Jennifer Lopez due date rumors swirl
Although the original rumors about Jennifer Lopez’s special delivery — twins, apparently — centered around a March due date, E!’s Mark Malkin hears from his sources that it’s earlier — much earlier.
According to Malkin, the 38-year-old singer and actress was set to deliver around Valentine’s Day, but now the date has been moved up to Saturday, January 26th. Jennifer’s rep refused to comment. Time will tell!
Source: E!’s Mark Malkin
Post a comment
Comments are moderated, and will not appear until the site staff has approved them.
The following types of comments will not be posted:
- namecalling.
- any type of discrimination.
- explicit sexual references.
- advertising and spam.
- off-topic and completely unrelated to the post.
We are cautious about discussions on volatile topics such as abortion, religion, politics and race.
If you have questions, concerns, or breaking news to share, please contact us at CBBTips@gmail.com rather than posting a comment.
Feel free to agree or disagree with each other as long as you do it respectfully, remembering that we all have our own experiences and perspectives. Keep in mind that there are people on the other end reading what you write.
Comments are moderated, and will not appear on this weblog until the author has approved them.
January 9th, 2008 at 9:54 pm
Wow…that IS much earlier than originally expected! I wonder if the rumor is true, I guess we’ll just have to wait and see!
January 9th, 2008 at 10:19 pm
Wow, if she has them this month it will ’seem’ like the shortest pregnancy in Hollywood since she just confirmed it a few months ago. I wonder if she plans on announcing the births right away since she waited so long to announce the pregnancy.
January 9th, 2008 at 10:22 pm
If that rumour is true, it will feel like the shortest celebrity pregnancy in history!! I thought she was so large because she’s rumoured to be carrying twins, not because she was so far along! I want to see some pics of her in regular clothes, as every pregnancy shot I’ve seen of her so far, she’s been wearing big, floaty, empire-line dresses, and it’s hard to tell just how big her bump is.
I also feel like I haven’t seen any Nicole Richie shots for a while – has she gone underground?
Sarah’s note: Ha, no she’s just due any minute. I wouldn’t be surprised if we get news on both her and Christina by this weekend.
January 9th, 2008 at 10:49 pm
Considering her age and she is supposedly pregnant with twins, she probably will have to deliver about six weeks early, right? Aren’t most sets twins delivered that early? If she was originally due sometime in March, an end of January to mid February birth is probably accurate.
January 9th, 2008 at 10:55 pm
I went into labor naturally with my twins at 38 weeks. I know for a lot of people that’s considered pretty lucky and doesn’t always happen with twins. I had no health issues and my babies were born vaginally 6 lbs 11 oz and 6 lbs 8 oz.
Most of my ‘twin moms’ I know delivered between 35-38 weeks. I did know a woman that went at 33 weeks but she had gestational diabetes and pre-eclampsia that was getting bad, so they had to get the babies out ASAP. They are doing well now though.
January 9th, 2008 at 11:36 pm
She is probably due with twins early march like reported, but will have them in Feb
January 9th, 2008 at 11:39 pm
Wow, just seems like we found out that she was indeed pregnant! She looks absolutely radiant. Pregnancy really suits her.
January 10th, 2008 at 12:41 am
Speaking of Nicole Richie, we haven’t seen her out in over a week. Has she already given birth and just not announced it?
Sarah’s note: No, she hasn’t had the baby yet.
January 10th, 2008 at 1:49 am
Allie- I’m guessing that Nicole is simply choosing to stay close to home since she is due any day now. She is probably very uncomfortable and doesn’t feel like going out a lot.
January 10th, 2008 at 9:54 am
Well, either she’s having one baby in January or twins due in March.
I think it’s one baby, and that she was over 6 months pregnant when it became obvious to everyone.
Either way, all the best to Jennifer and Marc and their new bundle(s) of joy!
January 10th, 2008 at 1:25 pm
If she’s due by end of Jan. I would say perhaps maybe it’s not twins. She is big so it could still be twins. But if she’s due in March it’s def. twins. JLO is way too big at this point to be having one baby if she’s still got 2 more months to cook LOL
January 10th, 2008 at 4:54 pm
I think twins for sure even if it’s in January. She could be further along than originally though or the twins will come a little early.
January 10th, 2008 at 11:23 pm
i wonder WHY this woman wants EVERYTHING concerning her pregnancy to b a mystery, ok WE KNO ur pregnant just kinda of face the spotlight and shine again, and her behind probably got really big but hey, ur giving birth to humans here.
January 11th, 2008 at 1:20 am
J.M.: Not necessarily! I did a little searching and found these pictures of Isla Fisher when she was at about the same stage of pregnancy that JLO is at if the rumors about her being due in March are correct:
http://www.celebrity-babies.com/2007/08/pregnant-isla-1.html
As you can see in the pictures, Isla looked absolutely HUGE….and yet she only had one baby! Naomi Watts also look huge at that point in her pregnancy, and she, too only had one baby.
I’m not saying that JLO isn’t having twins. She very well could be. However, the fact that she is so big doesn’t automatically mean she’s having more than one baby.
January 11th, 2008 at 2:52 pm
Over 22 years ago when I gave birth to my 9 pound 11 ounce son(I am only 5′2), I was in the hospital and my mother had not seen me in about 2-3 months, I was in labor, the first thing she said when she walked into the hospital room was “Oh my G-D, your having twins!!” I don’t think WE can necessarily predict that she’s having twins (even tho it is so much fun), but she certainly may be. So exciting.
January 13th, 2008 at 7:30 pm
I think the rumors could definately be wrong. Yes she is big but she looks no bigger then my friend did right before she had her 11 lb 12 oz baby.
And just her buying a girl and a boy outfit is not enough evidence since she could just not know the sex of the baby.
At this point it is just a wait and see kinda thing.
January 28th, 2008 at 5:25 pm
I think it may only be one baby and she’s further along that’s why she seems so big.
According to the article below she wasn’t even pregger in September now she’s having a baby in January…I’m no OB/GYn but I’ve been preggo before(am now, 4 months….) your pregnant for 10 months(the way the OB/GYN counts it—-40 weeks). I know under circumstances they can come early, but this is extremely early and doesn’t seem like it would be healthy for the babies (imo).
http://www.usmagazine.com/jennifer_lopez_denies_the_pregnancy
She has plenty of money to buy for both genders so maybe she just didn’t find out what it was and shopped for either.
January 30th, 2008 at 9:24 am
I think Jen is huge because she is a latina. For some reason us latinas tend to get relly big when we are pregnant. Example Salma Hayek and she only had one. But only Jen n Marc now if they are relly having twins or not and only time will tell.