Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What did the rich person do?

I’m not going to read a long article. Usually these things can be summarized in a few sentences.

Everything possible to try to wreck the life of the surrogate who experienced still birth while hospitalized. Suing her, cutting off payments, leaving surrogate on the hook for hospital bills (including weeks of inpatient monitoring). Bi wants her to go to jail, lose her own son, etc.

Also mentions that placental problems are due to the dna of the embryo and this isn’t routinely disclosed to the GC. Gestational diabetes, placenta previa, abruption, etc.

Bi also said her next GC was perfect, despite the fact that her GC experienced severe bleeding necessitating an emergency hysterectomy and ICU admission with intubation.

Alternative version: GC lied to IPs about her living situation and concealed material information from them throughout pregnancy, including a placental abruption. She then made a series of poor decisions that killed the fetus.

Oh step off. This is such a dishonest assessment. I'm certain you are paid by that crazy obsessive abusive woman.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What did the rich person do?

I’m not going to read a long article. Usually these things can be summarized in a few sentences.

Everything possible to try to wreck the life of the surrogate who experienced still birth while hospitalized. Suing her, cutting off payments, leaving surrogate on the hook for hospital bills (including weeks of inpatient monitoring). Bi wants her to go to jail, lose her own son, etc.

Also mentions that placental problems are due to the dna of the embryo and this isn’t routinely disclosed to the GC. Gestational diabetes, placenta previa, abruption, etc.

Bi also said her next GC was perfect, despite the fact that her GC experienced severe bleeding necessitating an emergency hysterectomy and ICU admission with intubation.

Alternative version: GC lied to IPs about her living situation and concealed material information from them throughout pregnancy, including a placental abruption. She then made a series of poor decisions that killed the fetus.

The evidence at hand — which seems to be substantial and is detailed in the article — does not support this whatsoever.

Read the complaint that the IPs filed. It tells a very different story.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What did the rich person do?

I’m not going to read a long article. Usually these things can be summarized in a few sentences.

Everything possible to try to wreck the life of the surrogate who experienced still birth while hospitalized. Suing her, cutting off payments, leaving surrogate on the hook for hospital bills (including weeks of inpatient monitoring). Bi wants her to go to jail, lose her own son, etc.

Also mentions that placental problems are due to the dna of the embryo and this isn’t routinely disclosed to the GC. Gestational diabetes, placenta previa, abruption, etc.

Bi also said her next GC was perfect, despite the fact that her GC experienced severe bleeding necessitating an emergency hysterectomy and ICU admission with intubation.

Alternative version: GC lied to IPs about her living situation and concealed material information from them throughout pregnancy, including a placental abruption. She then made a series of poor decisions that killed the fetus.

Anonymous wrote:Thanks OP. This is the content I come here for! I'm wondering if all these "tldr" posters are some kind of surrogacy apologetics.
Unbelievable story. The part that really got me was when the rich woman freaked about her baby measuring in the 30th percentile for growth and worried that he was "defective" already. What a nightmare to be around.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Who has that kind of time to read this book?

OP you really should have gave us a better summary. Everyone's so quick to post links but not a thought out post at all.

I did. It took like all of 10 minutes. If that bothers you, just read pp’s summaries.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The surrogate agency should have taken some action against the crazy intended parent the moment she started to post private information about the surrogate mother's health and job in chat groups. That is 100% not ok and violated their agreement.

That should have been an indication that the surrogate mom was not respectful of the surrogate.

+1
I wish someone would start a GoFundMe for the surrogate - I’d contribute. With good representation, she should have a fairly straightforward case vs the IPs and the surrogate agency. There should also be charges brought on her sons behalf vs the IP for harassment.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Totally horrifying. The "intended parent" who is harassing her poor surrogate should be prosecuted for harassment.

And PPs, if this article is too long for you to read, consider changing your information habits. It's a normal magazine-length piece. Why is that too hard for you?

The victim (i.e surrogate) is based in Virginia. I wish there was some way of helping her. Like GoFundMe or finding her legal help.

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.

This line reeks of disdain for women who are mothers later in life. See the PP's remark about becoming trad Caths when an older woman has children a non-traditional way. Do you think we were all supposed to meet The One at 25 and be done with kids by 30?

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.

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.

This line reeks of disdain for women who are mothers later in life. See the PP's remark about becoming trad Caths when an older woman has children a non-traditional way. Do you think we were all supposed to meet The One at 25 and be done with kids by 30?

You're projecting. Pregnancy can be risky to any woman's health. Look at what happened in this article--the surrogate was hospitalized for weeks (with no one to take care of her 7 yo son), she lost her job due to the crazy intended parent blaming her for the loss of the baby and calling her employer (and subsequent employers) to defame her with lies, and she has hundreds of thousands in medical bills because the intended parent accused her of fraud so medical insurance won't cover it.

All this to say, I wouldn't carry a baby for anyone I didn't love deeply either. It has nothing to do with "disdain for older mothers-" pregnancy is still a very risky endeavor.

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.

This line reeks of disdain for women who are mothers later in life. See the PP's remark about becoming trad Caths when an older woman has children a non-traditional way. Do you think we were all supposed to meet The One at 25 and be done with kids by 30?

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.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes, this Cindy Bi lady is INSANE!! I almost posted this in the infertility forum, but I just knew they'd all be on her side.

You underestimate us. We’re the ones who have been fully engulfed in all the nuances between life and death, difficult questions, choices, consequences, goals in a way that I have found kind of doesn’t apply once you do have children, and the demands of regular daily life are front and center. I would also think this group would have far more compassion for the surrogate, as many of us would view her as an incredible person who is putting herself at risk to bring life into the world, on the behalf of people who yearn to create a family themselves. I guarantee the PP upthread who keeps deriding the surrogate as “just a woman who sold her body for money” is not someone who has struggled with infertility or posts on that board.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes, this Cindy Bi lady is INSANE!! I almost posted this in the infertility forum, but I just knew they'd all be on her side.

You underestimate us. We’re the ones who have been fully engulfed in all the nuances between life and death, difficult questions, choices, consequences, goals in a way that I have found kind of doesn’t apply once you do have children, and the demands of regular daily life are front and center. I would also think this group would have far more compassion for the surrogate, as many of us would view her as an incredible person who is putting herself at risk to bring life into the world, on the behalf of people who yearn to create a family themselves. I guarantee the PP upthread who keeps deriding the surrogate as “just a woman who sold her body for money” is not someone who has struggled with infertility or posts on that board.

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Because they want to believe that the money washes away the immorality and exploitation and buys a veneer of ethics.

DCUM posters are generally pro-surrogacy because they tend to be wealthy women who sympathize with the Cindy Bis of the world rather than the exploited, lower class surrogates. Posts on this topic are always fascinating because the same people who believe they are proper good Obama liberals become ruthless Ayn Randian capitalists when it comes to surrogacy, and they don’t seem to see the hypocrisy.

Anonymous wrote:I missed some of the responses in the middle pages of this thread, but did anyone notice how much the Doctor really validated and egged on everything Bi was writing to her? Saying things along the lines of “Totally - the agency is just saying that to try to get you to back down” etc. It’s in the exhibits to the suit. I was a big fan of her YouTube videos when learning about the IUI and IVF processes but this is not a good look for her. She did mostly cover her a** I think.

But also WARNING - the unedited photo of baby Leon is on the very last page of one of the files. It’s included feet first so you have some warning. It’s heartbreaking.