An insane surrogacy story

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's an article about power imbalance and the cruelty and suffering that the rich can impose on those who have less.

My heart goes out to the surrogate.

There’s certainly the power imbalance in that Bi has legal resources that the surrogate doesn’t have. Bi is clearly not mentally well and is abusing the legal process to harass this surrogate in a way only the rich can do.

But, I don’t feel sorry for the surrogate. She held allll the power when it came to that baby’s health. She decided to leave the hospital against medical advice. She decided not to tell the parents about the vaginal bleeding. She decided not to follow the doctor’s suggestion for follow up when her amniotic fluid got too low. She ignored the fact that fetal movement had stopped.

She also falsified reimbursements on childcare and house cleaners. She saw an opportunity to steal from the rich and she took it.

I don’t know if Bi can prove it, but it does seem most likely that the surrogate was partying at her DJ boyfriend’s New Year’s Eve rave and given the timeline, might have contributed to the prenatal problems.

The surrogate sounds like white trash, right down to the trope of a single mom with a biracial kid who has unfettered access (at age 7!) to an iPad with zero parental controls - thereby opening the door for a mentally unstable woman to text the child a picture of a dead baby.

Both of these women are problems.

Are you Bi's publicist? This is so much nonsense.

What kind of a crappy publicist would state that her client is mentally unstable?!

No, I’m not her publicist. I’m just a random person who thought the article was interesting, so I dove a little deeper and read the complaint and the declarations, as well as all the exhibits.

You're a racist a**hole and a malignant liar. Having a biracial child doesn't make you white trash, and there's zero information in the Wired article about the surrogate falsifying expenses and they clearly state there's no evidence that the surrogate was out partying with her boyfriend on NY Eve beyond Bi's accusation.

NP. The information about the falsified expenses is in the complaint. GC was billing the IPs for $150/week for a cleaning service, when she was just giving the money to her boyfriend.

You don’t understand what allegations in a complaint actually are. They aren’t ironclad truths, particularly from a lunatic that has burned through several lawyers and now has an ambulance chaser on contingency.

Neither are things written in a one-sided article by an author with an axe to grind.

What axe to grind? The journalist meticulously documented everything from Bi’s own documents, some of which she allegedly provided in breach of an agreement with the surrogate.

The journalist clearly had her own ax to grind. I’m shocked it took this long for people to call out what was a pretty clear bias. That doesn’t mean that Bi isn’t nuts, but readers should be careful before they just believe the author.

Yes you said that already. Again, what’s your evidence the journalist had an axe to grind?

Yes the article only presented or summarized information from the IP Cindy Bi, because the GC declined to be interviewed to present her side. The writer makes that clear. I don’t think writer had ax to grind but one can argue the article shouldn’t have been published at all since it would inevitably appear biased.

The article does serve to highlight the risks to a GC, and the potentially exploitive nature of surrogacy, even though the GC did not present her side.

It does point to the need to either regulate the practice better, or to ban commercial surrogacy outright.

Except getting only Bi's side in theory makes thr journalist more biased in favor of Bi, nit against her. The journalist was working with more of Bi's side here, Bi fully had a chance to present her side and ended up coming across looking terrible. Getting more of the surrogates story wouldn't have improved things for Bi.

And yes, she's grieving but that in no way excuses trying to ruin someone’s life. This woman is clearly unhinged.

Yes of course. Whenever you hear person A’s side only, and not person B, the story will inevitably be biased in favor of person A.

A PP thought the writer had an ax to grind. All I was saying was no, the writer worked with the material given and was fairly objective without taking a position. Reader is left deciding how to respond.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It as also heartbreaking to read that the surrogate of the baby girl had complications and needed a hysterectomy after giving birth. The article mentioned an issue with the placenta which has DNA from the parents. Shouldn’t the biological parents health histories have to be disclosed to surrogates so they know the complete risk.

If a potential GC wants to know the medical history of the IPs, she can require that as a condition of entering into a surrogacy contract. IPs, of course, are free to decide that they'd rather go with a different GC. It is no one's business what a GC and IPs agree to in their private surrogacy contract.

You're spending a lot of time defending Cindy Bi. I am guessing you used a surrogate, too.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The one negative thing I will say about the surrogate is this: No one goes into COMMERCIAL surrogacy with a plan to pay off their student loans just because "Oh I saw my friend have a hard time conceiving and I want to help people." If she were doing this from the goodness of her heart she wouldn't have taken the shady "reimbursements." It's not like she was a broke single mom. She is very easily findable and she has a job that pays well in a low cost of living area. So, let's just call a spade a spade, she wanted to make money.

That being said, yeah, Cindy Bi is mentally ill and a nightmare of a human being.

+1

This was a financial transaction.

This. Bi is clearly mentally unstable, but let’s not pretend that the surrogate wasn’t in this for a paycheck.

It’s yet another area (similar to abortion) where I think the average upper middle class poster here simply doesn’t get how middle and working class people tend to think about things.

Of course she was in it for the money, but let's not pretend that Cindy Bi didn't fully take advantage of a women who had far less money than her, a single mom with a child to support. Unlike Cindy who isn't working and is on her 6th nanny.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The one negative thing I will say about the surrogate is this: No one goes into COMMERCIAL surrogacy with a plan to pay off their student loans just because "Oh I saw my friend have a hard time conceiving and I want to help people." If she were doing this from the goodness of her heart she wouldn't have taken the shady "reimbursements." It's not like she was a broke single mom. She is very easily findable and she has a job that pays well in a low cost of living area. So, let's just call a spade a spade, she wanted to make money.

That being said, yeah, Cindy Bi is mentally ill and a nightmare of a human being.

+1

This was a financial transaction.

This. Bi is clearly mentally unstable, but let’s not pretend that the surrogate wasn’t in this for a paycheck.

It’s yet another area (similar to abortion) where I think the average upper middle class poster here simply doesn’t get how middle and working class people tend to think about things.

I mean…duh, right? Of course surrogates are doing it for the paycheck. And I hope they go in eyes wide open regarding the many physical things that can go wrong. Each pregnancy is a risk. That still doesn’t mean they should be victim to this kind of awful scenario. I don’t understand why people keep bringing up the paycheck aspect.

It's one person, who clearly was infertile and used a surrogate herself. A surrogacy apologist. Or non-apologist actually. She took advantage of this, too.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It as also heartbreaking to read that the surrogate of the baby girl had complications and needed a hysterectomy after giving birth. The article mentioned an issue with the placenta which has DNA from the parents. Shouldn’t the biological parents health histories have to be disclosed to surrogates so they know the complete risk.

If a potential GC wants to know the medical history of the IPs, she can require that as a condition of entering into a surrogacy contract. IPs, of course, are free to decide that they'd rather go with a different GC. It is no one's business what a GC and IPs agree to in their private surrogacy contract.

This presumes that the surrogate even knows that these complications are a potential risk. These women generally are not medically savvy and are looking to earn money. This whole industry is predatory and should be outlawed. The only reason it hadn't been is because rich people reap the benefits.
Another interesting story is "Her Body, My Baby" which was in the NYT about 15 years ago. The woman wasn't overtly nuts like this one but there was still a big class differential that permeated the story.
I would carry a child for my sister or cousin who was unable to for free. I would not do it for some rich stranger who decided at 43 that she was ready to be a mother.

GCs aren't children in need of protection. They are adult women who are perfectly capable of deciding whether they want to be a GC and under what circumstances.

Yet somehow we are ALSO living in a country where a pregnant woman using her own body to have her own biological child is being policed by the government in, let's face it, MOST states in this country now. It's baffling.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It as also heartbreaking to read that the surrogate of the baby girl had complications and needed a hysterectomy after giving birth. The article mentioned an issue with the placenta which has DNA from the parents. Shouldn’t the biological parents health histories have to be disclosed to surrogates so they know the complete risk.

If a potential GC wants to know the medical history of the IPs, she can require that as a condition of entering into a surrogacy contract. IPs, of course, are free to decide that they'd rather go with a different GC. It is no one's business what a GC and IPs agree to in their private surrogacy contract.

You're spending a lot of time defending Cindy Bi. I am guessing you used a surrogate, too.

DP. I see this as a broader discussion about the risks of surrogacy for all.
GCs need to understand fully the risks for them. And advocate for themselves to ensure their own health, which should include knowing the medical history of the IP and sperm donor.
If the rate of hysterectomies for surrogates was fully disclosed, some GC may choose differently.

No, I didn’t use a surrogate either.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It as also heartbreaking to read that the surrogate of the baby girl had complications and needed a hysterectomy after giving birth. The article mentioned an issue with the placenta which has DNA from the parents. Shouldn’t the biological parents health histories have to be disclosed to surrogates so they know the complete risk.

If a potential GC wants to know the medical history of the IPs, she can require that as a condition of entering into a surrogacy contract. IPs, of course, are free to decide that they'd rather go with a different GC. It is no one's business what a GC and IPs agree to in their private surrogacy contract.

You're spending a lot of time defending Cindy Bi. I am guessing you used a surrogate, too.

DP. I see this as a broader discussion about the risks of surrogacy for all.
GCs need to understand fully the risks for them. And advocate for themselves to ensure their own health, which should include knowing the medical history of the IP and sperm donor.
If the rate of hysterectomies for surrogates was fully disclosed, some GC may choose differently.

No, I didn’t use a surrogate either.

Surrogates often go through agencies which have template contracts. It’s unrealistic to expect a young woman with limited economic means to be able to negotiate like a lawyer to have more favorable terms for herself than what is standard.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:https://www.spiegel.de/international/world/the-perils-of-wartime-adoption-we-promised-bridget-we-would-come-get-her-a-abf4ad88-9c62-48b6-8b9b-f57bc3afeeba

Another really bad surrogacy story about a hollywood producer who let her disabled kid in Ukraine.

That’s even worse than the Bi story (and I didn’t think that was possible.). How could the bio parent who had a Mercedes not even send money to take care of the child they abandoned. And the rest of the American family members too who were being regularly contacted by nurses at the orphanage.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It as also heartbreaking to read that the surrogate of the baby girl had complications and needed a hysterectomy after giving birth. The article mentioned an issue with the placenta which has DNA from the parents. Shouldn’t the biological parents health histories have to be disclosed to surrogates so they know the complete risk.

If a potential GC wants to know the medical history of the IPs, she can require that as a condition of entering into a surrogacy contract. IPs, of course, are free to decide that they'd rather go with a different GC. It is no one's business what a GC and IPs agree to in their private surrogacy contract.

You're spending a lot of time defending Cindy Bi. I am guessing you used a surrogate, too.

DP. I see this as a broader discussion about the risks of surrogacy for all.
GCs need to understand fully the risks for them. And advocate for themselves to ensure their own health, which should include knowing the medical history of the IP and sperm donor.
If the rate of hysterectomies for surrogates was fully disclosed, some GC may choose differently.

No, I didn’t use a surrogate either.

Surrogates often go through agencies which have template contracts. It’s unrealistic to expect a young woman with limited economic means to be able to negotiate like a lawyer to have more favorable terms for herself than what is standard.

If she wants to negotiate and feels unable to do so, she shouldn't participate in surrogacy. See how easy that is?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It as also heartbreaking to read that the surrogate of the baby girl had complications and needed a hysterectomy after giving birth. The article mentioned an issue with the placenta which has DNA from the parents. Shouldn’t the biological parents health histories have to be disclosed to surrogates so they know the complete risk.

If a potential GC wants to know the medical history of the IPs, she can require that as a condition of entering into a surrogacy contract. IPs, of course, are free to decide that they'd rather go with a different GC. It is no one's business what a GC and IPs agree to in their private surrogacy contract.

You're spending a lot of time defending Cindy Bi. I am guessing you used a surrogate, too.

Is it supposed to be embarrassing or somehow shameful?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It as also heartbreaking to read that the surrogate of the baby girl had complications and needed a hysterectomy after giving birth. The article mentioned an issue with the placenta which has DNA from the parents. Shouldn’t the biological parents health histories have to be disclosed to surrogates so they know the complete risk.

If a potential GC wants to know the medical history of the IPs, she can require that as a condition of entering into a surrogacy contract. IPs, of course, are free to decide that they'd rather go with a different GC. It is no one's business what a GC and IPs agree to in their private surrogacy contract.

You're spending a lot of time defending Cindy Bi. I am guessing you used a surrogate, too.

DP. I see this as a broader discussion about the risks of surrogacy for all.
GCs need to understand fully the risks for them. And advocate for themselves to ensure their own health, which should include knowing the medical history of the IP and sperm donor.
If the rate of hysterectomies for surrogates was fully disclosed, some GC may choose differently.

No, I didn’t use a surrogate either.

Surrogates often go through agencies which have template contracts. It’s unrealistic to expect a young woman with limited economic means to be able to negotiate like a lawyer to have more favorable terms for herself than what is standard.

You're basically saying that poor women aren't smart enough to make their own decisions about their body.

That seems incredibly... elitist. I do understand where you're coming from, and I actually do think surrogacy should be illegal... but not because of this. At some point, barring intellectual disability, we have to let adult women make their own decisions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It as also heartbreaking to read that the surrogate of the baby girl had complications and needed a hysterectomy after giving birth. The article mentioned an issue with the placenta which has DNA from the parents. Shouldn’t the biological parents health histories have to be disclosed to surrogates so they know the complete risk.

If a potential GC wants to know the medical history of the IPs, she can require that as a condition of entering into a surrogacy contract. IPs, of course, are free to decide that they'd rather go with a different GC. It is no one's business what a GC and IPs agree to in their private surrogacy contract.

You're spending a lot of time defending Cindy Bi. I am guessing you used a surrogate, too.

Is it supposed to be embarrassing or somehow shameful?

In this situation- as outlined in the article, at least- yes, incredibly so. She paid poorer women to carry what turned out to be very risky pregnancies for them (which the author implies were risky, in part, because of plancental reasons which were genetic). Makes you wonder why she didn't carry her own pregnancies. 43 is not THAT old to carry a pregnancy. Plenty of women do it every day. If you're 43 and healthy, and have embryos, choosing to implant them into a poorer younger woman in exchange for money, in my opinion, should be illegal. Just like giving up your kidney in return for money is illegal. I honestly don't see the difference and don't understand why hiring young women to incubate babies for cash payment is fine, but farming kidneys from people who are ready and willing to give them up, for cash payment, is not fine.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It as also heartbreaking to read that the surrogate of the baby girl had complications and needed a hysterectomy after giving birth. The article mentioned an issue with the placenta which has DNA from the parents. Shouldn’t the biological parents health histories have to be disclosed to surrogates so they know the complete risk.

If a potential GC wants to know the medical history of the IPs, she can require that as a condition of entering into a surrogacy contract. IPs, of course, are free to decide that they'd rather go with a different GC. It is no one's business what a GC and IPs agree to in their private surrogacy contract.

You're spending a lot of time defending Cindy Bi. I am guessing you used a surrogate, too.

Is it supposed to be embarrassing or somehow shameful?

In this situation- as outlined in the article, at least- yes, incredibly so. She paid poorer women to carry what turned out to be very risky pregnancies for them (which the author implies were risky, in part, because of plancental reasons which were genetic). Makes you wonder why she didn't carry her own pregnancies. 43 is not THAT old to carry a pregnancy. Plenty of women do it every day. If you're 43 and healthy, and have embryos, choosing to implant them into a poorer younger woman in exchange for money, in my opinion, should be illegal. Just like giving up your kidney in return for money is illegal. I honestly don't see the difference and don't understand why hiring young women to incubate babies for cash payment is fine, but farming kidneys from people who are ready and willing to give them up, for cash payment, is not fine.

The article explains this. It wasn’t because of her age.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It as also heartbreaking to read that the surrogate of the baby girl had complications and needed a hysterectomy after giving birth. The article mentioned an issue with the placenta which has DNA from the parents. Shouldn’t the biological parents health histories have to be disclosed to surrogates so they know the complete risk.

If a potential GC wants to know the medical history of the IPs, she can require that as a condition of entering into a surrogacy contract. IPs, of course, are free to decide that they'd rather go with a different GC. It is no one's business what a GC and IPs agree to in their private surrogacy contract.

You're spending a lot of time defending Cindy Bi. I am guessing you used a surrogate, too.

Is it supposed to be embarrassing or somehow shameful?

In this situation- as outlined in the article, at least- yes, incredibly so. She paid poorer women to carry what turned out to be very risky pregnancies for them (which the author implies were risky, in part, because of plancental reasons which were genetic). Makes you wonder why she didn't carry her own pregnancies. 43 is not THAT old to carry a pregnancy. Plenty of women do it every day. If you're 43 and healthy, and have embryos, choosing to implant them into a poorer younger woman in exchange for money, in my opinion, should be illegal. Just like giving up your kidney in return for money is illegal. I honestly don't see the difference and don't understand why hiring young women to incubate babies for cash payment is fine, but farming kidneys from people who are ready and willing to give them up, for cash payment, is not fine.

I see no difference either, and I think the difference in approach is because in surrogacy, it is only young, poor women who are the victims.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The surrogate was neither the property nor the prisoner of this crazy woman. It was not illegal to drive home to get some clothes or whatever.

Exactly the way people are talking is this contract allows someone else to control every aspect of the surrogate’s life. Talk about policing women’s bodies.