“Michael Jackson Wanted to Buy Octomom’s Babies”

Via Starpulse
Entertainment News.  I kept
waiting for this story to make its way into a mainstream media source so that I
could blog about it.  It never
did.  But I decided that if Dan is
going to blog about the purported
health benefits of daily orgasms, then I shouldn’t pass up an opportunity
to blog about Michael Jackson, baby markets,
and the Octomom all in one post, even if the story isn’t true. (Although,
as Leiter reminds us, I guess MSM coverage does not guarantee accuracy
either).

So, with that disclaimer in mind, the story reports:

Michael Jackson offered to adopt
'Octomom' Nadya Suleman's eight babies in exchange for cash just weeks before
he died.  The King of Pop contacted
Suleman's publicist Victor Munoz earlier this year and offered to "take
care" of her children in return for a payment.  But Munoz considered the proposal "creepy" – and
didn't even inform Suleman as he knew she would refuse to give her babies up
for adoption. . . .

"He then said he could take care
of the children if Nadya couldn't. It was creepy. He was basically offering to
buy the children. I was a bit shocked… Michael clearly thought Nadya was
unfit and decided he wanted to help those children… But I just blew it off. I
knew Nadya would never want to get rid of her kids so it wasn't
important."

Similar stories appear in dozens of other tabloids and
non-U.S. papers, including The
Times of India and The
Daily Mirror.  In Why We Should Ignore the Octomom (really short! and available
here),
I argue – you guessed it – that we should ignore the Octomom.  To be precise, never a strong point of
blog posts (or catchy law review titles), my argument is that ex ante embryo transfer limits are
unlikely to be the best mechanism for regulating multiple births from ARTs.  I suggest instead reliance on ex post liability and state and
professional sanctions for doctors and clinics engaged in clearly irresponsible
conduct.

Here’s the abstract:

Thanks to the “Octomom” – a single,
low-income, California mother of six, who recently gave birth to octuplets
conceived through IVF — the American public this year turned its attention to
assisted reproductive technology. 
In this essay, I take issue with one set of proposals to arise from the
controversy: embryo-transfer limits, variations on which have been proposed in
Georgia, Missouri, and, most recently, by Naomi Cahn and Jennifer Collins.  Examining national and international
multiple-birth rates, as well as similar limits in other countries, I argue that
government-mandated embryo-transfer limits would produce fewer benefits and
higher costs in the United States than proponents assume.  First, the Octomom is a sad and
disturbing, but aberrant, case. 
Second, questions of embryo transfer and multiple birth inevitably
intersect with other politically contentious issues, including the moral and
legal status of embryos and abortion. 
These political minefields render it highly unlikely that the United
States will implement comprehensive embryo-transfer regulation effectively
designed to reduce multiple births anytime soon.

For those wanting even more Octomom reading, try Social Factoring The Numbers With Assisted Reproduction by Feminist Law Prof
Bridget Crawford and Lolita Buckner Inniss.  And I will be back with more on baby markets, whether you
want it or not . . .

(HT: Mary Anne Case)