« | »

Octomom Gets Food Stamps, Disability

From Fox News:

This image made from a 2006 video provided by KTLA shows Dr. Michael Kamrava performing an ultrasound on Nadya Suleman.

Octuplets Mom On Welfare, Spokesman Confirms

LOS ANGELES — The Southern California mother of octuplets receives $490 a month in food stamps and three of her first six children are disabled and receiving federal assistance, her publicist confirmed Monday evening.

Spokesman Michael Furtney said Suleman did not want to disclose the nature of the disabilities, or the type or sum of the payments.

Furtney confirmed the public assistance payments after two sources told The Los Angeles Times that Suleman was receiving food stamps and federal supplemental security income.

In her view these are just payments made for people with legitimate needs and are not, in her view, welfare,” Furtney said. “She just believes that there are programs for people with needs and she and her children qualify for some of them.”

In an interview that aired Monday, Suleman told NBC “Today” show anchor Ann Curry that she does not receive welfare.

Her six other children are under the age of 7. All 14 children were the result of in-vitro fertilization…

In an interview with celebrity news Web site RadarOnline.com, Angela Suleman said she and Nadya’s father pleaded with her first fertility doctor not to treat their daughter again. She said her daughter went to another doctor.

“I’m really angry about that,” Angela Suleman said of the doctor’s decision to perform the procedure. “She already has six beautiful children. Why would she do this? I’m struggling to look after her six. We had to put in bunk beds, feed them in shifts and there’s children’s clothing piled all over the house.”

Angela Suleman said Nadya’s boyfriend was the biological father of all 14 children, but that she refused to marry him.

“He was in love with her and wanted to marry her,” she said. “But Nadya wanted to have children on her own.”

Ms. Suleman obviously has psychological problems. But why should the taxpayers pay for them?

Indeed, one has to wonder how much of this has been encouraged by the system.

Maybe Ms. Suleman didn’t want to marry because that would make it harder to qualify for welfare and other support.

Which is certainly one of the reasons why we have seen such burgeoning of single motherhood over the last three decades.

(Thanks to BillK for the heads up.)

This article was posted by Steve on Tuesday, February 10th, 2009. Comments are currently closed.

34 Responses to “Octomom Gets Food Stamps, Disability”

  1. BillK says:

    We now have confirmation of what many had suspected:

    Octuplets Mom On Welfare, Spokesman Confirms

    LOS ANGELES — The Southern California mother of octuplets receives $490 a month in food stamps and three of her first six children are disabled and receiving federal assistance, her publicist confirmed Monday evening…

    http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,490269,00.html

    Of course the left loves this, as if any conservative makes any comment regarding the octuplets they immediately shoot back “I thought you were pro-life” and “See, you think she should have aborted at least some of those children!”

    Finally, as if we need more proof of Ann’s thesis in Guilty regarding single mothers:

    Angela Suleman said Nadya’s boyfriend was the biological father of all 14 children, but that she refused to marry him.

    “He was in love with her and wanted to marry her,” she said. “But Nadya wanted to have children on her own.”

  2. artboyusa says:

    “Ms. Suleman obviously has psychological problems…” boy, I’ll say. Crazy as bedbug is more like it. Those poor kids – imagine growing up with this self-obsessed nutjob as your “Mom”. Brrrrrrrrrrrrrr….

  3. sheehanjihad says:

    This obviously disturbed self absorbed woman is the poster child for the new administration.

    Take take take, and let someone else pay for it. When I think of all of the childless couples who would do anything to have a baby of their own and cant because they dont “qualify”…meaning they cant afford it or they make too much money to receive the same freebies as octopsycho…..it just is appalling in it’s scope.

    She needs to be institutionalized, and everyone who participated in this entire scenario stripped of their ability to do it again. All of her imaginary children will grow up without parents….because she is as far from being a real mother as Obama is of actual leadership.

  4. Which is certainly one of the reasons why we have seen such burgeoning of single motherhood over the last three decades.

    They’ll always try to find a way to undermine traditional marriage.

    Of course the left loves this, as if any conservative makes any comment regarding the octuplets they immediately shoot back “I thought you were pro-life” and “See, you think she should have aborted at least some of those children!”

    Which is why we have to walk a fine line between advocating responsibility and condemnation. Should she have 14 children? No. She probably shouldn’t have any.

    But SHE made the bad choices; the children are innocent victims. Yeah, it sucks that taxpayers are on the hook, but the notion that it’s better to kill an unborn child rather than let taxpayers foot the bill is a road we DO NOT want to go down. You need look no further than China to see what happens when the state decides how many children one can have.

    We need to reform the welfare system in such a way that it discourages single motherhood and encourages women to form stable marriages with decent, responsible men.

    But that will never happen because marriage is “oppressive” (funny, considering how many liberals fight for the right to “gay marriage”) and it’s better to have a “baby daddy” or “live in boyfriend” (so taxpayers can foot the bill for your child’s funeral when that man beats him to death).

    • russ51 says:

      But SHE made the bad choices; the children are innocent victims. Yeah, it sucks that taxpayers are on the hook, but the notion that it’s better to kill an unborn child rather than let taxpayers foot the bill is a road we DO NOT want to go down“…

      Hmmm, are we sure that is a road NOT worth exploring?

      Actually I really do agree with your sentiments but I do believe that leaving those children with that nutty broad is also a road that should be carefully looked into…

      Throwing kids into the state foster care program is at best a poor, poor substitute for real parents but I can’t help but wonder if the odds for ALL those kids might not be marginally better…

    • Russ51:

      It is a very fine line. I’m not opposed to, on a case-by-case basis, looking at single mothers and determining whether or not they’re having children for the money, or if they made a genuine mistake and might need a little help.

      But who makes these decisions? There’s a vast difference between this mother and, say, the Duggar family of Arkansas – they have 18 children. However, I’m willing to bet you’d find more than a handful of people who either see no difference between this mother and that family because they think any family with more than 1 or 2 children is irresponsible. On a board I once frequented, women said Mrs. Duggar needed to be spayed. Never mind that the Duggars are 1) married, 2) committed, 3) have no debts…and didn’t, even before they were on television, and 4) have religious convictions that believe children are a blessing.

      I make no qualms about saying that I am a Catholic and therefore, I think artificial contraception is wrong. Many others agree with me, and it is a teaching of our faith. I know many Catholic families who use NFP or no method of natural family planning at all and have 5, 6, 7, 8 children (or more). While I understand the culture at large disagrees, I believe that families like my own have a right to practice our faith as we believe, including the right to have large families (with the understanding we’re responsible for them; none of the large families I know are on welfare. One, with 8 members, has a $60/week grocery budget and they make ends meet by being frugal).

      My concerns in this are twofold:

      1) Protecting the life of the unborn. I am unabashedly pro-life and abortion accomplishes nothing other than punishing the innocent victim…the unborn child created by the irresponsible acts of his/her parents.

      2) Protecting the right of people like myself to have large families. It doesn’t take a major leap to figure out that there are people out there (liberals, eco-nuts, anti-marriage/anti-family types) who LOVE nothing more than to use this mother as a spearhead on a campaign for parental qualification tests and 1 or 2 child/family limits. They would especially target women like me, and the Catholic mothers I know, who choose to have large families, and use their agenda (which is bigoted toward traditional morality, traditional families, religious persons, and the pro-life movement) to take away the “reproductive rights” of such people.

      I don’t disagree that leaving 14 children – three of whom are disabled – with a woman who might not be able to care for them because she clearly has some issues, given the statements of her mother and others.

      But we have to tread cautiously here because there are those who would use this as a club to beat anti-life, anti-family agendas through legislation. You know, for the “greater good” and all that.

      Of course, the problem is reversing the irresponsibilty that infects our culture like the plague. And a major revamp of our foster care system – with an emphasis on placement with stable, responsible people and NOT a reuniting with families who might be dangerous or incapable of providing adequate care – is necessary.

    • dustman says:

      Don’t get me wrong here, I’m not supporting abortion and/or population control, but having a large family just because you can afford it is still irresponsible. I wonder how many people could afford it before the economy started sucking fumes? 3-4 children is a gray area, but I would certainly consider 5 or more children (plus 1 or more parents) a large family.

      With advanced medical technologies, people are living far longer, and they’re having more children then they used to. The simple truth is, our world is finite in size and resources, and our societies require these resources to function and to provide the things we need. Without the means to replace these technologies with more sustainable ones, we should exercise care.

      What happens when there is no room left, and the number of mouths to feed exceeds what can be produced? According to the U.S. Census Bureau, in 2008 alone there were 20 births to every 8 deaths per 1000 people all around the world (About 6,765,500,000 people). What kind of world will my grandchildren and great-grandchildren be born into?

      This is a matter of simple logic: Living space/resources are finite, every year more people are born than die, if the trend continues we will eventually run out of living space/resources.

      It’s not a religious issue, or an ethnic/culture issue, and it certainly isn’t a Republican/Democrat issue. This is about taking responsibility and being aware of what is going on in the world around us, taking time to consider the consequences of our actions and how they will effect future generations.

  5. beautyofreason says:

    Let me get this straight: This mother can afford fertility treatments with a Beverly Hills doctor yet she is on on welfare, in a single parent household, with three disabled kids of six (how did those happen?) and her parents have gone bankrupt to give their daughter a house to raise her first six kids, and THEN she went on for eight more?

    CPS. Seems like she needs to give all the newborns up for adoption if any one of her six other children are going to have a normal life – I’m curious to know why half of her non-newborns are disabled – is it luck of the draw, something more insidious, or perhaps a mere technicality to get disability payouts from the government ?

  6. U NO HOO says:

    “the children are innocent victims.”

    Bill O’ had it right, CHILD ABUSE.

    • Bill O’ had it right, CHILD ABUSE.

      I don’t necessarily disagree. But, I repeat, that aborting the children would do nothing to make this woman more personally responsible and it would punish the children.

      Give them up for adoption. There are many people out there willing to adopt these children.

  7. U NO HOO says:

    The Senate is voting to spend a trillion dollars today, octomom’s fertility $ pales in comparison.

    • gipper says:

      I was thinking the same thing, UNH. What’s been done has been done. Octomom will have no affect on me, but the “stimulus” bill will if it gets passed.

  8. U NO HOO says:

    Abortion is perhaps the ultimate child abuse.

    Octomom should not have ever gotten pregnant, not once, not ever. Sound familiar?

    She is a sociopath, if that is the correct word.

    It appears obvious to me she is looking for notoriety and money, just like the pregnant man.

    Octomom is probably already negotiating with Oprah and a publisher.

    Sick and getting sicker out there.

  9. Colonel1961 says:

    ‘…legitimate needs…’ Yes, and as I’m wont to say – Hitler justified killing the Jews. Anyone can rationalize anything these days. She should be sterilized.

  10. Enthalpy says:

    Nadya’s boyfriend should still get the bills.

    • russ51 says:

      NO! Nadya’s boyfriend has yet to be proven to be the actual father though the news is rife with such rumors…

      I think the ALL people involved in the two proceedures should be on the hook for the costs (even if it means liquidating their private property and other assets) that would normally be picked up by welfare…

      Those medical people obviously didn’t bother to brush up on the hippocratic oath…

  11. catie says:

    How in the world did she ever afford IVF treatments? We tried twice and found ourselves in the hole approximately $35,000. We used our embryos with no result. How did she pay?
    She supposedly has a 3 y/o with autism. I guess that’s one cash cow for her. I think she fancies herself some sort of “expert” on motherhood as well. She’s obviously deranged and that doctor should be shut down. Here’s her new show: Nadya plus 14 premiering Sunday night at 10 on TLC.
    Orca doesn’t surprised me one bit. Those dopes in her audience will probably give her a standing o when she arrives on stage.
    BTW, anyone catch Neil Cavuto’s show yesterday? Stuart was subbing but he had these two attorneys on and you could tell one of them is definitely a pro-death advocate. She kept yapping that it was her “right to privacy” and her right to decide to do with her body. She also kept going back to Little House on the Prairie times. What she left out was of course many children never lived past 3 and many more died before 5, most people were farmers and needed the “hands” on the farm.
    Let’s hope Nadya’s boyfriend is also Daddy Warbucks.

  12. fmbm64 says:

    This woman is insane,I would like to think a Dr. could have seen this….was she a test dummy for the Dr.?
    Why should we keep all these people in the system and pay them to stay home having kids,what ever happened to the real American way where we planned for kids when we felt financially stable or atleast waited for the time we could reach in our own pocket to pay for them and thier needs and not rely on the gov. for help.
    One of our biggest downfalls is the welfare system,we need to go back to the days of comodities where the food was handed out and we actually had to cook it instead of a food stamp card so they can buy microwave food and get to lay on thier a s s while the rest of us struggle.
    She is not the only one working the system….we need to wake up!

  13. Right of the People says:

    She just wants to get a TV deal like that show on Discovery Channel something like “John & Kate plus 8”. The people on that show had twins first then they overdosed on fertility drugs and had sextuplets. Their life is lived under a microscope but they get all of their kid raising stuff like diapers, formula, etc for free. Last night’s show was the kiddies are potty training, really griping TV. This psycho should have her 15 minutes of fame then everyone should get on with their lives. I hope child services keeps an eye on her as I don’t see any way someone in her circumstances can take care of 14 kids. Two very loving parents with a decent income would be hard pressed let alone some unemployed, welfare whackadoodle like her.

    10-7

  14. pdsand says:

    She really set me back on my heels when she was on TV the other day saying that money is just paper, that it’s nothing compared to the love she’s prepared to give her kids, or whatever. Basically she was saying somehow that her amazing parenting abilities for 14 children make her a better parent than people who have one or two children, have the ability to provide for them, but apparently don’t love them. I guess you could say I was blinded by science.

    • Kilmeny says:

      Of course money is just paper….when you’re not the one who has to pay it.

    • proreason says:

      The woman is mentally disturbed.

      Sane people don’t use the lives of 8 children to raise money.

      And sadly, those children are highly likely to end up mentally disturbed themselves.

    • 1sttofight says:

      If she loves her first 6 kids so much, then why is her mother taking care of them?

    • Colonel1961 says:

      Money is just paper?!?! Oh, for the love of Pete, my head is about to explode! And I need a drink…

      When do her deportation proceedings begin?

  15. U NO HOO says:

    ““John & Kate plus 8″”

    I understand that they are rolling in the dough.

    • Celina says:

      As I understand it, TLC just bought them a large home in Pa. I am a bit of a pop culture junkie but the thought of children on a reality TV show just doesn’t sit well with me.

    • wardmama4 says:

      Difference here – and about many other issues here.
      1) I don’t think anyone mentioned abortion – more that this woman should have never been impregnated with octuplets. This woman has serious problems – and for whatever reason 14 children are going to be the taxpayers problems for generations to come.
      2) Jon & Kate were/are married, both employed and paid out of their own medical insurance for the two procedures to have children. They knew that they weren’t going to keep having children. And the gross multiple was not planned by them intentionally. And there is also a difference between a deal negoiated between TLC and the Goslins and the scam foisted upon the taxpayers by this leech masquerading as a ‘mother’.
      3) Religion does play a part with both the Goslins and the Duggers (also both are married couples and both are paying for their children and their upbringings even if you find it distasteful that they added to their incomes by deals with Cable TV. Ms Suleman appears to have found a niche with disability and children increasing her welfare payments and now has taken it to obscene heights which (once again) the taxpayers are going to be paying for generations to come (somewhat like the Generational Theft Act passed today). And I have not read a whit about her religious convictions, proof that she refuses to get married that she has none.

      Through Drudge this AM I posted a comment on the wellwhishers/donation site set up for this scam artist extordinaire – that I am praying for these 14 children who are the innocent victims of a petty, immature, narcissistic woman whose only mission in life is to make herself ‘feel’ better.

  16. Confucius says:

    “In her view these are just payments made for people with legitimate needs and are not, in her view, welfare . . . .”

    Did she just trash welfare recipients as people not having legitimate needs?

    I don’t know what to think.

    • curvyred says:

      She is just a welfare elitist.

      I think it will be interesting to see if the VA hospital where she worked and began receiving “disablity” payments from because she hurt her “back”(at the same time she was getting fertility treatments), will seek some of that money back.

      If you look at before and after pictures of the woman it seems as if she has treated herself to a Hollywood style makeover:

    • Helena says:

      Confucius velly funny.

    • Confucius says:

      Tank rhu.

    • proreason says:

      good catch, cf.

      Futher evidence that these people actually hate themselves as much as they hate us.

      Politicians have taught them to be equal opportunity haters.

  17. caligirl9 says:

    I wrote up a little summary about this case on a true crime blog I contribute to:

    http://sprocket-trials.blogspot.com/2009/02/who-should-and-will-pay.html

    There is another woman “impregnated” by the same doctor—a 49-year old medically indigent woman who is carrying four babies. The insanity never ends …

  18. bigdog1959 says:

    this woman is a lazy pig i have 12 herniated disc in my lower spine as well as a pinched sciatic nerve in my right leg all documented by the rothman inst. of Philadelphia all work related injuries i also on the 29th of january 2009 had heart surgery and as soon as my cardiac surgeon sayes i can i will be going back to work i am the manager and head technician at an automible repair shop so i really work and work hard to support my family i at one time after my back injury and back surgery with documentation by 4 highly respected and well known orthopedic surgeons applied for SSI in pennsylvania but was turned down now i know from speaking with lawyers it is common pratice for SSI to turn everyone down initially and after you reapply you will be approved but i felt it better to return to work as i felt i was able as long as i took medication so i will be returned to work and plan to keep workin as long as i can. it is people like this pig that makes it so difficult for people who are truely in need of SSI to get it the only reason she has back problems is from carrying that belly around from all the IVF babies and she used the money from SSI to get the second litter IVF instead of what it was intended that being take care of the children you already have


« Front Page | To Top
« | »