Don't know the details, but Sarah Jessica Parker , who successfully carried her 6-year-old son James to term, and husband Matthew Broderick have hired a surrogate to carry their twin daughters. According to the Associated Press yesterday:
Sarah Jessica Parker and Matthew Broderick will be taking on new roles: parents of twin girls.
The Sex and the City star and her actor-husband are expecting twins through a surrogate pregnancy, representatives for the couple said Tuesday.
Parker, 44, and Broderick, 47, "are happily anticipating the birth of their twin daughters later this summer with the generous help of a surrogate. The entire family is overjoyed," said a statement from the publicists....
Details about the surrogate or her pregnancy were unavailable, the publicists said.
A source says that the already proud parents had been trying unsuccessfully to expand their brood for some time.
"At a certain point, they were presented with an alternative," the source says. "They could have kept trying on their own, but they've always wanted to have more children and felt this was the best way to go."
The insider says that Parker plans to take some time off after the twins' arrival - but not much. If all goes according to plan, she intends to start shooting the Sex and the City sequel sometime this summer, as well.
According to Wikipedia, the sequel is scheduled to begin filming "in mid 2009 for a May 28, 2010 release."
[HT: proofreader Angela; photo courtesy of Us magazine]
Guaranteed that the surrogacy contract has a clause stating that the surrogate cannot abort.
Yet, if it's a woman's choice how her body is used, then why is she obligated to uphold that contract, when the covenant of marriage - also legally recognized need not be acknowledged when it comes to abortion.
Choice is only choice when it's convenient for the abortion agenda.Posted by: Chris Arsenault at April 29, 2009 9:16 AM
Why didn't they just adopt? I don't have much to say about SJP.Posted by: heather at April 29, 2009 9:19 AM
I thought they broke up because he was cheating.Posted by: Pansy Moss at April 29, 2009 9:40 AM
Ever watch Sex And The City? It's quite painful to watch one episode. I'd rather watch paint dry.Posted by: heather at April 29, 2009 10:01 AM
They probably didn't adopt because there is a very long waiting list for healthy infants in the U.S.. It's a very difficult process and many don't want to open themselves up to the pontential heartbreak(I've known two couples who spent thousands of dollars and got everything ready only to have the birth mother change her mind.).
Anyway, congrats to them.Posted by: Kate at April 29, 2009 10:05 AM
All the gain without any pain.
We live in a screwed up world and Hollywood is it's crotch.Posted by: HisMan at April 29, 2009 11:18 AM
"...had been trying unsuccessfully to expand their brood for some time"
Do we know if SJP had any history of using the Pill?Posted by: RSD at April 29, 2009 11:29 AM
Sarah Jessica Parker supports Planned Parenthood. Is there definitely a clause that says NO ABORTION?
Posted by: LizFromNebraska
at April 29, 2009 12:03 PM
If SJP has been on the pill, that could prevent her from easily getting pregnant again.
Um, she's also 44 years old. It would be unusual if she DIDN'T have trouble getting pregnant.Posted by: Stacey at April 29, 2009 12:12 PM
The Pill actually does not harm longterm fertility:
Many GYNs actually recommend women with irregular cycles to take a low-dose pill such as Yaz for three months to jump start ovulation. Many get get pregnant the first cycle after going off of it because its anti-androgen effects. The cause of SJP's infertility is most likely age related.Posted by: Kate at April 29, 2009 12:27 PM
I love the speculation. Like how every time a woman has breast cancer people here immediately wonder if she had an abortion. I had to deal with crap like that all the time when my mom had liver cancer -- and no, she didn't drink much at all. If a woman who champions her abortions, or bc, or whatever comes down with these problems then that's one thing, but I find the speculation about what possible reproductive sins a woman may have committed to be in somewhat poor taste.
Personally I don't find it too unusual that a 44-year old woman who has spent much of her adult life at a weight likely below her set point would have some difficulty conceiving. There are any number of reasons she could struggle with infertility.Posted by: Alexandra at April 29, 2009 12:48 PM
Ever watch Sex And The City? It's quite painful to watch one episode. I'd rather watch paint dry.
Posted by: heather at April 29, 2009 10:01 AM
Heather I can one up you: I rather stick pins in my eyes.Posted by: angel at April 29, 2009 2:07 PM
Alexandra, the most obvious being that she is 44 years old. Our society lies to women and tells them they can delay childbearing and still remain fertile. The rich 'n famous crowd uses fertility treatments, but lie about it and pretend that they conceived naturally. This just adds to the misperception that fertility lasts until menopause. In reality, most women will start to have issues with fertility in their early 30s.Posted by: Lauren at April 29, 2009 2:09 PM
Personally I don't find it too unusual that a 44-year old woman who has spent much of her adult life at a weight likely below her set point would have some difficulty conceiving. There are any number of reasons she could struggle with infertility.
Posted by: Alexandra at April 29, 2009 12:48 PM
Alexandra you may be correct. But it may also be that SJP has been on contraceptives for so long that her body simply doesn't work properly any more. And of course her age too.
Lots of factors may be involved.
I think it's tragic that they've chosen to go the surrogacy route rather than adopt.
I don't support surrogacy. (no surprise there!)
Yeah, actually a woman's most fertile period is in her late teens and early twenties.Posted by: prettyinpink at April 29, 2009 2:13 PM
PIP: yes but unfortunately most women have bought the story that they can have children ANY time.
If you want children, do it sooner rather than later! :)
But if you don't want children, too bad because birth control and contraceptives are the work of the devil or whatever.
I'm with Alexandria. Infertility is painful to deal with, regardless of age, and questions about her sexual life up to this point seem really inappropriate.Posted by: Human Abstract at April 29, 2009 4:00 PM
Assume no one here thinks BC is the "work of the devil". (Was it mentioned?) I see no reason not to discuss SJP's possible use of BC. After all, she probably has for a long time. Who by age 45 hasn't, right? How is this inappropriate? Maybe something can be learned by this discussion so other women don't have to experience the same difficulties with their own fertility.Posted by: Janet at April 29, 2009 6:08 PM
HA: I agree that infertility is painful to deal with but there are other issues here for some of us.
SJP's lifestyle has EVERYTHING to do with her present situation. It might be that she would have had fertility problems even if she tried having children in her 20's. Or maybe NOT.
The fact is SJP delayed childbearing until her late 30's.
She has likely used BC throughout most of her adult life - thus her body is not use to working in the manner it was designed for - that is having babies.
I don't know her personal life story but I'm guessing she's a typical "liberated girl" and has had multiple sexual partners.
It's likely one or more of these factors has resulted in the situation she now has before her.
She made her choices - her career came first over the CHOICE of motherhood. Unfortunately, we live in a time when people do not wish to suffer the consequences of their choices.
But part of being a mature adult is recognizing and ACCEPTING the consequences of our choices. Isn't this what we parents try to teach our children?
And for some of us, surrogacy is not a morally licit option since it is a technology that violates the conjugal act and is open to considerable abuse.Posted by: angel at April 29, 2009 6:21 PM
Janet, Jill has repeatedly said that she dislikes the use of all contraception for religious reasons. Several other posters have said similar things. The inappropriateness comes in as there has been no evidence cited that birth control at all affects fertility in a negative manner.
Angel, again: give me research that suggests that hormonal birth control impairs fertility. Burden of proof rests upon you for that one. She already has one child: it said that she had been trying to conceive for some time. It seems that her fertility problems were more related to age, less related to birth control. You assume she's been using hormonal birth control: why not condoms? Condoms certainly don't impair fertility. Additionally, you're assuming she's had sex with multiple partners, and as an adult, you should know the consequences of assuming.
As she has a child already, it isn't fair to say her career came first over her choice of motherhood. Is your sympathy for her entirely erased because of her age? Her status?
Sure, surrogacy might be morally questionable for you. Isn't that, however, what Abraham, one of the patriarchs of your religion, did with Hagar?Posted by: Human Abstract at April 29, 2009 6:28 PM
In lieu of substance, its good to know that the tabloids provide enough intellectual stimulation to distract you. My liberal friends and I will keep on taking over the rest of the country, you can have the south to yourself.Posted by: Yo La Tengo at April 29, 2009 7:13 PM
by Steven Ertelt
February 11, 2004
New York, NY (LifeNews.com) -- The racy HBO series "Sex and the City" is as much about fashion as it is women who just can't seem to make a connection with the right guy. A charity auction consisting of clothing worn by the stars on the set might seem like a good idea. However, the popular series and cable network are drawing criticism because some of the proceeds will benefit Planned Parenthood, the nation's largest abortion business.
Bidders may have the chance to literally walk in Carrie Bradshaw's high-heeled shoes or sport a designer tie worn by Mr. Big, but it will come at the price of supporting abortion.
That's because Kristen Davis, who plays the mild-mannered Charlotte, has designated Planned Parenthood as her charity recipient.
Marla Weinstein, Davis' publicist, told LifeNews.com that Davis "feels that women should retain the right to choose what happens to their bodies themselves."
But pro-life advocates say the donation, made by a show that prides itself on empowering women, sends the wrong message to young women -- that abortion is better for women than having the baby.
"I'm really disappointed that they have to politicize this auction by sending a check to Planned Parenthood," Rai Rojas of National Right to Life told LifeNews.com. "It's sad to see Davis has chosen to align the show and HBO with an organization that hurts women and kills unborn children."
A spokesperson for the auction declined to comment further on Davis' choice.
"That's not something we're getting into. We have no idea why they were chosen and no comment," a representative said.
This is the third clothing auction HBO and "Sex and the City" have sponsored and each time the four leading actresses on the series have designated their favorite charities to split the proceeds. The two previous auctions raised nearly $35,000 and Davis selected Planned Parenthood to benefit both times.
HBO plans to match the auction totals, meaning its corporate dollars will find their way into Planned Parenthood's bank account.
Jeff Tusson, Director of Corporate Affairs for HBO, declined to comment on the Planned Parenthood donations, but told LifeNews.com, "We welcome the women to put up the charity they want to support."
This isn't the first time "Sex and the City" and the topic of abortion have collided.
A previous season featured an episode in which Miranda, played by Cynthia Nixon, becomes pregnant. She is determined that she's going to have an abortion and her boyfriend will never know.
As is typical, Miranda's friends are ready and willing to offer advice.
During their discussion, viewers discover that Samantha has had two abortions and Carrie, played by lead actress Sarah Jessica Parker, has had one. Charlotte, partly out of shock and partly out of self-pity (she is having trouble getting pregnant) walks out on the group. Shortly after, in conversation with her then-boyfriend Aiden, Carrie denies she has ever had an abortion.
Later, Carrie appears at an abortion facility with Miranda for her abortion. In the waiting room, she has doubts, but finally hears her name called and goes into another room.
Eventually, Miranda appears at home and tells Charlotte that she couldn't go through with the abortion and she's going to have the baby.
Rojas disparaged the flippant way in which the women seemingly use abortion as a method of birth control and said he isn't surprised that Samantha, played by actress Kim Cattrell, eventually finds herself dealing with breast cancer. Studies show women who have induced abortion are more likely to contract the deadly disease.
LifeNews.com contacted several fans of the show for their reaction to the donations.
Ellen, from Milwaukee, Wisconsin, said she supports the Planned Parenthood donation because the abortion business also provides birth control and contraception.
"Face it, today in our society, people are having sex. No matter what age. We really cannot stop it. Even if we talk to the younger people and tell them not to," she said.
Meanwhile, Julia Vanosdale of Fort Worth, Texas says she is pro-life and, though she doesn't support Planned Parenthood, she says it is Davis' right to select the charity of her choice.
"People will get offended, but you'll never completely avoid that. The people that will be offended just won't buy the stuff," Vanosdale said.
However, Vanosdale said she would prefer that the charity money instead go to groups like crisis pregnancy centers that provide women with tangible pregnancy assistance and abortion alternatives.
Rojas said the Planned Parenthood donation furthers the shows negative depiction of minorities. The HBO series has drawn criticism for featuring an all-white lead cast and mostly white supporting actors.
Planned Parenthood has long been accused by pro-life groups of harboring anti-minority views and placing abortion facilities in mostly black neighborhoods, for example, where the abortion rates then skyrocket.
"Of course it would make sense that they would give money to an organization that targets minorities," Rojas, director of NRLC's Hispanic outreach department, said.
The other three charities chosen by the lead actresses include the New York Public Library, chosen by Sarah Jessica Parker; My Sister's Place, a program that aids domestic violence victims, selected by Kim Cattrell; and the Drama Dept., a theater collective chosen by Cynthia Nixon.
The series is in its final season, though the foursome are expected to head to Hollywood to begin shooting a movie version of the show. Also, series creator Candace Bushnell is reportedly in discussion with ABC to create a cleaner, younger version of the show for prime time television.
ACTION: Send your comments to Kristen Davis, 335 North Maple Dr., Suite 351, Beverly Hills, 90210 or email firstname.lastname@example.org. Contact HBO at http://www.hbo.com/corpinfo/contactus.shtml
Posted by: heather at April 29, 2009 7:24 PM
That's sad that all of the women's characters have had abortions. It's such a silly show and it makes women look stupid as all get up!!Posted by: heather at April 29, 2009 7:27 PM
Alexandra, the most obvious being that she is 44 years old. Our society lies to women and tells them they can delay childbearing and still remain fertile. The rich 'n famous crowd uses fertility treatments, but lie about it and pretend that they conceived naturally. This just adds to the misperception that fertility lasts until menopause. In reality, most women will start to have issues with fertility in their early 30s.
I definitely agree with all of this, Lauren. It seem to me self-evident why Sarah Jessica Parker would have problems conceiving -- she had her first kid at, what, 38? That's two years after my mom had her last kid!
What I find surprising is that rather than pick up that line of discussion, which I think is a really important discussion to have, people started jumping to birth control. I don't like hormonal contraception. I've never taken it and I never will, although I understand that many people don't share my views and that's fine by me. And I think it's certainly plausible -- likely, even -- that Sarah Jessica Parker has used birth control in her past. But, I mean, we KNOW she's past the age at which most women have children. We don't know much else. We don't know whether she used birth control or had an abortion or has PCOS or had some X-ray addiction that messed with her fertility, or whatever. We don't know her diet or her physical health.
This idea that maybe something can be learned if we talk about how BC made SJP infertile because, hey, she probably used it, is kind of stupid, because a) no one knows what she has done in the past or what she's doing now, and b) the only thing we all KNOW is the most likely reason she can't bear her own children at this point.Posted by: Alexandra at April 29, 2009 8:14 PM
Miranda didn't go through with the abortion. I don't think Charlotte had one either. She spent the whole series trying to get pregnant.Posted by: Kate at April 29, 2009 8:17 PM
The point is that women in the developed world are placing having children a low priority.
Women don't want to have children. They want to do other things. And then when they do decide (finally) that they want children, they can't have them.
SJP is simply a mirror of our culture.
What are the consequences of this type of thinking:
until we get rid of our contraceptive mentality our culture is dead.Posted by: angel at April 29, 2009 9:00 PM
Sure, surrogacy might be morally questionable for you. Isn't that, however, what Abraham, one of the patriarchs of your religion, did with Hagar?
Posted by: Human Abstract at April 29, 2009 6:28 PM
Posted by: Eileen #2
at April 29, 2009 9:07 PM
Yes, HA and it created a lot of conflict, didn't it?! Your point is?
Seeing children as a commodity to be had or disposed of at will, is a result of the contraceptive mentality.Posted by: Eileen #2 at April 29, 2009 9:10 PM
" Seeing children as a commodity to be had or disposed of at will, is a result of the contraceptive mentality. "
Amen Eileen. Like Fr Sirico said on the World Over last week, it all began in 1930...Posted by: Bobby Bambino at April 29, 2009 9:13 PM
and if children are a commodity, most western people simply aren't buying....Posted by: angel at April 29, 2009 9:20 PM
I was 40 when I had my last babe. Let's give us older mommas a break, huh?? :)Posted by: Carla at April 29, 2009 9:21 PM
Haha, nothing against older mommas! My step mom has had two of my siblings in her 40s. We're just saying that no one should expect to be able to have children at any age.Posted by: Lauren at April 29, 2009 9:32 PM
I watched the interview of Fr. Sirico also. I hear him on Relevant Radio from time to time too. An intelligent man and good priest!
I didn't get married until I was 39! Had and lost a baby girl at the age of 40. Couldn't get pregnant again after that. I knew that a woman's fertility decreased with age but was mistakenly under the impression that it wasn't significant. I think our culture's mindset glosses over that fact.
There you go, Janet: a perfect example of the anti-contraceptive movement within the pro-life movement that makes you all less than credible. You don't want women to abort, but you don't want to guard against unwanted pregnancies either.
I don't use hormonal contraception. I have an IUD, just as a disclaimer. But children are also not part of my plan. Angel, are you advocating that all women ought to have children as soon as possible? Are you saying that women shouldn't try to have children when they're older? I'm confused as to your position.Posted by: Human Abstract at April 29, 2009 9:58 PM
True that. :)
I am so sorry Eileen. That breaks my heart.Posted by: Carla at April 29, 2009 10:01 PM
Angel, are you advocating that all women ought to have children as soon as possible? Are you saying that women shouldn't try to have children when they're older? I'm confused as to your position.
Posted by: Human Abstract at April 29, 2009 9:58 PM
what I'm saying HA is that women should not delay childbearing.
Women are most fertile in their 20's, unfortunately the time when most women are getting their advanced degrees and working.
For the past 40 years the feminist movement has told women they ought to put their career first and that bearing children was less worthy and fulfilling than having a career.
Most women have discovered this to be a lie.
Practice has now demonstrated that the later a woman delays the first baby, her chances of conceiving dramatically decline.
Add on to this other factors that adversely affect fertility such as long term hormonal contraceptive use, repeated STI infections, untreated STI infections, and abortion.
I think if a young woman knows she wants to be married and have a family, then she should work towards this goal sooner rather than later. Later may simply be too late.
And I think it's just fine for women to have babies the good old fashioned way well into their forties. More power to them. But to deliberately delay until you are 42 to marry and then expect to start a family just might not be good biology.Posted by: angel at April 30, 2009 7:22 AM
I understand what you are saying when you talk about the feminist movement telling women to put career before children. I don't think that is right, just as much as you don't. However, even if our society encouraged women (and men) to do whatever they feel is best for their life goals (whether parenthood, work outside the home, or both), would you still be taken aback by women choosing to have fulfilling careers outside the home (prior to childbearing)? I know that I'm one of those people, where my parents encouraged me to do whatever I felt was the best for my career goals, whether that be motherhood or a job. Yet, I'm choosing to go to college and get a job, even though the motherhood option has always been on the table for me. I hardly feel this is a devious "feminist-inspired" action on my part. Even though it wouldn't matter to my parents if I got married (still looking for a guy, anyway) and had a load of babies, my personal feelings on the matter tell me that I don't want that for my life right now. Plus, I am thoroughly enjoying these years of my life with higher education and a career about to get underway- am I expected to want a baby on top of this? I am 21, for reference.Posted by: Lyssie at April 30, 2009 8:00 AM
"All the gain without any pain.
We live in a screwed up world and Hollywood is it's crotch."
I feel that this is a bit disingenuous, judging a woman who doesn't go through pain to have a child. I don't necessarily agree with her to pay a surrogate to have her children (I think it's a bit exploitative of the woman bearing her children), but to criticize her for not "going through the pain" is a bit hypocritical considering she's basically in the same position as a man with a pregnant wife- he still gets all the gains of parenthood, yet he doesn't have to endure any of the pain that pregnancy hands the woman. I agree with you that it's wrong for her to do this, but for different reasons.
By the way, congratulations on your new grandson. I can only assume that he is beautiful and will be raised in a loving and wonderful environment (especially with someone who already seems like a doting grandfather). :)Posted by: Lyssie at April 30, 2009 8:05 AM
Okay, so you're arguing that, because of biology, women should be having children sooner? I'd agree that biologically, women are more fertile when younger. If having children is important to them, more power to them. But, not all women want children, and some women do hold career aspirations above children: I, like Lyssie, am one of them. I can't honestly say if I ever want children.
You would, however, agree that deciding to not have children is our choice, correct?Posted by: Human Abstract at April 30, 2009 12:18 PM
HA & Lyssie: I perhaps have a different way of looking at things than you do.
I believe that we all have a God-given vocation on this earth. We are called to the single life, to be married or to live a life consecrated to God (that is a priest or nun or some other religious ). This vocation is not the same as your job - although there are a few special individuals who may be called to the single life where they serve through a specialized vocation such as medicine.
If a person knows their vocation is to be married then they need to work towards achieving that vocation because it is God-given and means they will be the happiest achieving this outcome. I am fine with women who have the vocation to marriage getting an education. Absolutely this is very important.
However what often happens is people believe that they need to have all their ducks lined up prior to marriage just as they often feel the same way about having children once they are married. The result is that marriage and children get displaced for years oftentimes for decades - until it's too late.
Part of this is due to the fact that societal views on marriage and children have changed drastically and you both are indicators of this. Marriage is seen as a patriarchal institute and demeaning to women and children are seen as a burden to our self-fulfilling lifestyle.
We need to change these attitudes because the majority of persons are called to the vocation of marriage and family.
Refusing this God-given vocation has meant millions of very unhappy and unfulfilled lives.
Yes, it is your choice, HA. But there are consequences to all of your actions.
If you choose to have sex, there is a chance you will get pregnant, with or without birth control. I don't believe that killing that child is an acceptable solution if you do not want to be a parent. Go ahead and don't have sex or use a condom--but know that even with a condom, you may become pregnant. Why is it that those who don't want children still feel it is their right to have sex? You can't have everything, so you have to pick your priorities. I knew that my goal was having children (as many as possible), not having a career, so I took a job as a substitute teacher, and never applied for a permanent position. I knew that I would not be working for long, and I didn't want to reflect poorly on those women who did want a career instead.
Birth control and abortion, you see, aren't really about the choice of whether or not to have children. They are about wanting to have sex, as much and as often as you want, without having children. If people really wanted not to have children, they could just not have sex. But you can't always have your cake and eat it too. Sex is not a human right.Posted by: YCW at May 1, 2009 6:34 AM
YCW and Angel,
Thanks for your honest comments. However, I am actually pro-life (after a long, hard struggle), but I don't view marriage as a patriarchal institution and I see myself getting married someday (like I said, I haven't found "him"). I also see children in the picture (perhaps not that many, as I probably will start a little later, in my lates 20's and early 30's). BUT, what I REALLY want right now is a fulfilling and exciting educational career, even though I don't necessarily "need my ducks in a row" before I pursue marriage and family. If "he" comes along during the process, I have no qualms about getting married. I don't see being female or the ability to have babies as a weakness or a detriment to getting higher education and pursuing a career (I am at a college where some of the brightest women I know are mothers, as one of them just gave birth earlier this week. She's one of the most brilliant chemistry professors on campus), but I also don't have the desire at this point in my life to pursue having babies. I believe that God wants me to be married eventually (my vocation), but He sees the joy I get in education and my future career, so He allows me to pursue these things prior to (and perhaps during) marriage and motherhood. Also, even if I do get married and use methods with my spouse to prevent pregnancy, it should be known that any pregnancy that DOES occur would be carried to term. I would happily have my baby. I agree that sex is not a human right. But I also don't like being referred to as an "indicator" of societal change, as I don't have those feelings toward children and marriage. I just don't understand why I can't love science and my potential career without being told that I'm a sign of the times and feminist brainwashing. I've been like this since I was a little girl myself (I used to read science encyclopedias in elementary and middle school), and to have a sweeping generalization about women who delay childbearing as "indicators of societal views on marriage and children" really hurts. At this point, I choose, without feminist brainwashing, to put my education and career before marriage and childbearing, though I am not opposed to either should they come along. I equally support women who make the decision to get married and have children and raise them as their career, without pursuing higher education and a career outside the home. My problem especially is that both groups of women judge the others for their life choices, and that's absolutely wrong. I feel as if I'm being judged for making the decision to pursue a career before motherhood (while ALSO FULLY accepting that the longer I wait, the less fertile I might be), while others judge you for wanting marriage and babies as soon as possible. Both views are wrong.Posted by: Lyssie at May 1, 2009 9:14 AM
Lyssie, you sound like a responsible, realistic, and morally grounded person, and I hope you don't have to deal with infertility when or if you decide to start your family.
At the same time, many young women--myself included--are never presented with the idea of being a full-time wife and mommy. But now I know that really, it was the job I dreamed of all along.Posted by: YCW at May 1, 2009 2:41 PM