Sarah Jessica Parker, 44, and Matthew Broderick, 47, are expecting twin girls via a surrogate. In a statement, their reps announced, “Sarah Jessica Parker and Matthew Broderick are happily anticipating the birth of their twin daughters later this summer with the generous help of a surrogate. The entire family is overjoyed.”
A friend of the couple, who married in 1997, tells Entertainment Weekly exclusively that Parker and Broderick have been trying for years to add to their family ever since the birth of their son, James Wilkie, now 6. But the road hasn’t been an easy one. “They had a lot of unsuccessful tries,” says the friend. “They came to the conclusion that this was going to be the best alternative for expanding their family.” The couple turned to a surrogate — whose name and place of residence have not been disclosed — last year. “They’re over the moon and excited as any prospective parents would be,” says the friend. “Their life is about to get a lot busier.”
Parker is filming Did You Hear About the Morgans? a romantic comedy costarring Hugh Grant, and plans to star in and produce a sequel to her 2008 hit Sex and the City. Broderick’s latest film, the drama Wonderful World, premiered at the Tribeca Film Festival on April 27, and he’s currently starring on Broadway in The Philanthropist.
addCredit(“Bryan Bedder/Getty Images”)
It’s called adoption, you egomaniacs.
It’s not an adoption if the eggs and sperm being used are that of Matthew and Jessica. At least, that’s what I’m assuming when they use the term surrogacy. It’s just like in the show Friends, when Pheobe had her brother’s kids. She was the one carrying the babies to term, but did not contribute to their DNA. They’re using the term correctly in this case.
Actually, “surrogate” means that the baby is the biological child of at least one (if not both) of them.
Ned – As someone who is considering becoming a surrogate, please understand that surrogacy is NOT adoption. Surrogacy is usually the case of biological children being carried by a different individual. Usually, the child is biologically related to one, if not both, of the natural parents. Crudely, you could consider the surrogate an incubator, if that helps you understand.
Let me try this again. People who forego adoption in favor of surrogacy are egomaniacs.
That’s why I used the term “egomaniac” in my original post. I was not implying that EW are egomaniacs because I ignorantly believe they are misrepresenting an adoption as surrogacy.
My bad, Ned! I misunderstood your comment.
If they don’t prefer to adopt, it’s nobody’s business but theirs. Adoption can be a long, drawn-out, expensive, emotionally draining process – and who’s to say they DIDN’T pursue adoption in the years since their son was born? It doesn’t always work. However they choose to add to their family, they’re going to catch criticism for it: if they adopt, they’re “buying” babies like Madonna and Angelina are regularly accused; if they spend thousands and thousands on fertility treatments to have biological children, they’re called selfish egomaniacs. Perhaps they have embryos stored from past unsuccessful treatments, and a surrogate is their last chance to grow them into babies. If it’s important to them that their children be at least partially biologically their own, that’s their choice.
Why fault them for hiring a surrogate? If they prefer having a biological child rather than adopting, that’s their choice.
By your loging, all people having their own biological kids and not adopting are egomaniacs. There’s nothing wrong with surrogacy. People got to complain about something, right? If they adopted they’d be accused of baby collecting like Angie and Madonna.
BTW, Matthew’s sideburns are specifically for the play he’s in right now set in 1971.
Meant “logic” not “loging”…
Ned, do you have adopted or biological children? Adoption is not for everyone. I say this as the mother of two children, one of whom is biological (not through a surrogate) and one of whom is adopted. There is way more involved than you are implying…it is not simply ego that leads some families to choose surrogacy to build their families instead of adoption. Adoption is a MUCH harder route than surrogacy!
I wish them happiness with their children.
As a father of two amazing children, my daughter, Mel, now 31, and son James, 26 I must say that as a young husband I was not really looking for a family but as we know, it takes two to tango, that is to say, a man and a women, to make new life, my wife did give me these two wonderful expressions of life and I can only think that two people of exceptional privilege, (I mean talent and public acceptance)would also want to experience that wonderful time when you are the center of your child’s love.
All I can say is that my wife and I have had the perfect family, a girl and boy, and that for anybody to be negative about these two very special, but also (I am sure) very normal people(I am referring to Mathew and Sarah), wanting to have more children, well all I can say is if this works for them then it is none of your business if you do not agree with their methods.
Best wishes two your expanded family.
Mike
I would never ever adopt a child. Why wouldn’t you want to have a biological one? It’s not my fault other people can’t take care of the kids they create.
I’d like to know how many of the people who are denigrating their choice have adopted children themselves? For those of you who haven’t- you’re hypocrites. For those of you who have- it’s still none of your business. While adoption is a wonderful thing, it doesn’t make you any better than those who don’t adopt, or give you the right to pass judgment on others.
Liza- we are all very grateful that you won’t be adopting any of the world’s orphans. God knows what a selfish, ignorant person such as yourself would do to these poor kids.