Tuesday, February 10, 2009

Octuplet Mother on Welfare

This ladies and gentlemen, is I hope, the last time I mention this frustrating story. I have now seen the interviews with this vacuous, Botox-enhanced woman, this icon of self, this windy monument to fecundity...and I cannot tolerate her any longer. News that she is already receiving public assistance for the first six children simply ices the cake. The system has gone horribly wrong here, and we as a society should continue to express our collective disapproval of this woman's conduct, her doctor's ethics, and the braying support of those who see her actions as noble and selfless.

5 comments:

  1. She is the poster child for Democrat party programs and policies, especially their desire for national health care.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Hey everyone, cut this poor woman, who endured the horrific life of growing up an only child, a break. She said she was going "to do [her] best". What more could we, or her 14 children, ask of her? Just as I'm sure she did her best in her failed marriage. Just as I'm sure she did her best to find some form of employment despite the workman's comp injuries that left her barely able to conceive and carry a human record litter of future welfare recipients. Good God people! Where is your compassion?

    ReplyDelete
  3. Maybe she'll have to sell the lot of them for scientific experiments.

    ReplyDelete
  4. And now confirmation of what all of us already knew...she's been feeding her children by way of foodstamps and a few other government programs. So my question is this: while we taxpayers were helping her feed her first litters, where did she get the money to pay for the not inexpensive implantation of VI IVF (look at it closely, it'll come to you) eggs for the second litter? Is there some other government handout of which I am unaware that covers such critical health care issues as this one?

    ReplyDelete
  5. If it was OK to remove the 137 children of the YFZ Ranch from their mothers because their welfare was in question, then the same standard should be applied to these 14 children.

    ReplyDelete