No more Nadya Sulemans

In these cataclysmic economic times, it's unconscionable that a woman who is not married, jobless, and has no means of financial support other than the government, irresponsibly produces 14 children. That the state of California will be on the hook for millions of dollars to support Suleman and her kids for 2 decades is grotesque and the laws need to be changed now so that no other woman is in a position to similarly game the system.

There is no insurer, private or public, which pays for Invitro Fertilization treatments. The United States Congress needs to pass a law restricting SSI/Disability payouts from ever being used for the purpose of IVF. Suleman says she paid for the IVF treatments with money she "saved up". Whatever she managed to stash away prior to claiming disability never would have been enough to cover $100,000 worth of IVF treatments had it not been for the $168,000 payout she received from SSI.

Doctors who specialize in IVF must come under stricter, mandatory guidelines in terms of how many embryoes can be implanted at once, based on age, health risk and familial support in the event of multiple births. Since IVF treatments are expensive and not covered by insurance, perhaps it's been assumed in the past that those who seek out this treatment have all the means to support the number of offspring produced. Suleman makes a mockery of any such assumption.

This can be addressed by requiring marital and financial disclosures which must be verified. The goal here is not to prevent women who have the means from undergoing IVF, but to deny treatment to women already feeding from the public coffers, or who are otherwise ill-equipped. After all, any woman who is receiving public assistance is in no financial position to churn out more children, particularly when we know the offspring will instantly be covered from birth by Medicaid. Unfortunately, we can't stop such pregnancies that occur via natural means, but we sure can prevent Doctors from being willing accomplices through extraordinary steps.

Finally, we have got to muster the will to rid the fraud and abuse of SSI/Disability. Though the excesses seem a pittance compared to rampant Corporate fraud and abuse, it doesn't make it right, and certainly not in these trying financial times. Prior to the birth of the Octuplets, 3 of Suleman's 6 children were classified as disabled, resulting in $793/month checks per child or almost $3000/month. One of the children is allegedly autistic. If so, no argument here, the child has a legitimate lifelong disability. My gripe is with the disability classification of the other 2 children. One is labeled with ADHD and the other with a mild speech impetiment. Both conditions are treatable with coverage through Medicaid. Why are either labeled as "disabled," and why are they receiving $800/month from SSI?

Since the state of California appears to be wholly responsibly for the financial support of the Octuplets, I'd like to see these babies adopted out to families who have the means, ability and desire to love and raise children. I'm also confident this won't happen, however tough decisions do need to be made to ensure there are no more Nadya Sulemans in our future.