Law Commission consulting on paid surrogacy in the UK

I'm surprised that somebody involved in US surrogacy to such an extent has never heard of the concerns about exploiting military wives tbh. The information is there for anybody investigating the ethics of commercial surrogacy. This article gives more details (for other posters who are interested).

www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2017/04/19109/

Twisted I haven't heard that personally, but it could well be true. Our surrogate is very active in the surro community and it seemed most of them worked for the the big health care companies - they employ millions of people. None of them needed the money for day-to-day expenses but it was used for holidays, new cars, kids college funds etc.

It's depressing to think that military families can't get by on what they're paid. I do feel guilty about our level of privilege and I don't have an easy answer for this. All I can say is that IME it wasn't as exploitative as you would think.

• all surrogates have to have health insurance so they have to have the sort of stable middle class lives that give health insurance - so it paradoxically rules out impoverished women who would do it just to put bread on the table

I was under the impression, certainly from reading a fair bit around the issue, is that there is a major concern that a disproportionate number of US commercial surrogates are military wives, doing it precisely because they need to find a way of putting bread on the table in a lifestyle where it is difficult for them to sustain regular employment another way due to moving around alot, being lone parents for a huge chunk of the time etc. The fact that they have health insurance makes them an attractive prospect for IPs and agencies but certainly doesn't mean they are financially comfortable. Surrogacy agencies specifically targeting military bases and publications for advertisement is surely worrying.

I also don't think you can compare the role of IVF nurses with surrogates. Healthcare staff aren't risking long term health complications, disability and death.

Long time MNer and FWR thread-reader, compelled to delurk.

My DD was born through paid surrogacy in the US. We tried altruistic surrogacy here in the UK, first with a SIL and then with a surrogate we were matched with through one of the big UK organisations. Sadly it didn't work and we turned to the big guns in the US.

I absolutely agree surrogacy can be exploitative and it should be banned where the relationship is clearly unequal - so India and Thailand etc are out.

But in the US it's less exploitative because:

• yes surrogates are paid but so is everybody else involved in fertility treatment and I've never heard anyone say IVF doctors and nurses should only do it from the goodness of their hearts 'because you can't make money from the sacred process of making babies' etc. Why the woman who actually does all the work should be expected to be an altruistic angel has never made sense.
• contracts are mutually agreed, i.e. surrogates have equal say in whether or not they are happy to terminate for Down's syndrome for example. It's not all one-way! Most surrogates refuse to carry more than twins, for instance, because of the increased health risks. Some commissioning parents make all sorts of demands, it's true - but surrogates aren't pressured into accepting them; they take their pick from lots of couples.
• all surrogates have to have health insurance so they have to have the sort of stable middle class lives that give health insurance - so it paradoxically rules out impoverished women who would do it just to put bread on the table. This is actually my main concern for allowing paid surrogacy in the UK as the NHS looks after everyone - not that I'd want to change that! Just saying that America's (batshit) medical system does impose a bar against desperate people turning to surrogacy.

At the end of the day my DD will NEVER feel that there's anything to be ashamed of about how she came into the world. She is adored and she loves her 'tummy mummy' in the US who we have a close relationship with. She understands my tummy was broken and so xx in the US lent us her tummy.

I understand some of your views against surrogacy (although I hope if we met IRL you wouldn't be quite so scathing of me and my family, whatever you think in private. That was a bit of a shock tbh). The main thing I struggle with is that most people don't have the huge amounts of money that it cost to do it in America - yes, that's truly unfair I agree and I feel guilty about my privilege there. But I don't feel we exploited anyone and I don't feel we have commoditised women's bodies.

For commercial surrogacy to work in the UK there would need to be a huge amount of regulation imposed - but it's already badly under-regulated so that's needed anyway.

There was a thread ages ago, possibly in AIBU or Chat, about surrogacy. It came to be mentioned that apparently the majority of surrogates in the UK want pre-birth agreements like the US have to be legally enforceable, and one reason for that was that they don't want Social Services asking them if they want the child if the prospective parents don't, so they're not put in the position of refusing. The idea that SS would refrain from asking such a close relative if they want to take care of the child in the event that parents can't/won't is so inherently implausible in the context of UK child welfare laws that any surrogate thinking a legal agreement could protect her from it clearly has no understanding of the legal landscape. Which is worrying in itself really.

I've been thinking about this thread and my belief is this:

1. Paid surrogacy should remain illegal in the UK

2. People bringing a child born of paid surrogacy abroad into the UK should face an enormous fine and social services should be alerted.

www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/ivory-trade-banned-uk-michael-gove-elephants-endangered-illegal-trade-poaching-tusks-a8285511.html

Announcing the policy, Mr Gove said: “Ivory should never be seen as a commodity for financial gain or a status symbol, so we will introduce one of the world’s toughest bans on ivory sales to protect elephants for future generations.

the sale of ALL ivory is to be banned, even old items, because it is recognised that such an extreme stance is necessary to stop ivory being a commodity and stopping ivory being a commodity is the only way to protect elephants.

i thought the parallel between this and the sale of women's bodies - be it through surrogacy or prostitution - was interesting. the very small number of people for whom banning the sale of women's bodies constitutes denying them an actual genuine (not coerced or poverty driven) choice are like the tiny antique ivory ornament you inherited from your grandpa. you don't need to feel especially bad about having said ornament and there's probably no sense in destroying it, you can like it for what it means to you.

but it is absolutely right that you cannot sell it, even though you might want the cash. even though your bit of ivory comes from a different time, without such a terrible heritage. even though it is only very small. you selling it for cash would be contributing to an environment whereby ivory has a market value, and becomes a commodity, and then elephants are killed to satisfy the demand for that commodity.

Thanks for that link TwistedStitch. I just read the judgement in full. Thank goodness for the judge and the guardian in that case. But how different from the judgement in the case I linked. It seems judges can view similar cases entirely differently and justice is not even handed always.

Reading how those men exploited her and disregarded her was sickening.

Everyone who is pro surrogacy should read that case to see how easily a vulnerable young woman can be exploited by selfish people who see her as some sort of farm animal.

I had to stop reading that TwistedStitch because it was too upsetting. I suggest it's essential reading for people who are pro-surrogacy though because it pretty much lays out every single issue with it.

Indeed.
If I were to be a surrogate it would be only for one of my siblings. I would have a significant role in the child's life and they would know the woman who birthed them. They would know that they were made from love, love of their aunt for their parents and for them. I wouldn't even do it for a close friend, because of the risk that the friendship would fade over time.
Surrogacy as I would imagine doing it could be really positive for everyone. It would bring me great joy for a sibling to become a parent if they couldn't do it naturally.

I think surrogacy should be allowed only where there is a proven longstanding relationship between the surrogate and the bio parents

I agree that if surrogacy is going to happen at all it should only be within these parameters. I would also say that there should be mandatory assessment and counselling prior to conception too. The court judgement I shared above involved both parties meeting on Facebook and the surrogate had learning difficulties and financial struggles- she signed an agreement that allowed her an extra grand in expenses if she needed a hysterectomy. Just appalling.

Exactly. It would just be impossible.

I hope the Law Commission actually read the contracts surrogates in the US have to sign. There are clauses in them that are horrendous - if the parents want to abort because of disability, if they want to reduce a multiple pregnancy to a single one, the surrogate has no choice about it. If she objects she has to repay all the costs of the IVF and has full responsibility for the baby (waives right to child support as well).

TBF, the law would have to change by a lot more than just allowing paid surrogacy for any of that to be possible here. I'm not saying none of this could ever ever happen, but it would take more than just this one change.

I think surrogacy should be allowed only where there is a proven longstanding relationship between the surrogate and the bio parents. Close friends and family are likely to be doing it for truly altruistic reasons. A stranger handing over a baby after birth is never truly altruistic imo.

Expenses can also run up to 15k for 'altruistic' surrogacy. That could seem like a very attractive proposition for women in poverty.

www.facebook.com/184599864915751/posts/2415953168447065/

Read the comments on this and weep

I don't understand how surrogacy is sold as an altruistic act when a child has basically been commissioned. I don't see gifting a person as completely positive and selfless behaviour.

I'm massively against commercial surrogacy but I'm not convinced that so called 'altruistic' surrogacy in the UK is much better tbh. I've seen posters on MN (both surrogates and parents through surrogacy) sharing their stories as an example of so called success story but where it was clear there were significant MH issues involved with the surrogates. The complete lack of assessment or oversight means there is still opportunity for exploitation.

Anybody who thinks the UK law on surrogacy is okay as it stands should read the following court judgement- this is a perfectly legal surrogacy arrangement in the UK but makes very upsetting reading.

www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWFC/HCJ/2016/34.html

Do you know what I find most frightening IRL is the amount of women I know who agree with surrogacy and even believe its a nice thing to do for your gay male friends!!!!

I am shocked when I have this discussion (as I am re trans people) that the mainstream view seems to be so at odds with the feminist view, and again, in opposing all surrogacy, as I believe it commodifies women's bodies in the same way as prostitution, I am in a minority.

Also, the promotion of surrogacy as a lifestyle choice by vacuous Hollywood celebrities like SJP and Nicole Kidman really annoys me - would they be as quick to promote the fact that they paid for prostitutes to sleep with their husband? No, of course not, but perhaps we only need to wait a decade or two.

It really seems to be the dismantling of women's hard won rights by using bodily autonomy as a means to control us once again.

That's ok I'm not a man either

Honestly - even if there were political will to mess with the children act it's so embedded that I think it would be impossible. It would affect care proceedings, adoption, everything. It's a piece of legislation that has remained largely unaltered for 30 years and has been rigourously tested time and again.

Sorry NotaNotMan

As ever, the answer lies in human connection and relationships, not throwing money at economically disadvantaged women.

Nicely put Notaman

Men tend to have a way of gettign what they want, TBH.

That's such a major, groundbreaking and successful law that it simply won't and can't be messed with in this way.

I’d love to believe they won’t. But look what’s happening to women’s sex based protections - all quietly repealed and rolled into the equality act. And now the equality act is under threat.

I don’t think we can be complacent on this.

I do think though that if we say to same sex couples that they must accept that they cannot have a family, we need to ask why we don’t say the same to the heterosexual couples who have round upon round of IVF

Completely unrelated issues! 'We' don't tell two men they can't have a biological offspring, nature does. Any female can try to get pregnant via any medical means she can pay for - what does that have to do with the fact that men don't carry babies?

Plenty of lesbian couples have babies through donor sperm or co parenting with men. I know of several gay men who are fathers sharing care with female friends (usually lesbian but not always)
As ever, the answer lies in human connection and relationships, not throwing money at economically disadvantaged women.