twitter facebook stumble upon rss

I Wish the Octuplets Weren't Born in California

sign up for the momlogic newsletter Tweet This

Yesterday, 46 doctors, nurses and assistants delivered a set of octuplets by Caesarean section. Although all babies were miraculously born alive, which is wonderful, I less than thrilled they were birthed here in my home state of California. We're already bankrupt enough!

woman showing empty pocket

Guest Blogger Samantha: Yes, it's a miracle the octuplets were born happy and healthy, and I hope they stay that way.

But I just wish I wasn't footing the bill!

The babies were born in my home state of California. In case you haven't heard, we're going bankrupt.

We've been told that instead of state income tax returns, we'll likely instead receive a "registered warrant." Translation: an IOU.

California's Controller John Chiang warns that by the end of February, the nation's most populous state may not be able to pay some of its debts, and instead be reduced to issuing those creditors IOUs.

So who foots the bill for the octuplets? We all do!

Mark Perloe, MD and E. Scott Sills, MD, of the Atlanta Reproductive Health Center,
say that no one likes to count pennies when it comes to health care, especially for premature babies, but these multiple births are accompanied by huge expenses. Doctors caring for the octuplets born in Houston in 1998 estimated the babies' care cost at least $2 million (about $250,000 per infant) before they even went home. Add the likely expenses for providing ongoing medical care after the babies left the hospital, and the cost quickly soared into the millions.

Regarding the ballooning cost of multiple births, there's no free ride, according to Dr. Perloe and Dr. Sills. All of us will pay for this medical care. As a result, insurance companies could deny coverage for aggressive fertility treatments or raise everyone else's insurance premiums.

We don't know if the parents of the octuplets will or will not take federal aid. But if they do, that means every tax payer helps pay for this multiple birth. And those of us in California can't afford one more mouth to feed!

Do you think it's financially irresponsible to have eight babies, especially in this economy? Comment below.

171 comments so far | Post a comment now
Anonymous January 30, 2009, 4:26 PM

it’s simple: if you can’t support your children–don’t have kids. it’s not fair to the economy, the children, or the family of this woman. Six wasn’t enough? she’s single. her parents had to move in with her because they lost their house supporting her. the house they are all living in is small. not fair to these children to be brought up in these conditions. and yes, to all those who argued about footing the bill, Californians will be footing the bill because this woman is most likely receiving social services. and I don’t think it’s rude to refer to such births as litters. look up the definition.

j January 30, 2009, 4:52 PM

I Agree with SD!

Anonymous January 30, 2009, 5:51 PM

Oh, come on guys, get real. This woman was already the single mom of 6 kids, all under 7, BTW, and obviously had no previous problems conceiving. This whole thing is ethically, morally and financially irresponsible, both on the part of the mother and the fertility specialist who facilitated her conceiving a litter. And, yes, that’s just what it is, a litter. Look it up. As for the burden on the California taxpayer, I’m a resident of California too and I don’t have a problem with helping support the children of the deserving (key word here) poor. However, this woman is pushing the envelope. I’m thinking crazy here. Anybody else thinking that out there? Be honest.

Raymond January 30, 2009, 6:12 PM

No father? Mother does not work? 14 children?? What is wrong with that picture? The judgments that are being made here are based on the fact that someone must pay for this. If you are not responsible enough to pay you should not force others to do so. A blessed event? No, this is a nightmare for us working taxpayers. This is complete insanity.

MomOfThree January 30, 2009, 6:44 PM

Let’s not forget this single mom already has six children. Now really, don’t you think 14 children is an act of irresponsibility, on both the mom’s AND the doctor’s part?

MomOfThree January 30, 2009, 6:51 PM

oops, I didn’t see the issue of the previous 6 children had been addressed on page 2 and 3.

Anonymous January 30, 2009, 8:15 PM

My go she already has 6 at home how many more kids does this single mom want to soak us with

Sere January 30, 2009, 8:17 PM

I dont know if this is joyous or historic. I am surprised the hospital chose to use this for publicity when it seems like there is some indication that they should have been calling DCFS or having this woman psyschiatrically evaluated. it seems her motives to have as many children as possible with no resources make her a shaky care provider…and now she will have 8 special needs children, which is stressful enough for a woman with a partner and no other children. There is no way you can say that this family won’t be negatively impacted.

K.W. January 30, 2009, 8:39 PM

I’m not saying I don’t want these children to survive. They’ve already been conceived and born, so I hope they grow up happy and healthy. However, does a woman who already has 6 other children, has filed bankruptcy, and lives with her parents have ANY business going through fertility treatments?

MomOfThree January 30, 2009, 8:49 PM

This woman has already demonstrated that she is incapable of making sound judgement calls. Having six children under the age of 7, no source of self-income, and deciding to have more is NOT good judgement. However, what about the doctor who ok’d the fertility treatment? Should he not have to answer for HIS decision?

wtf January 30, 2009, 8:57 PM

That is the word I was looking for. This is not a family, its a herd. So happy to see that I have to pay for this disgusting behavior on the part of the medical community.

MomOfThree January 30, 2009, 9:07 PM

Quote from original blog post: “Do you think it’s financially irresponsible to have eight babies, especially in this economy?”

Financially, yes, it’s irresponsible. But more to the point, how about ‘emotionally’ responsible? You think she can provide an emotionally STABLE environment for these 14 kids? Give each one the time that each one needs? Teach them to grow into well-adjusted adults? You think it’s fair to the original six? I feel pity for these children, they all have been born into a life of hell.

anon January 30, 2009, 9:12 PM

QUICK QUESTION: does anyone even know if this woman was infertile or did she take the fertility drugs so that she could have multiple births at once? That is another layer here.

SesshoumarusGirl January 31, 2009, 12:02 AM

The ? that no one wants to ask/answer is: What Dr in their right mind would give this women fertility tx after delivering SIX babes in 5 pregnancies!

I question the womans motives.

SesshoumarusGirl January 31, 2009, 12:14 AM

- Sere:

I agree, anyone that would do this is not playing with a full deck.

Mike January 31, 2009, 1:38 AM

I am completely disgusted by the utter lack of responsibility of parents in the US. This is a prime example. She in no way has the resources (mentally, physically, financially) to raise this many children. She should give them all up for adoption. But really, she should never have even considered fertility treatment when she already had 6 kids with no father, living with her parents who recently filed for bankruptcy and went through a home foreclosure. And we wonder why we’re in a mortgage crisis.

MomOfThree January 31, 2009, 8:10 AM

Quote: The ? that no one wants to ask/answer is: What Dr in their right mind would give this women fertility tx after delivering SIX babes in 5 pregnancies!
SesshoumarusGirl, I posed this question 4 posts above yours. Personally, I think he should have his medical license yanked. His agreement to this shows total disregard for both the mother’s health and the future children’s health, as well as the children’s well-being that she already has.
Most posters here seem concerned about finances. A valid point, for sure, but surely the emotional well-being of all concerned overweighs finances.

chris January 31, 2009, 10:03 AM

Well, she’s given birth to lots of future tax payers.

B January 31, 2009, 11:02 AM

Classic science vs. religion. This is essentially the same situation that arises in America’s pet population. Rather than going to SPCA and adopting a dog or cat, people are going to the pet stores to get brand new puppies/kittens produces in large part by puppy/kitten mills or more extravagantly cloning their deceased pets. In vitro fertilization is the same thing: it is creating human baby mills. The woman in the article is the perfect example: she already had SIX kids! If she wanted more children, and simply wouldn’t feel complete without them, then she should have shared her love with the children in orphanages/foster care that won’t ever get that chance. Until people wake up and stop wanting brand new things/pets/babies, we’re not going to solve the overpopulation problem of unwanted pets AND children. Fertilization is supposed to be for barren couples that are not able to have children on their own but have such a large desire to have a family. Well, just because a child doesn’t share your DNA doesn’t mean that it can’t reciprocate your love just as your own biological child would. The grim reality is that the author of this article had a valid point: it comes down to financial responsibility: this mother is no better than generational welfare abusers. You can’t possibly cry to me that she needed another baby and happened to get 8. She already had a brood. Priorities people. Really.

-waiting for my CA refund January 31, 2009, 11:13 AM

So she had 6 kids, all young, and wanted more?? “MomOfThree” hit the nail on the head … what about the quality of the life the other 6 will have. It’s interesting, having adopted my oldest, turns out that any concerned party can petitition the state of california (NOT the local county, as to refer to those social workers as inept is an insult to all inept social workers) to have parental rights severed, and I cannot think of a better situation in which to sever parental rights. And where is dad?? I am thoroughly disgusted, yet the real tragedy is the life that looms ahead for each one of the 14 ….

Back to top >>