the subject of "personal finances" to back their decisions. Add children to the mix and you have a double whammy of deception and sinister government actions. I can just hear it now: "That woman should go to prison for having sex, your honor. Her income is below $10,000 per year and she cannot support children. And I would not want to see a helpless, innocent child raised by someone so irresponsible".  

If we want to criticize the welfare system that is fine. There are many cracks in the system and many valid arguments have been presented for a drastic reduction in welfare handouts and/or the requirement for welfare recipients to work in some capacity to repay some of the benefits. But to say that we should take away rights based on financial well- being is not only unconstitutional, it would lead to authoritarianism at its absolute worst. It's a direction I hope, as a nation, we never turn.  

 

It's not about regulating individual rights. I agree with you there, that would be wrong. When pregnancy happens naturally, it's one thing. When a couple who longs to have 1-4 children of their own and can't and seek help from a fertilization clinic, that's one thing. When a woman who's on welfare already and has 6 kids already, is quite another. It's the IVF doctor's/clinic's fault. The fertilization clinics need to have regulations in having more thorough evaluation methods to find out if the patient is a good candidate, not just health wise, but a visit to the home, a background check, what not. It should be done in a similar fashion that adoption evaluations are handled. They shouldn't be giving everyone coming in off the streets IVFs just to make a buck!

Fine Brian. You send that womam some money or go trot one of those babies. Let me know if you do.

I am pro-choice, and when a friend (back when I was in college) got pregnant, I gave her a place to live and paid for food etc. I didn't see any church members (mostly right wing) doing the same. If they don't support abortions, they need to get off their duffs and help.

I helped. Do you? I hope so.

But, the bottom line is that personal responsibility comes with our rights and freedoms. If we didn't bail out women who pump out babies, people who buy houses they can't afford (and the banks did shell it out above what would be reasonable) and banks that take bad risks, then we would not be in the mess we are now. I don't know when "free ride" became the norm, but it's been a mistake.

The government does not have to dictate. But, they don't have to take on all the burdens of horrible decisions either. The government is "us." We pay the tab. Who decided we owed some women with no job or sense financial aid for 14 babies. I think I missed that vote, and I think she might think about it more if she really thought she had to take care of her own like most of the rest of us.

And, I did not say a thing about the right to vote or other "freedoms." The woman can vote and probably should vote Democratic as well as her brood of 14 when they hit 18. Mentally handicapped people can vote in the U.S., and they can have help, and I can tell you that means someone can get a double vote when the person voting is over 18 but on a 4 yr level and has a helper. But, so be it. Life is not always fair.

Oh no. I wouldn't deny her any rights. She can have as many babies as she wants. She can buy a house she can't afford and a car and TV on rent to own. But, she takes care of the messes she makes.

Is our system working? NO. That's pretty clear. I have a few more years to crank kids. Maybe I could see if a doc would hit me with 10 fertilized eggs, so I could go on the dole and probably get on TV too. It would be easier than working a two jobs and paying college for two kids. But, I really don't think you or the government owe me that.  

cmohr80 said…

It's not about regulating individual rights. I agree with you there, that would be wrong. When pregnancy happens naturally, it's one thing. When a couple who longs to have 1-4 children of their own and can't and seek help from a fertilization clinic, that's one thing. When a woman who's on welfare already and has 6 kids already, is quite another. It's the IVF doctor's/clinic's fault. The fertilization clinics need to have regulations in having more thorough evaluation methods to find out if the patient is a good candidate, not just health wise, but a visit to the home, a background check, what not. It should be done in a similar fashion that adoption evaluations are handled. They shouldn't be giving everyone coming in off the streets IVFs just to make a buck!

---

I am sure that no one expected that all eight of them would actually "take" after all I didn't expect that all 5 of mine would -- but the hope was that at least one.  And that was the result -- just one.  Also in cases of IVF and artificial insemination the incidence of miscarriage or fetal demise is 3 times higher than in a naturally occuring pregnancy.  This case is so incredibly unusual!  The rates of having twins are pretty high -- but all eight is like well almost impossible.  Apparently she had enough money to pay for the treatment, it's my hope that will translate into enough money to take care of her children.

While I agree there is a level of responsibilty with a fertility clinic (for example at ours Bryan and I had to go through many evaluations before the treatment would begin as well as give them a copy of our marriage license) if they made too many rules about who could and couldn't  have fertility treatments couldn't that also translate into discrimination? Maybe they then decide that a gay or lesbian couple shouldn't have children and refuse them treatment based on their lifestyle. That would be my worry if there were too many processes put into place.

What tough questions -- and equally tough answers.

Yes, personal responsibility does come with rights and freedoms. That is why, like I said, we should be attacking the welfare system, not the individual right to have babies, buy a home, etc.

 

You are right, the taxpayers should not have to pay for other's mistakes. That is why, again, we should be attacking the welfare system, not individual rights. But it would be naive to think that other freedoms would not disappear if we tried to outlaw the personal choice to have several children, if that is what someone wishes. Trust me when I say that other rights would most definitely be taken away or curbed if we ever allow government officials to control how many children we have based on our ability to support them financially.

Another thing we need to realize is that the odds against a woman having eight children at once through IVF are astronomical. This was not what she, the medical professionals involved, or anyone else would have predicted. Thousands and perhaps even millions of women have gone through IVF and been implanted with eight fertilized egss and until now, no woman has ever conceived eight babies at once, which proves that it is extremely rare. It is a common practice to implant multiple eggs because, as anyone knows who has gone through this procedure, it is highly unlikely that even a small percentage will survive and eventually become newborn babies. This occurance was a freak accident of nature. Limiting the number of eggs that are implanted through IVF is not only unnecessary, it would also possibly prevent some women who want one baby from ever realizing their dream.

 

 

I was not for regulating "individual" rights --voting, owning property etc.   Where is
the sense in "bringing another 1, yet 8 more" --to be supported by an already overburdened welfare system ?  There are more than cracks in this system. The woman already had 6 kids under the age of 7, but wanting more --sounds fertile enough to me without needing the help of any clinic. In fact with that number of children, I am amazed that a fertility clinic would really feel that its services were needed--except to benefit from the $$$.  Sounds like that $$$ could really have benefited those existing children.   I know the odds for 8 would be
very rare.  Nevertheless, while 1 woman has her "pleasure" , think there are many folks who already have a child  or so--underfed etc due to the turn of the economy but are caring, loving parents eking out a living by piecing a number of jobs together.     While government help is doled out for another 8 to her, think that several needy families [4-8 different ones!]  could have received help.  The bottom line--there just is a finite sum of money.   Should she get a similar reward next year, if she gets the whim for 4 or 5 more babies ?!!! 

Bryan-Carey said…

No, individual rights do not end when you reach the point that you cannot support your kids. This women got pregnant via IVF, but what about others who cannot financially support kids but get pregnant and have kids anyway? How would we control something like this? Force them to take birth control pills? What if they claim they are taking the pills but then get pregnant anyway? What would we do then? Fine the woman for not obeying her limited rights? If you stop someone from having more children by IVF because they cannot finacially support their children, than you have to stop others from having children through the natural means- it's only fair . And how do you propose we stop other people from conceiving? Do we outlaw sex among the young? Outlaw sex unless yoru income is above a certain level? I can just picture our crazy government officials trying to enforce laws such as these! It would be a debacle even more insane than the war on drugs, and even less successful.  

This debate would, of course, eventually extend far beyond the issue of supporting children. Once you restrict rights based on financial means for supporting children, you will have opened the door to restrict rights in other areas also. Should a person with low income be prevented by law from owning property? There is, after all, a good chance he/she will not be able to pay property taxes and insurance on that property, leading to foreclosure, bailouts by the FDIC, and the use of taxpayer funds to pay for individual misdeeds. Does that mean that this right should also be restricted by law? Maybe we should also take away the right to vote unless income is at a sufficient level because, after all, those people without much income shouldn't have any say in laws that could potentially encourage them to behave in a financially reckless way. What other rights could also be restricted? The possibilities are endless,  which is precisely why we can never allow our insane, unetchical, immoral government officials to enjoy power at this level. It would take time, but they would most certainly abuse this authority and use it as a means to repress others. No, everyone in government would not do this. But you wouldn't need to have every government official abusing his/her authority. It would only take a few people to push their brand of authoritarian control on any group they choose. And they would use the subject of "personal finances" to back their decisions. Add children to the mix and you have a double whammy of deception and sinister government actions. I can just hear it now: "That woman should go to prison for having sex, your honor. Her income is below $10,000 per year and she cannot support children. And I would not want to see a helpless, innocent child raised by someone so irresponsible".  

If we want to criticize the welfare system that is fine. There are many cracks in the system and many valid arguments have been presented for a drastic reduction in welfare handouts and/or the requirement for welfare recipients to work in some capacity to repay some of the benefits. But to say that we should take away rights based on financial well- being is not only unconstitutional, it would lead to authoritarianism at its absolute worst. It's a direction I hope, as a nation, we never turn.  

 

---

Bryan, you make a lot of good points.  Here's where you and I part company.

Should a person with low income be prevented by law from owning property?

The answer to THAT is a definitive YES!  Although, it would be better if this was achieved by careful, conservative lending procedures.  Part of the mess we have gotten into today is due to the fact that commission-happy brokers and bankers have been handing out mortgages to poor saps who could not even dream about meeting the expenses and financial burdens of owning too much house. 

I had to rent for more than 20 years before I was finally making enough and was able to afford a small condo.  Then I had to produce a 20% down payment (which they required because there weren't enough owners actually living in my building at the time which created a problem regarding mortgage insurance).  Even though my credit was impeccable at the time and I was working 50 hour weeks, it still took more than a month for my mortgage to be approved. 

It was really difficult to get my hands on my condo, but I have often been glad the bank was as careful and conservative as they were.  Better that, then to have been foreclosed on.

 

I worked as a Social Worker for a long time for Head Start. I've seen it all. I've never seen this. I agree that it's a slippery slope (I hate that phrase) but one that needs to be looked at. When a fertility specialist says that this is a failure not a success then the medical community may just have to step in. What if she had 12 embryos implanted and they all somehow survived and all need - how much a day in hospital bills?? and special ed etc. etc. The bottom line is that I think Social Services may need to get involved because this is not in the best interest of the children. Period.

I do not believe she lied to him/her. Any doctor doing fertility treatments should have done exams prior to doing them.  A "good" or not so "good" OB/GYN should have been able to tell the had numerous children.  Each time you have a child the uterus is stretched and never goes back to it's normal (pre-pregnancy) size.  I am a nurse with 15 years high risk Labor and Delivery experience, even I could tell she had children from an exam.  I believe this doctor wanted to try to do something that had not been accomplished.  Maybe he/she should have to support the 8 children.  Then next time he/she will use their brain.  There are a lot of childless couples that would love to have a baby--here are eight that ought to be adopted out.

These eight will be in the news the rest of their lives. Someone is probably trying for nine right now! I always wanted seven, but fourteen... G*d help her :)

It's time for the "welfare" system to be totally re-worked.  There are way too many "living" off of it that can physically work for a living, but choose the "easy life" just because they can. 

Take a look at how many from southern Louisiana still have no house after Katrina.  They also don't have any jobs.  Why?  Lazy and welfare has them covered.

CyndiA said…

Her rights end where mine begin (and every other person paying taxes and the tab). Who has a right to say how many is too many - 6, 8, 12, 14? I say the personal right ends where you can't support them - period.

I love kids. I considered having another. I wasn't sure I could pay his or her way without help. End of discussion.

Our public support system (welfare) was designed (I think) to kick in during emergencies. It was not meant to be a free pass to pump out 14 babies in 7 or 8 years for someone who was already playing the system for educational support. Free tuition. Free books. Add babies and free food and . . . plus she's shopping for a TV deal like Kate and her Eight (which is also pretty sick when you look close).

---

My belief is that this woman is in some way mentally impaired.  No woman in her right mind (with or without husband, but especially without) with six children under the age of 7 would seriously consider having another child, much less eight more.  So she enjoys being pregnant... let's see how much she enjoys taking care of 14 children under the age of 7.  Not to put too fine a point on it, she's extremely selfish, only thinking of what she wants, but not of the consequences of her behavior.  Of course, she's going to expect the taxpayers to foot the bill for her brood, because there's no way she can work to support all of those children.

I haven't read all of this but I just gotta say.... if someone is already on welfare, using OUR taxes to pay for their kids..  If they go and have another kid, they should not be allowed to claim welfare.

Or system sucks.  Regular hard working people like you and me can't get a dime of support because we "make too much money" (we all know that isn't true!)  Yet losers go and have kid after kid and they get all this money for free.  I know a few of these types of women, and I have zero respect for them.  I knew some that even said they planned to get pregnant even though they had no house (living with parents) because they could just pick up the phone and apply for support.  She had the number memorized.  On the other hand, I don't even know the first step to getting welfare or any support like this. 

Our system needs some kind of control to stop the abuse!  I'm so tired of it. 

Anyone who donates to this woman is just supporting it.  If she can't afford the children and can't take care of them, they should be taken away.

(FYI: It also ticks me off when I see people on welfare filing their taxes for a refund.  A refund???  The government has been giving you all this money and now you want a refund??  If anything, they should OWE the government!!)

I've heard of too many cases where someone is getting money or support and they have no justifiable "need" for it.  For instance, the department my husband works in is Office of Youth Corrections.  There is one lady that works in couseling there, a professional, making a professional salary (more than twice MY salary) who is a single mother with children.  She recently got a notice that her childcare support is being dropped.  She had a fit.  Now she is working a full time job and making good money.  Why should the government be giving her $200 a week PER child for childcare? 

At least this one situation was caught and stopped.  But how many more are out there like this?  Our tax money is being wasted in so many ways!

vivasuzi said…

I haven't read all of this but I just gotta say.... if someone is already on welfare, using OUR taxes to pay for their kids..  If they go and have another kid, they should not be allowed to claim welfare.

Or system sucks.  Regular hard working people like you and me can't get a dime of support because we "make too much money" (we all know that isn't true!)  Yet losers go and have kid after kid and they get all this money for free.  I know a few of these types of women, and I have zero respect for them.  I knew some that even said they planned to get pregnant even though they had no house (living with parents) because they could just pick up the phone and apply for support.  She had the number memorized.  On the other hand, I don't even know the first step to getting welfare or any support like this. 

Our system needs some kind of control to stop the abuse!  I'm so tired of it. 

Anyone who donates to this woman is just supporting it.  If she can't afford the children and can't take care of them, they should be taken away.

(FYI: It also ticks me off when I see people on welfare filing their taxes for a refund.  A refund???  The government has been giving you all this money and now you want a refund??  If anything, they should OWE the government!!)

---

The welfare system is really messed up. I use to live in an apartment above a family of INDOOR smokers! They were grandparents with 3 grand kids that both had enough health problems to be fully on disablility, plus collecting welfare for those kids. The wife had infezema that caused her to take an ambulence to the hospital regularly and they'd both STILL SMOKE! It made me so mad that my taxes were paying for their abuse of the system. They'd live off of a potion of my income and had the nerve to complain about my then toddler son walking around the house too much, while I was breathing in the second had smoke PRODUCED BY THEM! My husband NEVER smokes indoors and I was still breathing through the walls from them! They know how bad cigarettes are and have illnesses because of those smokes and still chose to smoke!?! Where's the social workers that should intervine and take their benefits away because they were, and still are from what I last saw. abusing the system!?!

I wonder if that woman would have her benefits taken away, if enough of us reported our concerns? We'd have the right to, I think.