Updated 04:40 pm.EST, Sat November 21, 2009

Society|Tue, Feb. 17 2009 07:39 PM EST

Christian Agency: We Do Not Intend to Represent Octuplets Mom

By Eric Young|Christian Post Reporter

A Christian-based talent agency that schedules appearances for popular authors and speakers does not intend to represent controversial octuplets mother Nadya Suleman, despite what she might have claimed.

"Ambassador has not executed a representation agreement, nor do we intend to do so,” Wes Yoder, founder of Ambassador Agency, Inc., clarified in a statement released Monday.

Yoder’s comments were issued after Suleman reportedly told Joann Killeen, president of Killeen Furtney Group, that she reached an exclusive representation deal with Yoder, whose agency works with megachurch pastor Rick Warren, Muslim-turned-evangelical theologian Ergun Caner, Billy Graham grandson Tullian Tchvidijian, and The Shack author William Paul Young.

The comments also came after Killeen Furtney officially cut ties with Suleman in response to the high volume of e-mail threats and swarms of nasty voicemails it received since deciding to provide free representation to Suleman.

"We've never had a public reaction to us representing a client pro bono like this, ever," Killeen told The Associated Press.

For the past several weeks, Suleman has been the center of a media storm following the birth of her octuplets last month. The single, unemployed mother of six was already relying on the government for support when she made the decision to implant in her womb six embryos created through in vitro fertilization.

Though Suleman claims that she doesn’t intend to remain dependent on public assistance for long, many have criticized her decision to have more children, with some taking their complaints to California state Sen. Sam Aanestad.

"I don't think there is anyone who ethically thinks what happened is right," said Aanestad, an oral surgeon who sits on the Health Committee.

"There are 14 babies out there that for the next 20 years are probably going to need assistance from the taxpayers. There should be something in place so that this doesn't happen again," Aanestad told The AP.

According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, the cost for a single mother to raise 14 children through age 17 ranges from $1.3 million to $2.7 million.

With emotions running high and some critics having gone as far as to issue death threats, Suleman and her first six children were recently forced to move to “an undisclosed location,” according to then-publicist Killeen Furtney.

The octuplets, meanwhile, remain at the hospital, where they are expected to spend seven to 12 weeks.

Having represented America’s first family of septuplets for some eleven years, Ambassador Agency on Monday urged “the local churches, people of compassion and the pro-life community to participate in a thoughtful plan to assist the Suleman children" but made clear that its involvement with Suleman has only gone as far as providing advice.

"Due to our experience with high-profile clients undergoing intense media interest, one week ago a friend of our agency requested Ambassador's help to advise on the protection and licensing of the Suleman family photographs to safeguard the security of the children,” Yoder stated.

“While providing this pro bono advice, we explored whether agency representation would best serve the interests of this family," he admitted.

Ultimately, however, the agency balked at the idea, likely for the same reasons that led Killeen Furtney to pull out last week.

Sort by: Newest | Oldest | Agree | Disagree
All comments on this page are subject to our Terms of Use and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Christian Post or its staff.
  • Sat Feb 21, 2009 10:41 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    "Why don't people who are so quick to judge people living on welfare have the same righteous indignation for all the Christians who are living in sin by driving around in their $50000 cars and living in their 5000 sq ft home hiding from the world in their little suburban gated community?"

    Why is it sin to live in a 5000sq. foot home and the other things you mentioned. If the people worked for it and other than illegal activities I don't know how you could afford it. How is that sin? Please explain to me if you can, why someone who won't work for a living should enjoy the same lifestyle as someone who does? Does not scripture teach that if you will not work you shall not eat?

  • Wed Feb 18, 2009 8:52 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

    I do belive Nadya has a deep-rooted personality problem
    where she isn't able to perceive reality from the
    "dream world" she's living in. I don't know her background, but I'm certain there's some psychopathology
    driving her to look at having children as some totally
    unreal purpose for her meaningness. I truly fear for
    the health of children and for herself in the near future. When does an agency have the right to do something to protect the 8 newborns. I've read where
    a woman had 50 animals living in her house and the
    authorities took them away because she couldn't care
    for them herself. Children are more precious than
    animals, and it's going to be a tough decision to a
    social agency to see what's right and what's wrong with
    this woman and her family.
    the children

  • Wed Feb 18, 2009 3:09 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 1

    mcfbc,

    So, to keep your post from sounding like empty Christian rhetoric, how do YOU plan to reach out in love and take responsibility for these?

  • Wed Feb 18, 2009 2:28 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    So she deserves death threats?

    You're right, it is a responsibility issue. And we as Christians are responsible. Responsible to help the least of these. The bad decisions the mother made should have no bearing on how we should respond. We should be responding in love both to the mom and the children.

    I don't have any problem discussing the ethics of this and looking for solutions, but we should still be reaching out in love.

  • Wed Feb 18, 2009 1:32 pm Agree: 2   Disagree: 0

    This woman did not claim to have children to stay on welfare but chose to have them "because she loves children".

    Too bad this "love" for children did not result in Sulliman volunteering her time to help with disadvantaged children in her area, rather than add to the population of these by having a litter of her own. She wanted to "own" these children, that is her interest.

    Sorry, this is a responsibility issue, one should not have children IN BULK for selfish reasons and then depend on the taxpayer to support her in her self-centered ambition.

    It's not a lack of compassion on OUR parts but on the part of the mother, who selfishly determined she had a "right" to do as she pleases with her body without regard to the consequences.

  • Wed Feb 18, 2009 12:58 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 1

    The lack of compassion is amazing to me. Do people honestly think that folks have children so they can live on welfare? I minister to the poor and I can assure this is not the case. There are a few examples, but most people I deal with just make stupid mistakes.

    Why don't people who are so quick to judge people living on welfare have the same righteous indignation for all the Christians who are living in sin by driving around in their $50000 cars and living in their 5000 sq ft home hiding from the world in their little suburban gated community?

  • Wed Feb 18, 2009 10:56 am Agree: 2   Disagree: 0

    "Should we, as a society, then implement means by which NO ONE can reproduce unless they have the means to support a child?"

    Sounds good to me! Everyone is entitled to one mistake and I don't have a problem helping someone who messed up once, however after that it isn't a mistake. When I worked as a nurse I was working the Ob-gyn floor and had a 26 year old woman, who had just given birth to her 7th child. When she asked me if I wanted to see her welfare card I had to leave the room. Welfare has become a way of life in this country instead of the hand up it was suppose to be. My husband and I did without many things so that we could support our children and I don't think it unfair to expect people to support the children they create. If you can't feed and keep a roof over their heads don't have them.

  • Wed Feb 18, 2009 9:58 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    I'm not familiar with this situation, did this lady have embryos implanted in her womb? Isn't that expensive? How did she pay this????

  • Wed Feb 18, 2009 9:43 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    The case of the "Octo-mom" brings up a whole host of ethical questions, mainly with the physician who implanted so many embryos.

    People seem so upset with this woman who purposely gave birth to 14 kids without adequate means to support them. However, thousands of people who don't have adequate means to support children reproduce every day.

    Should we, as a society, then implement means by which NO ONE can reproduce unless they have the means to support a child?

Please help us to monitor our message boards by flagging comments that are unlawful, harmful, threatening, abusive, harassing, defamatory, vulgar, obscene, libelous, hateful, or racially, ethnically or otherwise objectionable.
Contact Us if you have any questions, comments, or concerns.
Comment on this story
ID Password

Don't have a Christian Post ID? Signing up is easy. Click Here

  • icon1
  • icon2
  • icon3
  • icon4
  • icon5
The Christian Post reserves the right to terminate the account of any User who violates our Terms of Use.
Also on CP
Advertisement
Advertisement
CP Shopping
  • Jewelry
  • Health
  • Gifts
  • Music
  • Coins

Bracelets | Chains | Crosses | Earrings | Gemstone |

Featured contents & Giveaways
Joolwe :
Cross-pendant necklace
Zondervan

Struggling to succeed in the Nashville music scene, talented singer/songwriter Parker James finds the competition fierce even deadly. A young woman's murder, industry corruption, a

Featured Advertiser Links