JavaScript disabled. Please enable JavaScript to use My News, My Clippings, My Comments and user settings.

If you have trouble accessing our login form below, you can go to our login page.

If you have trouble accessing our login form below, you can go to our login page.

Giuliana Rancic having a baby

Date

Celebrity couple are expecting their first child via gestational surrogate.

Thrilled ... Bill and Giuliana Rancic.

Thrilled ... Bill and Giuliana Rancic.

Giuliana and Bill Rancic are having a baby.

The child will be born later this year via a gestational surrogate, meaning the baby will be genetically theirs but carried by another woman.

Last year, 37-year-old Giuliana announced she had breast cancer and later underwent a double mastectomy. She did not need chemotherapy.

Giuliana and Bill's struggles to conceive a baby have been well-documented with failed IVF treatments and a miscarriage.

Giuliana is the host of E! News and co-host of Fashion Police. Bill is a 40-year-old entrepreneur and motivational speaker who won the first season of Donald Trump's The Apprentice.

Together, they co-star in a reality show on the Style Network called Giuliana & Bill. Much of the show has been devoted to their fertility issues.

We are so thrilled that our prayers have been answered," she told E!. Adds Bill, "We are absolutely ecstatic to be sharing this with everyone who has been following our journey."

AP and smh.com.au

 

 

19 comments

  • how lovely for them. Good on them for admitting to the surrogate and not pretending ....Why dont we do surrogates over here? sometimes our laws are OTT.

    Commenter
    person
    Location
    melbourne
    Date and time
    April 24, 2012, 9:49AM
    • Im very happy for them - Ive been watching their journey and good to see that two deserving people will be parents

      Commenter
      Gansey
      Location
      Sydney
      Date and time
      April 24, 2012, 12:14PM
      • This would be illegal in Oz, because...? Well, I'm sure some polly thought about it hard for two seconds. Actually, it was probably the religious right agitating against it, because they hate it when other people are happy.

        Commenter
        Craig
        Location
        Sydney
        Date and time
        April 24, 2012, 12:30PM
        • Sorry they had an awful time, but hiring other women's wombs is gross. Women as mere incubators. And it's called a "mother", not a "gestational carrier". Is everything for sale these days? The day a rich woman "chooses" to be undergo pregnancy (and all its attendant risks) for someone else is the day I'll believe this is not just exploitation of the worst kind: that is, of poor women who want the money, by rich women who can't or don't want to give birth themselves. Women are NOT a commodity. Our laws still recognise that this is a backwards step for women's rights, and probably the child's as well.

          Commenter
          Chuck
          Location
          Sydney
          Date and time
          April 24, 2012, 12:38PM
          • Chuck - Who are you to judge what anyone else is doing?? This couple have endured more than anyone should have to and if there is someone out there willing to help them then how is this 'gross'.? If you had any idea about how surrogacy works you may also know that its not a bunch of poor women sitting around waiting to be exploited by the rich. Generally it is smart, educated women who have already completed their own families, and are subjected to a thorough screening process through various agencies, and know full well the risks associated with child birth. Also, this 'gestational carrier' is not the childs 'mother', as it says in the article, the embryo was the rancic's, this surrogate is only the carrier. It is your opinion that is backwards Chuck.

            Commenter
            katherine
            Location
            Sydney
            Date and time
            April 24, 2012, 1:57PM
          • Did you even read the article? They were unable to have their own child, so they did what they could to have a child that was biologically theirs.

            Commenter
            L
            Location
            Melb
            Date and time
            April 24, 2012, 2:38PM
          • Woah ... hold your horses, O Great Defender of Feminism. Pretty sure the article doesn't mention whether the woman carrying the baby is rich, poor or in-between, or whether she is doing this purely altruistically, which you seem to ignore as a possible factor in a woman's decision to do this in your rush to defend us poor, mistreated, incapable-of-independent-thought creatures. Surrogacy is such a small market; if it were financially lucrative enough to attract all the financially oppressed yet fertile women in the US, don't you think there would be far more women doing it?

            Also, thanks for reducing women to 'wombs'. Pregnancy is more than 'incubation'. No one rented a womb - this over-dramatic simplification is really insulting to the complexity of pregnancy and what the pregnant woman is doing.

            Guiliana is the mother. The pregnancy woman is carrying her child for her because she can't. If she gets paid good on her. If not, good on her.

            Commenter
            Emma
            Location
            Melbourne
            Date and time
            April 24, 2012, 4:15PM
          • Um did you read any of the article? Giuliana Rancic can't conceive naturally and has gone through cancer - if she could carry a baby of her own, she would have.

            Commenter
            Kate
            Date and time
            April 24, 2012, 5:05PM
          • Wow...what a misinformed comment. We allow abortion, which is the destruction of a foetus - what does that say for a child's rights? And what's so wrong with allowing a foetus to be brought to term, even if it's not in the womb of the genetic mother?

            If I knew a couple close to me was struggling, I'd do it - for free. This is great news. We need Australia to make it legal here too.

            Commenter
            Sunny
            Location
            Sydney
            Date and time
            April 24, 2012, 6:53PM
          • There have been cases of fairly well off women doing it merely out of love, for example for a sister who can't go through pregnancy and carry her own children (eg: lost uterus due to hysterectomy, but still has her ovaries). I don't think that's gross at all. In Australia it would be illegal to pay someone to do this, so it would have to be done for altruistic motives alone.

            Commenter
            it's not always just about money
            Date and time
            April 24, 2012, 9:01PM

        More comments

        Comments are now closed
        Featured advertisers

        Horoscopes

        Capricorn horoscope

        Trust others to think for themselves. Don't be snobbish about what seems obvious. Everyone learns at their own pace, including you.

        ...find out more here