Certain elements of the media are in a twitter over the recent news that Sarah Jessica Parker and Matthew Broderick are having twins through a surrogate. Sadly, much of the coverage has been of the salacious nature with reporters recklessly speculating as to the nature of the surrogacy and breathlessly implying that perhaps this couple used a surrogate so as to avoid the “inconvenience” and rigors of pregnancy.

I am not going to give credence to any of these rags by linking to them. Suffice it to say however there are a number of tabloids and otherwise respectable news outlets engaging in the worst kind of rank speculation. The bottom line is that no reputable physician, mental health professional, attorney or agency would participate in a surrogate arrangement if there was not a medical necessity. Neither vanity nor scheduling conflicts justify the use of a surrogate. In all my years of practice and having represented dozens of celebrities, there has been only one occasion where a celebrity sought to use a surrogate for the convenience factor. No one would work with her. Full stop.

Of course, reporting that Ms. Parker has a medical condition that justifies the use of the surrogate apparently is not sensational enough for some of our fringe media. Instead they rather lead their unsuspecting readership to believe that Mr. Broderick and Ms. Parker would rather throw some dollars in front of a poor and vulnerable surrogate. Or in the case of another media outlet, attempt to portray surrogacy as an expensive option available only to the very rich. In fact, in one instance I read an article where it was reported that their are only “one of hundreds of families” in the United States fortunate enough to have a child via surrogacy. Note to The Independent and its editors, my firm alone handles several hundred surrogate arrangements each year. Yes surrogacy is expensive but it is not the exclusive domain of the rich and famous.

Another newspaper even speculated about how handsomely the surrogate will be paid, implying that financial reward was the only motivation behind her involvement. That would be news to surrogates who typically receive less than $1.00 per hour over the term of their contract – regardless of who the Intended Parents are or their wealth. While no one will report this, women who serve as surrogates could make more money and suffer less risk and pain by flipping burgers at In-N-Out. It is a shame that these surrogates are being cast as opportunists and their altruistic motivations dismissed outright.

Also, what is with the perverse fascination into whether Ms. Parker is using donor eggs? Who cares. When was the last time the media conducted an inquisition to determine whether a male celebrity used a sperm donor? There is no stigma or shame in using a surrogate or donor and the media ought to get out of the business of perpetuating this kind of gender discrimination. It is interesting the double standard that is in play here. When Brad and Angelina adopt a child they are appropriately commended for their decision to become adoptive parents and no one would dare to question the parental bond in an adoption where there are no genetic ties. Yet women who use donor eggs have to bear a scarlet letter.

If it wasn’t so unfortunate for Ms. Parker and Mr. Broderick, I would laugh at the bumbling attempts of some reporters to imply that Ms. Parker’s age rules out any possibility that she could be genetically related to the twins being carried by her surrogate. Not only is this medically specious and completely irrelevant, but none of these “journalists” ever considered the possibility that Ms. Parker and Mr. Broderick had frozen embryos or eggs from an earlier IVF cycle.

Finally, for those journalists that are questioning the need for a “public announcement” by the couple, I can only wonder if you are truly that dense or you are feigning ignorance so as to sensationalize your article. There was no way for this couple to conceal the fact that they were having twins from surrogacy. Sadly, celebrity couples have very little semblance of privacy and one can only imagine the rampant speculation and reporting that would have ensued when Ms. Parker was caught by a paprazzi pushing a stroller carrying her twins. It is unfortunate but my celebrity clients have no choice but to be proactive and preempt the media barrage by disclosing the personal nature of their infertility problems.

I realize there is little that can be done to stop the tabloids as situations like this are the equivalent of chum to sharks. If the situations were reversed, I suspect these reporters would be horrified if their personal medical issues were debated in such a public forum. So while there is little that can be done to change the nature of a scorpion, I do not think it is asking too much for these reporters to at least be accurate and honest in their coverage. For me, I am happy that Ms. Parker and Mr. Broderick are expecting twins and wish the matter could be left at that.

Related Posts:

1. New York Post Shamelessly Attacks Sarah Jessica Parker & Matthew Broderick Over Surrogate Mother
2. A Fair & Balanced Story About Sarah Jessica Parker & Matthew Broderick
3. Why Won’t The Tabloids Leave Sarah Jessica Parker’s Surrogate Alone?
4. More On Sarah Jessica Parker, Kelly Preston & Celebrities Right To Privacy
5. Are Surrogates Racist?
6. John Travolta & Kelly Preston’s Pregnancy: Why Is This Anyone’s Business?
7. Update On The India-Germany Surrogacy Conflict
8. Indiana Court Of Appeals Hears Oral Arguments On Gestational Surrogacy Case
9. Germany Refuses To Grant Visas To Twins Born To An Indian Surrogate. Adoption Next?
10. Canadian Couple Shocked To Learn Twins Born By An Indian Surrogate Are Not Theirs