Martha Stewart Is Shelling Out $28K A Month For A Biological Grandkid

Raised in a world where feminism guides us to believe that we can accomplish anything we want if we just put our minds to it, it must be a big disappointment to get slapped in the face with something as uncontrollable as the limitations of biology. Especially if you're the daughter of someone as accomplished as Martha Stewart. Alexis Stewart, 42, opened up on Tuesday's Oprah about her fertility struggles, confessing that she spends a whopping $28,000 a month on fertility medication and procedures. (Martha's helping with the bills, naturally.) And while we tend to think that such a large investment of time and money is both silly and selfish considering the amount of needy children in the world, we were interested in some of the points that Stewart brought up, namely how celebrity magazines, by repeatedly presenting us with stories of successful women who've put off raising a family until their 40s or 50s, have created a "false illusion for women."

We're only hearing the great stories. Very few people can have their own baby at 45. They are probably using surrogate eggs.

Or at least in-vitro. Have you noticed the crop of fraternal twins popping up for "older" women in Hollywood (Jane Seymour, Geena Davis, Julia Roberts, Nancy Grace, J. Lo)? And we say "older" because fertility begins to decline at the age of 28!

The idea is most likely perpetuated that these famous pregnancies are the result of traditional penis-in-the-vagina sex, because there's a stigma attached to infertility and the use of surrogates, probably because it indicates that one is "old" or "dried up." But really, it's not shameful at all.

Advertisement

Obviously, we shouldn't give up our dreams and careers and jump on the baby fever bandwagon, but a little education and information never hurt anyone. Because even if you can't imagine having children in your life, you don't really know how you'll feel in 10 or 15 years. (After all, some of us have said we'd "never ever" do a lot of stuff that we eventually did, like anal sex, for example.) If women have this knowledge at a younger age, when their eggs are still viable and not "dry and crusty" like Alexis Stewart's, then maybe they can plan better for the future. (Or not. Freezing and storing eggs is expensive: the process costs between $9,000 and $15,000, and about $350 and $500 a year for storage.)

For now, Stewart is treating her infertility like a job (the apple doesn't fall far from the tree), and will weigh her other options when her doctors tell her it's time to move on. But she said that even Martha thinks she was "silly for waiting."

Alexis Stewart Continues Fertility Treatments [People]

Share This Story

Get our newsletter

DISCUSSION

stacyinbean

@goodcheapfun: My mother will be 50 in two weeks and I have a ten year old sister and a 14 year old brother. My mother and I will both willingly admit she has been able to be a much better mother to them than she was with me. She has more time, more money, more stability, etc. If you can't keep up with a kid at 50 you should probably get to the gym more often. I think anyone should be able to have a baby whenever they want and however they want. If someone doesn't want to adopt, oh well, you can't change their mind, no matter how much you want to. Personally, a child is a child is a child, I will be happy with whatever I am granted. I have no interest in needles and chemicals and implantations but who knows how I'll feel if I eventually find out I can't get pregnant naturally.

Also, to all the people yelling about foster parents, that is not something everyone is qualified for. It is very difficult to deal with children who have been abused and not just everyone should have the choice to take these kids for the extra few bucks they will get paid. A family across the street from me had over 8 foster children while I was in school. At the time one of their sons was in prison, their 16 y/o daughter was pregnant, and their oldest son had 4 children by 3 woman by the time he was 25. If you can't take care of your own children, why should the state give you any more?