Millions for Abortion but Not One Cent for Babies

Maliyah, one of Nadya Suleman's octuplets.

You've all heard about Nadya Suleman giving birth to octuplets and who now has 14 children, all in-vitro fertilized births. Suleman has received a lot of national attention for exercising her reproductive rights as a woman. Giving birth to octuplets makes a great human interest story and Suleman gained instant celebrity when the news hit the national press.

The two-faced media, however, instead of merely reporting the news, has a bias against Suleman. Out of the thousands of news stories that talk about her, most of them are framed in terms of her irresponsibility or question her mental health. She's been accused of an obsession for having children. (NY Times, "Obsession Led to 14 Births by in Vitro, Relative Says") She's reported a sad childhood. (Mirror.co.uk, "Octuplets Mum Interview") The news even reported how much her mom disapproved of her choices. (Huffington Post, "Nadya Suleman: Cotuplets' Mom 'Didn't Want to Get Married,' Had IVF For 14 Kids")

Now, a media story reports how much damage Suleman will do to the economy. In an article in the LA Times reports on just how much Suleman will cost the taxpayers. ("Octuplets Could Be Costly for Taxpayers")

Her family is eligible for large sums of public assistance money. Even before she gave birth to the octuplets Jan. 26, Suleman was receiving $490 in monthly food stamps, and three of her children were receiving federal supplemental security income because they are disabled....

If Suleman's disabled children received the maximum payment, she would get nearly $2,900 a month in state and federal assistance, including the food stamps....

Using the 2007 average as a low estimate, Kaiser would be eligible for a combined $9,584 per day in Medi-Cal reimbursement. The babies, who are 16 days old, have already racked up a conservative $153,344 in Medi-Cal costs, not including their delivery. Kaiser doctors have said they will remain hospitalized for seven to 12 weeks. If they stay for seven weeks, the cost would be $469,616. If they stay 12 weeks, the cost would be $805,056.

And to top it off, the LA Times reports that Suleman has a $50,000 student loan to pay off, no job, no income, is a single mom, and now has 14 dependent children.

What Is the Media Trying to Prove?

Here are questions no one is asking. Why are so many news outlets, including the LA Times, trying so hard to tell us how "mistaken" Nadya Suleman is? What is the media's problem with her? Is the media really just reporting the facts, or is something going on here that rubs the media the wrong way?

I suspect that the media's problem isn't concern about Suleman's mental health. I suspect that it isn't about concern for the future of the children (although I share those concerns). I suspect that it isn't about concern for a future impact on global climate change. I suspect it isn't about the media's inexplicably sudden concern for taxpayer money.

So what is the media's real concern?

The media doesn't like the idea that Suleman used the ideals of a "woman's right to choose" to have a lot of children.

The fertility doctors who impregnated Suleman have come in for nearly as much abuse as she has. The Orlando Sentinel blasted both mother and doctors as "indulgent, irresponsible, and unethical." Reason magazine's science correspondent, Ronald Bailey, wasn't nearly so restrained; he slammed the "idiotic fertility jockey" who made it possible for this "loony sad jobless single woman" to bear eight more children. Columnist Ellen Goodman suggested that the doctors were guilty of something "akin to malpractice" and that Suleman's decisions were "close to mal-mothering." And there have been calls aplenty for stricter regulation of fertility clinics. "The real issue here," wrote the San Francisco Chronicle's Debra Saunders, "is that we live in a country with so few regulations on the human fertility business." (Boston Globe, "The Choice to Have 8 Babies")

Sure, we can have a country where the abortion business has no regulations. We can kill babies off with little regard and force clinics by law to perform abortions on demand. The fertility clinic, in this case was forced to comply with Suleman's decision. The courts have decided that the decision to implant embryos is a mother's choice. The California Supreme Court ruled that a fertility specialist may not refuse, on religious grounds, to inseminate a lesbian. What would the court say if Suleman's doctors had refused to impregnate a woman who had no husband? Discrimination on the basis of marital status is illegal in California, too.

But let one clinic plant a few too many babies in a mother and the whole system suddenly comes under the fanatical scrutiny of news writers and editorialists alike.

What's at stake? Suleman shows the paucity of the position on reproductive rights. If a woman's choice concerning reproduction is entirely her prerogative, does it only apply to the choice of abortion? What about Nadya Suleman's choice? Isn't that as valid a position in reproductive rights?

Not according to the news media and public opinion. Reproductive rights apparently only applies to abortions.