Three fathers now.

It clearly says there are three names on the birth certificate and that the three adoptive dads are all named. By my superior sleuthing skills, I have deduced that there are no mothers mentioned.

Women who give birth to babies are mothers

You are assuming there is only one birth certificates, which is not the case in some states - a new one is sometimes created for an adoption. Someone above said that in California the courts can grant access to an original BC, which suggests that a new one is issued when there is an adoption there and the old one remains on record somewhere.

The article is not at all clear if that is, or is not, what happened here, or what might be on the original BC if there is one.

Whether her choice is to abort, have a child she cannot easily financially support or have a child with a man with a history of not supporting children he's had with other partners, she should also be free to choose to give her child to gay men to raise.

So should she be free to give her child to anyone she happens to want to gift her child to? Is there an age limit? Does it have to be a newborn or can she give away a trying toddler? Or a five year old?

And why stop at gifting the child? Shouldn't she be free to ask for a fair price?

Thankfully some people are looking out for the rights of the child.

Abortion rights hasn’t led to surrogacy.
Surrogacy (back into history) has been legitimised by states because the intended parents wanted it. They hold the power in this dynamic. It was not made legal because it was something women wanted to do with their bodies.

Abortion rights weren’t even grudgingly finally granted in the UK in the 1960s after millennia of women dying and being maimed by unsafe abortion just because women wanted to have that option. They’d been asking to have that option for decades.

I can’t think of an instance around women’s bodies and the law where something has been granted just because women asked for it. (Sadly).

Women who give birth to babies are mothers.

I think if you want to do this, you have to make polygamy legal. And if you want to do that, you need to think about it very carefully and discuss it as a society.

Part of the reason for gay marriage was to protect children, in terms of custody and inheritance, if parents died or split up.

I saw an academic I respected, subtweet a woman GP who questioned the ethics of this. He passive aggressively suggested her questioning this was hate speech and copied the gmc handle. Really sad to see. They are openly destroying women and mothers rights.

It doesn't actually say anywhere that the mother's names aren't on the birth certs... And who counts as the mother anyway, the woman who provided the eggs or the women who acted as surrogates? These women are all named in the article so who is to say they will have nothing to do with the children growing up or are not on the birth certificates? The whole article is pretty vague and leaves a lot open to interpretation.

Who will be their anchor in the world. This makes me feel so sad for the child.

Women should not be treated as mere incubators even if they are ok with it.

Sorry, but I think this is becoming a very messed up World, where narcissism is rife, people play with children's lives to simply push their own (dubious) image - "Look at us World, we are the first to do this".
The fact that the children here, may never know who their mother is IMHO atrocious. What happens when dad number four or five enter stage left, or two of the dads break away because parenting is just so boring?
Imagine what the children will have to go through at school, it probably will not be very pleasant.
I just hope they will be OK.

My main concern is that the mother's name is removed from the birth certificate

Same here, what about the child's right to know who their mother is? They are deliberately withholding vitally important (for mental and physical health reasons), information from someone and that should be illegal.

Or even certificate; I think a certificat would be a well documented feline.

California may "at the court's discretion" allow adoptees access to their original birth certificat.
www.cdss.ca.gov/adoption-services/adoptee-information/obtain-birth-certificate

But three adoptive parents is a bad idea, IMO. At that point there is no reason not to have a whole group as legal guardians of children, how do you draw a line?

It's not clear to me from the article what this looks like legally.

It says the men adopted the children, so does this mean there are two birth certificates, one for the birth parents (whoa are also three it seems, egg donor, surrogate/carryer, and father though I doubt they'd include all three,) and one for the adopted parents?

If so, I don't necessarily have a problem with a second, adoptive birth certificate as long as the one with the biological parents also exists.

But I don't think there should ever be intentional false original birth certificates. They should have the people believed to be the real biological parents, so long as they are known or thought to be known, and it should be possible to challenge them on the rare occasion where it turns out that, say, the father is really someone else.

Birth certificates aren't there to validate the people who raise, or even commission, the child.

Why the fuck are these women selling their babies to these men. I just don't understand.

Fair point I've seen lots of entitled behaviour recently by white men so they seem to be more at the forefront of my mind.

Yet there are many who feel the emotional validation of white males is more important. And I find sticking it under the banner of "inclusive to different family set ups" even more distasteful

Why call out just white males? Here’s a sickening story about a rich Japanese man who fathered at least a dozen children through surrogates, mostly in Thailand:

www.bbc.com/news/amp/world-asia-43123658

@RedToothBrush not the ones where polygamy is legal. Funnily enough.
The countries with false birth certificates vary widely - even within the US, some states both falsely issue new BCs and don't allow access to original BCs as an adult. This is a big adoptee rights issue by the way. I bet surrogate born adults will be next.

The right of gay men to access women's bodies to provide them with progeny is being vociferously defended in the comments...

I despair...

Other posters mentioning when they start relationships later down the road and they need to know the biological mother well would that no be the same for every adopted child? They are able to access that information

Not necessarily in the US. There is no default right to see a birth certificate and anonymous sperm donations are possible. US and UK approaches to birth and parenting (and women's rights) are very different.

There is still many women who refuse to put the biological father on the kids birth certificates. And this is still legal!

It's a record of a birth. The mother many not know who the father is, and the only people necessarily present at a birth are the mother and child.

You can't adopt an embryo in practical terms, you need a mother to grow it into a baby. You can't just write her out of the picture for your own convenience. It's the ultimate in selfish entitled behaviour.

The men adopted the eggs/embryos!
They are the childrens legal gaudians and 2 are the kids biological dads

The child will ask questions I'm sure when they are older and they can't lie about it as its in the news and on the Internet they have to be 100% honest with them

Other posters mentioning when they start relationships later down the road and they need to know the biological mother well would that no be the same for every adopted child? They are able to access that information

There is still many women who refuse to put the biological father on the kids birth certificates. And this is still legal!

No household is the same its definitely not how I would choose to raise a family far from it but the world is getting weirder by the day! At least they have went through the proper channels who are we to judge

Yet there are many who feel the emotional validation of white males is more important. And I find sticking it under the banner of "inclusive to different family set ups" even more distasteful.

It's depressing.