"Woman Births Children for Couples Around the World
Anita Brush, 39, of Modesto, Calif., is retiring from surrogate motherhood after delivering eight babies for four different couples (ABCNEWS.com)
May 31, 2005
When Anita Brush decided to go back to work eight years ago, she wanted to find a job that would allow her to spend time with her four children but also have an impact on other people. To Brush, becoming a surrogate mother seemed like the perfect solution. She just never expected to give birth to eight babies in seven years. "Every time after birth, when I'm able to hold the baby or babies afterward, and know that they're going home, it has really been a celebration," said Brush, 39.
Brush gave birth to Sarah and Michael Case's son Cole in 1999.
Doctors told Sarah Case that she would not be able to have another child after she gave birth to her older son, Garrett. The Mesa couple opted to work with a surrogate and met Brush through an agency.
"I just couldn't believe that somebody would do this for me," Sarah Case said. "When I look for Cole at night, and when I'm saying goodnight to him and reading to him, that's when I think of Anita."
That gratitude and the profound impact she has had on others' lives has kept Brush committed, even when carrying multiple babies.
In 2001, she gave birth to triplets for a gay couple from Ireland and two years later she carried twins for a gay couple from the Midwest. Last October, Brush gave birth to her eighth surrogate child for the same couple from the Midwest.
The first child she carried as a surrogate was for a Japanese couple.
Brush's fees ranged from $15,000 up to $35,000 for the triplets.
In total, she has earned $130,000 for the five pregnancies.
But she warns that it was not easy money.
"Absolutely do not do this for the money," Brush said. "If you want to classify it as a job, it's 24 hours a day, seven days a week.
Brush, who is now a single mother, says support from her family helps her through.
"It affects us, but there aren't a lot of negative effects," said her daughter Margaret Fielder. "The only thing that's ever bothered us is when she's in the hospital and you miss her and we have to go to school and stuff. That's the only hard part."
OH MY GOD...
The ONLY good thing I can say about this horror is that as more and more of these stories come out, the closer we get to having MOST surrogate motherhood arrangements made illegal…
The bottom line as these articles make pretty clear is that these women are NOT going into surrogate motherhood in order to unselfishly help others have families, as the article originally stated. But, in fact, women are entering these arrangement to make money. As being a surrogate mother appears to have ‘morphed’ into just another ‘occupation’ and a pretty low-income one at that.
Although for many communities throughout the US getting paid either $15,000 to $35,000 cash annually (maybe even tax free) is NOT an income to sneer at…I, myself, who work five days a week, 8 hours a day don’t make $35,000 annually…and I’m a college graduate (single mother as well) living in one of the five most expensive cities in the world. Counting the OTHER public benefits Brush is entitled to as a single low-income head of household mother such as the Earned Income Credit, subsidized health insurance for herself and the children she kept, food stamps, rent subsidies, etc., and adding these benefits to $15,000 or $35,000 in cash she gets per child, this can be a pretty substantial income for a women with no discernable job skills in many regions of this nation.
Returning to the article, it states that Ms. Brush is NOW a single mother and it doesn’t take much imagination to figure out why.
My only question is why were the children she decided NOT to sell off to other couples allowed to remain with her, especially the girl children as I can’t imagine what those poor kids must of gone through over the years as the community and their little friends saw their mother pregnant with one infant after another, only to then watch her turn over each of their siblings in their turn to someone else in exchange for cash.
It’s the same situation we saw with Michael Jackson and Debbie Rowe, his former nurse. Two pregnancies, a check and exit Debbie Rowe, stage left…BTW, I understand Michael Jackson tells his children they don’t have a mother. Imagine that, being told as a child that you have been left out of the closest biological bond that any living being can experience, the mother/child bond. You don’t have that because you don’t have a mother.
No wonder this man had the arrogance to think he could continue getting away with just about anything. Since we, as a society, have allowed him to do everything else, so why would he think someone would stand up to him now. I guess the DA who finally brought the charges against him was just ‘old school’ enough to take a chance and try to make a case. I don’t think that a younger DA would have taken the chance on it.
Well, we’ll just have to wait and see where it all ends.
Surrogate motherhood needs to be made illegal in MOST cases unless you want to allow someone to do it for NO PAYMENT, NONE, NADA, NOTHING…as $15,000 to $35,000 dollars per pregnancy (or child I don't know which) is FAR too much money to allow to be exchanged in these situations to not classify them as a business transaction. Thus, this whole surrogate motherhood business amounts to nothing more then the pre-arranged contracting for the creation and eventual sale of a child.
Our country has a tragic history regarding these sorts of issues, yet ultimately a proud legacy of being the ONLY nation in the world to have fought a war to STOP the sale of human beings, including children. I repeat we fought a war to STOP the sale of human being including children. AND that is NOT a legacy to sneeze at as EVERY civilization prior to ours had a history of slavery, every one. Sadly however, after banning the sale of human beings, including children, we are now allowing this degrading practice to be sneaked in through the backdoor again, as these surrogate arrangements continue to spread like a cancer throughout Western civilization's social fabric.
Women in the role as mother must put a stop to this forthwith. The women who participate in these arrangements, by their behavior, put ALL mothers and our children at risk of having our relationship with our children reduced to what they’ve allowed their relationship with their children to be reduced to. Nothing but a business transaction which is of no more signficance then whelping a litter of puppies and then handing them out to whoever has a check to purchase one.
The most sacred event that any mother can partake in, bringing forth life, is being reduced to a dollars and cents transaction of no more significant then a legal agreement to purchase a car. This is another attempt by men (and their gender neutralized feminist allies) in their ongoing attempts to denigrate the mother/child bond for their own selfish purposes. Both groups continue to spread their propaganda throughout society that motherhood itself is no more significant then a business transaction complete with a legal contract.
Where they hope this will ultimately end up is with a gender neutralized society where 50% of the armed forces is women, where 50% of mothers (or more) have lost custody of their children, where 50% of death row inmates are women, etc., etc., etc.,
These crazed, gender neutralized, social engineers will stop at nothing until their goal is achieved and reducing motherhood to a simple business transaction is one of the means they are using to achieve this...and it must be stopped by any means necessary.