Nadya Suleman had octuplets recently as a result of in vitro fertilization, in addition to the six she had previously from the same procedure, and her earlier claim that she wasn’t on welfare isn’t entirely true:
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.
Her publicist? Wow, that welfare is really comprehensive these days. I’m missing out.
What strikes me as strange is how Suleman has been paraded around to news programs where she’s been subjected to harsh criticisms of what she’s done, and how she did it, by a media that is usually sympathetic to single welfare mothers with lots of kids.
For example, on the Today Show, host Ann Curry called Suleman “irresponsible and selfish.”
How come somebody like Latrice Ryan, a single mother from Flint, Michigan who is on public assistance and who has ten kids (all six months apart… just kidding… I think) has never been hauled before the media and made to explain herself? If anything, it’s been quite the opposite. The one news story I did read about Ryan pretty much lionized her as the Chuck Yeager of over-excessive hood-breeders.
Why all the scrutiny of Suleman and none for women who do the exact same thing in a less scientific way? Did Suleman do anything worse than the average single welfare mother with lots of illegitimate kids just because the father of her children was a turkey baster and an over-zealous IVF tech instead of a steady lineup of horny, beer-goggled, unemployed deadbeat dumbasses who probably don’t even take off their sneakers during the wham-bam?
The media should either leave Nadya Suleman alone, or, better yet, apply that same set of moral demands to every other perma-pregnant welfare mother who needs her coochie glued shut, and stop discriminating based only on the chosen method of hyper-insemination.