Hilary Swank’s twin pregnancy at 48 gives women false hope

Hilary Swank has announced she’s pregnant with twins at 48, but there’s a sad truth behind the news that’s misleading for most women.

OPINION

Hilary Swank, 48, has announced she’s pregnant with twins, and while I’m happy for her, I also think that the trend of older, famous women having babies is misleading for most women.

Swank has made her joyful announcement and hasn’t commented on how the children were conceived, and she doesn’t need to; that’s absolutely her business.

But I also don’t think there’s any denying that a pregnant woman in her late 40s, with a public profile, can easily become a beacon of hope for women. It tells average women, well, I can do that too! But, realistically, you probably can’t.

I’d guess Swank’s pregnancy happened with the help of modern science. An annoying biological fact is that women’s fertility starts to decline by age 30, so by the time you hit the end of your 40s, statistically, it’d be almost impossible to fall pregnant naturally.

Swank has joined the growing list of famous women who have had children later in life. Halle Berry was 47 when she gave birth to her second son. Janet Jackson was 50 when she had her son, and Gwen Stefani was 44 when she had her third son. Similarly, Geena Davis also had her twin boys when she was 44.

Hilary Swank, 48, has announced she’s pregnant with twins. Picture: Instagram

I have no objection to women having children later in life. In fact, I’d love to be less concerned about my biological clock that seems to tick louder than the opening clock on 60 Minutes.

But I think hearing about celebrities having children later in life also gives women false hope. It makes them think, I can put it off, or I’ll do that later. I’ll live my life just like Swank’s!

Realistically, having children from your mid-40s to your late 40s is reserved for the rich, famous, and the very lucky.

Take away the fact that your fertility will dramatically reduce by the time you hit those mid-forties; in Australia, IVF treatment through a bulk-billed programme has a cut-off age of 45 years old.

Plus, the average round of IVF costs between $8,000 and $10,000. Which means most average women can’t afford rounds and rounds of IVF.

Meanwhile, celebrities are filthy rich, so they don’t have to worry about being turned away from a bulk-billed programme or the cost of IVF. They can also afford to do as many rounds as they feel comfortable doing.

Swank attends the 75th Annual Academy Awards. Picture: Getty Images

Swank ‘has joined the growing list of famous women who have had children later in life’. Picture: JC Olivera/Getty Images/AFP

Then there’s also another harsh reality. The New York Times reported that once women were in their 40s, fewer than 30 per cent undergoing IVF became pregnant and fewer than 20 per cent gave birth to live babies.

Now, if you’re a celebrity, those facts don’t change, but once again, money and privilege still allow you to explore more options like surrogacy and adoption.

Yes, they are options for average women too, but both are costly and time-consuming, and plenty of people get priced out of having a family.

Janet Jackson also had a baby later in life. Picture: Angela Weiss/AFP

I think Swank has every right to celebrate her late-in-life pregnancy, but I also hope she takes time to point out that having a child in your late forties usually happens because of privilege.

Celebrities often create our norms, and I don’t want a woman to see Swank’s pregnancy and think she’ll be able to follow a similar path.

Because the truth is that having a baby late in life comes with a large dollar sign attached to it.

Mary Madigan is a freelance writer.