Sarah Jessica Parker expecting twins

Matthew Broderick and Sarah Jessica Parker on April 27, 2009Sarah Jessica Parker and husband Matthew Broderick are expecting twin girls through a surrogate pregnancy. The babies are due in the summer, with the surrogate mother’s identity yet to be revealed. Parker, 44, and Broderick, 47, have been married for over 12 years and have a six-year-old son, James Wilkie. A spokesperson for the couple said the couple is “happily anticipating the birth of their twin daughters later this summer with the generous help of a surrogate. The entire family is overjoyed.” Despite rumors of their marriage being in jeopardy last year, friends say the couple desperately wanted to have more children ever since James was born. “After a lot of unsuccessful tries, they came to the conclusion a surrogate was the best alternative,” one friend told Entertainment Weekly. “They’re over the moon and excited as any prospective parents would be. Their life is about to get a lot busier.” ~Meryl H.

Share this article:

Comments & Discussion

  1. sparklingwall • April 29, 2009 @ 12:35 PM

    Aww, congrats SJP and Matthew Broderick. Twin girls is so exciting

  2. ke • April 29, 2009 @ 2:08 PM

    yea, i hope they last. they seem really good.

  3. mandee • April 29, 2009 @ 2:15 PM

    congratulations. this is great news. i dont really like sarah jessica parker, but i love matthew broderick.

  4. Max Powers • April 29, 2009 @ 3:15 PM

    good for her, with twins she will now weight approx the amount of a avg. kid…EAT SOME FOOD

  5. tributegirl • April 29, 2009 @ 5:58 PM

    Ummm, she’s not pregnant, Max. They have a surrogate. mandee, I’ve never really cared for her either, but I’ve always liked him.

  6. Nancy • April 29, 2009 @ 6:19 PM

    Moleface!!

  7. Stephen • April 29, 2009 @ 8:09 PM

    Didn’t I read several months ago about the possibility that he was having an affair with a younger woman? I know that that is practically a cliche about older men, but it can be true.

    I hope that they’re not having more kids if they’re having marital problems like that.

    Of course, you can’t always believe what you read online.

  8. Carol • April 29, 2009 @ 8:10 PM

    I enjoyed Sex & the City, but what’s up with this? How old are they? I’m glad in one respect, children are a gift, but there comes a point when you should look at your age and how that can affect the family. And is this an attempt to make the marriage work after he supposedly cheated on her?

  9. mandee • April 29, 2009 @ 10:20 PM

    well, i dont see why age should matter when you have children. unless you are in your 60s or 70s, then theres a good chance you will still be alive to raise them until they are adults. what about young parents? no one says anything bad about them when they have kids, but they can go outside and be murdered, or hit by a car or something and then their kids can be left parentless. its not about age, its about weather or not they are going to love them unconditionally and give them the life they deserve.

  10. tributegirl • April 30, 2009 @ 4:55 PM

    I see what you are saying, mandee, but I also see what Carol is saying. I know a family who had a child in their 40’s, they were already grandparents. Now their daughter is 15, they are mid-fifties, and their health has gone way downhill in the last 5 years. They just don’t have the energy to do the things with her that they had with their other two children. And I think that’s a real shame, because sometimes she just looks like a sad, lonely girl, she has lots of friends, but all their parents have the energy to take them places & do things with them, her parents can’t.

  11. Carol • April 30, 2009 @ 8:02 PM

    Mandee, it is politcally correct to say age has nothing to do with it, but yes, sometimes it does. Really, there are people who are too young (we see it in the schools all the time) and people who are too old. Now, I do understand that some people physically are not their age, but let’s be real. They will be old parents. tributegirl is right, they may have been fine in the beginning, but as they creep up in age, it is hard to keep up

  12. Debbie • May 1, 2009 @ 6:14 PM

    I heard many times that they were not getting along, because of Matthew’s “younger woman antics”. Why are they having more kids? I thought Sarah was possibly making another “Sex and the City” movie because of her 9 or 90 million (whatever)that she is worth, that, too much would go to Matthew if they split.I do not believe people should stay together if they cannot resolve problems. The kids WILL suffer in the end, if not initially. Hollywood is weird, anyway! I hope that this is not an attempt to “fix” the problems. I’ll bet down the road, we’ll see a divorce. Staying together can be admirable, but in this case, I’m not sure. I guess only they know, and this is useless chatter.

  13. Jo-Anne • May 1, 2009 @ 6:40 PM

    you know Debbie, it’s not only Hollywood, kids are suffering all over due to parent’s bad choices…

    so many things children are forced to witness in households that is just so wrong….

    If it works for this couple, I am happy for them all

  14. Nancy • May 2, 2009 @ 8:02 PM

    I agree, Debbie. “Useless chatter” for sure. ▲

Join The Conversation:

Trending Articles

Current Poll

  • What’s your favorite scary movie toy?

    View Results

    Loading ... Loading ...

You Might Also Like


Close Menu