The Observer on Law Commission surrogacy plans for Britain + situation in Ukraine

And speaking of Twitter... it's good to see some groups are working against what seems to be a very low restrictions, pro-surrogacy lobby. mobile.twitter.com/wombsnotforrent/status/1498399465849380868?s=21

I just can't see why some groups seem to care more about commissioning parents than they do about protecting surrogate mothers.

The women are pliable and compliant, possible coerced by their husbands or motivated to earn money due to low income/poverty. The women see value in their fertility, they can be useful, help their families, maybe pay for their kids to go to school.

The Indian laws (did) allow for parental rights to be easily transferred and history to be rewritten in birth certificates and Why pay more when you can pay less.
(Whose slogan was that...Asda?)

You might also think that your DNA is strong, it doesn't matter what she eats as long as she is fed and doesn't drink. You might trust the agency and think women have babies all the time, there's nothing to it.

I think this is pretty accurate - women aren't storage facilities on legs.

twitter.com/wintersling/status/1495418843136761856?s=21

Also re your colleague using a woman from India - something I just never understand is why people could have so little concern about the health of the woman carrying the baby they supposedly desire so much.
I thought everyone knew the best chance of a healthy baby was to have a healthy mother. Women in the west obsess about their diet, vitamins, yoga classes etc. if I was choosing a woman to be a surrogate mother for me I would want a woman between the ages of 25 - 35, healthy, with probably 2 maybe 3 children of her own which should have been totally uncomplicated pregnancies and births. I'd want her to be stress free because there are lots of studies about how stress affects the baby I utero with lifelong health consequences for the baby.
What is the health history of a poor woman in India - or Ukraine or Mexico ? How is her nutrition? Can you trust that the agency have been able to establish her obstetric history? If she is being coached to disassociate from the baby she is carrying how does that affect the baby in utero? What sort of obstetric care will she receive in a place like India? What sort of care is available to the baby if it is born early or otherwise unwell?
So many possibilities for things to go wrong, I can't imagine why anyone would go down this route.

Brilliant work with your DD @SapatSea
So great you filled in a reply to that wretched consultation. It was incredibly time consuming, what with 118 questions.
I'm not as well informed as I'd like to be, or should be - I confess I never read the full 500 pages cover to cover. It's dense stuff a lot of it. I tackled the consultation by looking at the questions and then reading the relevant part of the consultation paper and maybe doing a bit more research around it. Some parts eg the section on payment (18 questions iirc) meant I read the whole chapter. It took a very long time and then Nordic Model Now published their template answers which I found were so much better informed than mine....

My focus has always been the medical side and the NHS, as I was a midwife for some time and still work in the NHS in an unrelated area. I'm appalled at women being put at risk like this, at the use of their bodies, at the implications for the NHS dealing with complex births and entitled commissioning parents assuming rights over a woman's body and the baby they have bought, and the babies who of course have as much right not to be bought and sold as any other human.

Pregnancy and childbirth are an amazing time for any woman, with the changes to her body, the growing bond with the baby, the birth and the special time with the newborn baby afterwards. There may be complications, pain, life changing effects on her body. To have it all reduced to a cold transaction by people who just think women can pop a baby out like a chicken laying an egg, and hand over the baby as if it was a birthday present ordered off Amazon just infuriates me.
I will never accept it as acceptable to expect a woman to go through this for another person, nor that babies should be passed around to whoever ordered their production in this way.

You are all so well informed. I've managed to convert my incredibly "woke" DD's about it recently (along with the "sex work is work" nonsense) FannyCann it's fantastic you went to the public meeting and took your daughter. What a vile couple but as the old saying goes "people need to be the heroes of their own story" and he is obviously so blinkered and closed about it all. The sense of entitlement is incredible.

Several years ago a work colleague went to India (when it was still legal there) to buy a baby. She really seemed to have convinced herself that taking a woman away from her family for 9 months (the mothers lived in a hostel/prison for the duration) was an okay thing to do. The mother also developed some health issues and was pretty ill.Which caused a lot of annoyance for my colleague. But hey! the mother got enough for her husband to pay off some debts, savings to help pay for weddings for her daughters and enough to rent a small shop (or so my colleague was told). A "good trade off" apparently. "women helping other women" according to my colleague.

I'm really glad the Guardian put out an article like this. People really need to start thinking about how the change in language around "motherhood" and putting the rights of some people above others could lead us to hell and put women's rights right back. If nothing else I think stressing the burden on the NHS may change some minds.

I think this is the study.

www.wjgnet.com/2218-6220/full/v4/i4/102.htm

Pretty sure no one is doing that research @OhHolyJesus
I've done FOIs to several hospitals, some would tell me the number of surrogate births they have dealt with but most won't, they say it is a pregnancy/birth just like any other and for privacy etc they don't keep records.

This means it is impossible for instance to do any retrospective research looking at just basic things like type of delivery, gestation, birthweight, multiple births.
All things that should be monitored.
There was a study in the USA where they pulled the notes of all the surrogate births and did just this research showing that surrogate births cost more due to higher rate of LSCS, prematurity etc.

As a midwife, at an anecdotal level, most teenagers I recall had very straightforward births, but the statistics MBRRACE produce clearly show they are at higher risk of preeclampsia and other problems through pregnancy and childbirth.

If law reform does relax the laws, making it easier or more weighted towards the commissioning parents, as Sloth says it will become more popular, though I can't see it getting to US or Ukraine levels of commercial surrogacy but you never know.

I wonder if MBRACE record surrogacy in maternal death now? Do they record if the pregnancy was by natural conception or via IVF? Surrogacy can happen either way as women do use their own eggs, to avoid the cost of using a clinic but to remove the need for IVF drugs and hormones in your body.

It would be interesting to see these numbers broken down, I doubt anyone is looking at this though. Would this be with the HFEA?

If the enforceable legal contracts are pushed through, and the UK becomes the new surrogacy destination, numbers will go up. Surrogacy won’t be out of sight, out of mind. The story won’t end with a safe happy airport landing back in the UK any more.

More of the UK public will see who’s doing the surrogacy and how vulnerable they are or are not, including all the obstetric risks created and the deaths. The public will not be able to watch very distressing legally enforced (which means, by police if necessary) removals of babies from their birth mothers in NHS hospitals or from the women’s homes or elsewhere if they have tried to run away with the baby.

NHS staff will become very concerned for their female patients. Social workers for their clients.

Totally agree @SapatSea

I find the proposed lower age limit of 18 to be a surrogate mother utterly sickening. I attended one of the Law Commission public events with my then just 18 year old daughter, just after she had finished her A levels.
There was an aggressively entitled couple there, very angry at their lot in life, needing help to build a family. For instance when the proposal that counselling should be compulsory for all parties was discussed they raised the argument that this would add to costs and as solicitors they didn't feel they needed advice. Oblivious to the concept that this proposal is there to offer a degree of protection to all parties, most of whom won't be legally qualified (as was explained to them but still they argued).

When I questioned the proposed qualifying age of 18 the law commissioner explained this is the legal age of adulthood. I mortified the daughter by pointing to her (she's tiny and looks very young) and asking if she didn't deserve protection. The man of this couple jumped to his feet and literally spat at me "She's an adult, she can make her own decisions". My daughter was really taken aback by the vehemence of his response to me.

Later, when we filled in the consultation she answered the question of the lower age by saying that although at 18 she was technically an adult, she still felt the need for * adult protection. She thought other young women her age could be vulnerable and easily coerced or tempted by the offer of money without understanding what they were signing up to.

It's absolutely disgusting. Also teenagers are statistically at higher risk during pregnancy and childbirth. As a midwife, at an anecdotal level, most teenagers I recall had very straightforward births, but the statistics MBRRACE produce clearly show they are at higher risk of preeclampsia and other problems through pregnancy and childbirth.
That's without even touching on emotional and psychological vulnerability and assuming most 18 year olds would not have previously had a baby, I am firmly of the view it is not possible to give informed consent if you have not been through pregnancy and childbirth before.

A great article.

Such a worrying topic.

"Privileged with fertility"

Fucking hell. I imagine those who oppose abortion would agree with that statement too though I expect, somewhat ironically, the man who wrote it probably considers himself feminist and left wing.

A boot in each side of the neck.

Oh aren't we women awful, hoarding our fertility privilege @OhHolyJesus How mean we are not wanting to share the love and gift babies to any poor man who happens to want one.

Powerful article.

Like surrogacy’s paying clients, they clearly considered that women’s injuries and the occasional hysterectomy or death could be a price worth paying for this inessential service. As the UN’s rapporteur said, warning about the sale of babies, “there is no right to have a child under international law”

When having a child becomes a right, the next step to ensure that right is procuring the Handmaids.

Click bait? I don't think anyone can accuse an award winning journalist for the Observer of that....

Oh wait...

twitter.com/twodads_uk/status/1498315813765677057?s=21

Well said @SapatSea

I am really worried about this. I filled in a long response to this proposed"project" a year or two back.It was the final nail for me in deciding that I think all surrogacy should be banned.
I brought up the impact on the NHS as I had read that commercial companies are ready to jump in and make the UK a centre for buying human babies. Part of the lure would be that the NHS would pick up a lot of the cost, especially with birth complications and the SIBU care multiple births often require , as would employers (leave for antenatal appointments, sick pay, maternity leave, SMP )so buyers could get a highly "prized" European surrogacy at low cost (most of the rest of Europe has wisely banned or restricted surrogacy). The NHS can't cope with maternity care at the moment (I'd say from my own experiences that it hasn't for over 30 years), how would it cope with a large increase and basically providing a service that has a commercial benefit for others? (lawyers/agencies).
Worryingly in Scotland the NHS there has paid for at least one male gay couple to engage a surrogate mother and covered all the medical costs as it was decided they were entitled to equal infertility treatment as women and heterosexual couples as they had an infertlity problem and the solution to it was to have a baby through surrogacy.
www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/scotlands-first-gay-couple-access-21968033
It sets a really worrying precedent that the NHS will pay for surrogacy.
These guys got it all paid for "end to end" about £45k's worth. They felt they were entitled as they have paid their taxes. The mother was "hired" through a private agency - so presumably they also got a cut from NHS Scotland. What's to stop other people demanding an NHS paid surrogacy when they are male couples or others who have failed with other IVF treatments?

There is also a lot of talk around about gaining better"access to wombs" that is just chilling as everyone these days seems to think they have a "right" to have a baby. When are the Baby's rights and best interests ever considered in the Law Commission's recommendations? We are talking about BUYING a human life and risking another's life to obtain it.

I worry that the absolute travesty that happening in the Ukraine will just strengthen the voices for "better pathways" to parenthood to be located in the UK.

How on earth can the Law Commission recommend that an 18 year old who is still basically a child and has never given birth become a surrogate mother. How can she give any sort of informed consent or have any conception of what it all entails? So ripe for exploitation.

What sort of country are we becoming? one that thinks it's fine for a sixth former to be persuaded to risk her life and MH for someone
more wealthy? That the purchase of a human life is okay if you can afford it? or that the NHS should become involved in this trade?

Thank you Catherine Bennett for highlighting this. Another thing to fight off.

Catherine wrote a really good piece back in 2019 which was one of the pieces that woke me up to the consultation.

Professor Nick Hopkins who is the lead law commissioner in charge of the law review is a property market specialist. Which says everything you need to know about their approach to the law.

I was at one of their public consultations when some medical questions were asked and on of them after struggling to answer a couple of times, threw up his hands and said "we're lawyers, not doctors". Which begs the question why they never consulted with the RCOG at the beginning or better still had someone from RCOG on the board or as chief adviser.

I've been wondering if it is possible to demand they do an impact assessment re the NHS? Any ideas anyone?

www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/jun/09/who-better-than-men-to-rule-on-delicate-subject-of-surrogacy-law-commission

Great piece.

I shall be sending a word of thanks to Catherine Bennet.

To contact any member of staff
Individual staff, whether editorial or commercial, can be contacted using this email format:
[email protected]

Brilliant - bang on in so many ways.

My favourite bits, my bolds:

"Later this year, the commission will publish recommendations informed by wider consultation, though affirmation might be a better word, given this body’s apparent fondness for contributions from parties with a known emotional or professional investment in the industry...

But what might appear compelling reasons to reconsider surrogacy will only strike its advocates – or UK law commissioners – as another reason to enhance the domestic offer. In the UK, it is argued, the business of female incubation can be better regulated. Age-wise, for instance, the commissioners suggest that 18 is quite old enough for a woman to market her womb to more affluent consumers – or to have this done for her by a better-paid professional. There is no proposed need for an existing child, no maximum number of pregnancies. “We are concerned,” they explain, “not to discourage people"...

Even if they remain determined to trivialise ethical concerns reflected in the almost Europe-wide prohibition of surrogacy, to disregard heartbreaking case histories and classify other “feminist” objections as therefore marginal, they still have time to watch Ben Whishaw shout, over another malfunctioning female body: “I can’t do this, this woman’s going to die and it’s all my fault.” It could, so to speak, be them."

Thank god someone said it.

Great article.

If bringing surrogacy here stopped the exploitation of women from poorer nations I'd almost prefer that. The realities of what it was all about would be much harder for the entitled couples that go for this to hide from. I wonder how they'd feel about the probability of running into the surrogate mother, too? Or would rich Southerners purposely choose women from towns in the North with low employment?