Anonymous wrote:
What i found particularly horrrifying was the part about placenta and the pregnancy being largely determined by the biological parents

The fact that two surrogates suffered from placental problems , one almost died and had to have a hysterectomy is insane

And the article points out that the intended parents are not required to disclose their medical records or family history. BOTH bi and her husband had similar histories in their families.

So these women both unknowingly took great risks with their life and fertility

This leaves

Agree, it made me think surrogates should be related biologically to IP, and it might be safer for surrogate and more likelihood of good pregnancy outcome.

What i found particularly horrrifying was the part about placenta and the pregnancy being largely determined by the biological parents

The fact that two surrogates suffered from placental problems , one almost died and had to have a hysterectomy is insane

And the article points out that the intended parents are not required to disclose their medical records or family history. BOTH bi and her husband had similar histories in their families.

So these women both unknowingly took great risks with their life and fertility

This leaves

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.

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.

Not illegal, no.

I’m having a hard time buying that the hospital gave the GC permission to go home and get vitamins. With PROM, she was at high risk of an infection and premature labor.

I’m sure the IP would have mailed her more at the hospital if needed.

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.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Thanks OP for posting this article, so horrific.

Of course the IP is looney tunes, but I’m concerned about the hospital care.

The article said the nurses allowed the GC to go home to pick up the vitamins— I can’t imagine that really happened unless there was a doctor’s order. Hospitals are very strict about these things. No nurse who cares about her job would allow a patient to leave without a doctor’s order. If a patient “”sneaks out” they would not be welcomed back with open arms— risk management would be involved. If she did in fact sneak out, that’s pretty inexcusable.

I’m on the side of the GC, but curious if any drug testing was done at any time during the pregnancy. Certain drugs increase the risk for placental abruption.

As far as the hospital’s culpability, I’m surprised the baby’s HR wasn’t being monitored. How could the baby’s distress and demise have been missed by the staff?

Has anyone here ever been hospitalized for pre delivery monitoring like this GC was? What was your experience with monitoring?

When I was hospitalized pre delivery due to placenta previa bleeds, I had several monitoring sessions a day (ie a nurse would put me on a monitor for 40 minutes or an hour) but I wasn’t on continuous monitoring.

OK— thanks for your reply! Were you allowed to drive while on modified bed rest? ( I realize every case is different)

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.

Anonymous wrote:Thanks OP for posting this article, so horrific.

Of course the IP is looney tunes, but I’m concerned about the hospital care.

The article said the nurses allowed the GC to go home to pick up the vitamins— I can’t imagine that really happened unless there was a doctor’s order. Hospitals are very strict about these things. No nurse who cares about her job would allow a patient to leave without a doctor’s order. If a patient “”sneaks out” they would not be welcomed back with open arms— risk management would be involved. If she did in fact sneak out, that’s pretty inexcusable.

I’m on the side of the GC, but curious if any drug testing was done at any time during the pregnancy. Certain drugs increase the risk for placental abruption.

As far as the hospital’s culpability, I’m surprised the baby’s HR wasn’t being monitored. How could the baby’s distress and demise have been missed by the staff?

Has anyone here ever been hospitalized for pre delivery monitoring like this GC was? What was your experience with monitoring?

When I was hospitalized pre delivery due to placenta previa bleeds, I had several monitoring sessions a day (ie a nurse would put me on a monitor for 40 minutes or an hour) but I wasn’t on continuous monitoring.

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.

I found the whole article horrifying, and full disclosure I think commercial surrogacy should be banned. However, I can’t stop thinking about the tragedy of it all. As awful as Bi’s behavior seems to have been as per the article, she lost a child, and grief can drive people to dark places. I hope they all get some peace, though admittedly more litigation isn’t likely to do that. It is just all so tragic and sad.

Europeans do not allow surrogacy because in their way of thinking, it is exploitation of a woman's body.
I think this story illustrates that problem very well. Who is exploiting whom?
At the end of the day, there are reasons that someone hasn't married and raised a family yet until they hold the purse strings. Some of them have serious personality issues which Bi demonstrates amply. Surrogacy is fairly unregulated here and it's the wild west in terms of what you will experience.
Bi's children will be miserable with her as a parent. She is definitely someone for whom when the fertility window closes, it should stay closed.

IMO, the hospital carries major liability here. Any surrogate pregnancy is high risk and a MFM specialist should have been consulted. The hospital does apparently have a level III NICU so definitely had the resources for a consultation.

The poersonal health insurance of a surrogate should absolutely NOT be allowed to cover a surrogacy pregnancy. A surrogate should not be able to use her own insurance to protect the surrogate.

The article says, " if Smith had to be hospitalized or miss work, she’d receive payments for lost wages and childcare. Also, Smith’s employer-provided insurance would treat the pregnancy as if it were her own baby—a major boon."

This is ridiculous that the employer's insurance has to pay. That can affect everyone in a smaller company because it then drives up the rates for other employees. Ordinarily you can't use personal insurance for job related injuries and surrogacy is paid employment.

The surrogate was hospitalized starting January 1st. She got the speeding ticket January 13th. The baby was found not to have a heartbeat on January 21st.

Surrogates are not prisoners. She went suddenly to the ER on January 1st. It isn't unreasonable that she go home one day for a few hours to deal with her life.

The first surrogate kept bleeding after the stillbirth and couldn't work for another month.

It isn't right that the surrogate doesn't know the medical history of the baby she is carrying since the article says, "As Bi pointed out repeatedly in her quest to get Leon’s placental slides, the placenta comes from the DNA of the biological parents—hers and Valdeiglesias’. In fact, Bi’s mother and sister developed diabetes while pregnant, an issue stemming from the placenta, and remained diabetic. Valdeiglesias told me that his aunt had her water break early, but everything was fine.

But Bi and Valdeiglesias’s family medical histories were not disclosed to their surrogates."

The second surrogate they used needed a hysterectomy.

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?