To tell you surrogacy is going to be liberalised thread 2

[VestaTilley]

Hi everyone,

My original thread has run to 950 odd posts and 38 pages, so starting a new one. Thank you to all who have posted.

For those who didn’t see thread 1: the Law Commission are proposing to liberalise surrogacy laws in this country and make the commissioning parents - not the birth mother - the legal parents from birth.

I believe there are inherent problems with surrogacy and that it is a misogynistic and unethical practice. If you agree, please email your MP today and ask them to make representations to the PM and Health and Equalities Secretary against the new Bill.

https://www.lawcom.gov.uk/surrogacy-laws-to-be-overhauled-under-new-reforms-benefitting-the-child-surrogate-and-intended-parents/

Have we seen that the biggest names in moving U.K. surrogacy towards a U.S. model, Messrs Black and Daley, have bought themselves a new baby?

Noted @Clymene
Reports I have seen don't say whether the baby was obtained in the U.K. or USA.
Anyway they'll have to get a parental order either way. Dustin LB was outraged when they brought Robby to the U.K. and despite him having Californian birth certificate (and I assume USA passport) in Oder for him to be a British citizen it was necessary for them to go through the courts and obtain a PO.
So they'll have to do same again.
And I hope they have been grinding teeth that the LC recommendations will still require babies obtained overseas to go through the courts to settle PO.

Not sure why have have given a son a middle name of Rose. At least it's the middle name.

Not sure why have have given a son a middle name of Rose. At least it's the middle name

The Daley-Black surrogacy was the subject of our coffee morning yesterday. Even woman who take no interest in gender critical/ trans matters were angry about it and saying "He knows what a woman is when he wants to buy a baby", and "How do they know it's a boy?" etc People are definitely becoming more aware - slowly, but are getting there.

A couple mentioned that the infant's middle name was Rose, but others said it was initially announced as Rose but was changed to Ray. I haven't looked myself, so I don't know what the child's name is.

I support the surrogacy reforms as well and have sent a letter saying that to my MP.

The reforms are not actually liberalising surrogacy laws imho. They do more tightening up than liberalising.

They are adding safeguards with a pre-conception screening process and closing loopholes that are allowing commercialisation by the back door. They are also giving children the right to trace their surrogate mothers. The intended parents becoming legal parents at birth is being added as an option subject to the surrogate mothers consent- which she can withdraw anytime until birth. It’s not automatic and not the only option as some intended parents may still need a court PO per the old (and only ) way we have now.

To expand on the reforms which are designed to make domestic surrogacy safe from exploitation and discourage British intended parents from using international surrogacy options due to the high risk of exploitation that comes with going abroad:

• Adding pre-conception screening and safeguarding measures to support surrogate mothers to prevent exploitation/coercion. These safeguards will be overseen by a state-regulated and approved body.

• Only if the right conditions are met from the above prescreening would there be the option for the intended parents be parents of the child from birth, and only if the surrogate mother consents to it although she still has the ability to withdraw her consent until birth.

• A clearer set of rules governing the payments that can be made to surrogate mothers, under which “for profit” commercial surrogacy would continue to be strictly prohibited. This will close loopholes currently in existence that encourage commercialisation.

• Creation of a Surrogacy Register which would allow surrogate children to trace their birth origins later in life ending the trauma of children not being able to trace their surrogate mothers.

All the above from the link in the OP.

I wonder how the mother of Tom Daley’s new baby is faring.

There’s so much wrong with what you’ve said, but I cba.

One point I will make is that if you read the recommendations about the surrogate being able to withdraw consent up until birth, you’ll have seen that in order for the surrogate to withdraw consent she must notify the regulated surrogacy agency (RSO) and atleast one IP.

Out of hours and without specifying what evidence may be necessary for notification (will a read receipt be ok or will it need to be court served) pray do tell how that would be possible if she decided to do so in labour? Or 5 minutes before the baby was born but couldn’t reach anyone?

Not that it matters because the reform recommendations also state that they wish for a judge to be able to order a PO without a surrogates consent anyway.

So even if she has previously given consent and manages to navigate the minefield and isn’t manipulated and coerced by ‘non for profit’ RSOs who can pay salaries (potentially large ones!), of withdrawal and it being accepted a judge can over rule her anyway, despite the baby potentially being genetically related to her.

The what?

Oh - you mean the gestation unit.

Ok, I expect. It's just a body part after all. Quick wipe down with a damp rag - be as good as new. 😠

It is true the specific details as to how a surrogate mother may withdraw her consent during birth are not specified in the law, which is a good thing because otherwise it would be too prescriptive and thus restrictive. As it reads, it requires only that the RSO and one IP be “notified” this usually means in law that the message must be sent to them. It doesn’t require acknowledgement of notification. I’m sure that a HCP can be told verbally by a labouring surrogate mother and the HCP could then pass on the notification.

If you look closer that the reform that allows the court to issue a PO without the consent of the surrogate mother, it clearly states this would only be allowable if the welfare of the child depends on it. So it’s not a case of the intended parents’ wishes trumping the surrogate mother’s wishes.

I think the potential for manipulation and coercion will be reduced from where they currently are by the new safeguarding that these reforms will put into place and by having state regulated RSOs with tighter regulations regarding surrogacy agreements.

I don’t see how “high salaries” of the professionals would be a minus (and the reforms don’t dictate salaries, this is your speculation). But let’s say if salaries were fairly high then surely you want professionals working for these RSOs, so you would want them to be paid a decent salary? Otherwise there is potential for corruption- ie brown envelopes from intended parents to employees of the RSOs.

The important thing to understand is that the allowing the intended parents to be legal parents from birth is being added as an option for the surrogate mothers to take up only if they want to do so. It’s not automatic. It’s not replacing the current process.

It’s based on the feedback from surrogate mothers that the current process has no options for them to choose from. It currently is such that the surrogate mother has to be the legal parent for a minimum of six weeks after birth. Not all surrogate mothers want this. This reform will empower surrogate mothers to have more control over their surrogacy pathway.

It will not empower independent surrogates to have more control. From what I understand independent surrogates will retire in droves.

There’s already such a small pool of surrogates in the U.K., I know that some IPs are conceded that it will further reduce their chances of finding a match, the reforms aren’t likely to improve that.
However, obviously now the reforms suggest lifting a ban on advertising so I suppose there could be a recruitment drive 🤦‍♀️ Oh I forgot, it’s not a job and there’s no compensation, like with egg donation 😬

That particular aspect will empower surrogate mothers as it’s what some of them want as an option. It is based on numerous surveys such as this recent one:

https://academic.oup.com/lawfam/article/36/1/ebac030/6917125?login=false

”What are surrogates’ views on their experience with surrogacy, their understanding of the law, and views on legal reform? We conducted an online retrospective survey of women who underwent treatment as gestational surrogates in two UK-regulated IVF centres between March 2014 and October 2021. Forty-seven surrogates responded outlining their experiences with surrogacy in the England/Wales legal context, their understandings of the law, and thoughts on potential law reform.”

”When asked for their views, most surrogates did not think they should be the legal mother at birth, nor did they consider themselves the mother. Thirty-four said they did not think that a surrogate should be the legal mother at birth, seven were undecided and four said that they thought surrogates should be the legal mother (reasons in Table 3).”

On what basis do you say they will “retire in droves”?

Wow, thank you for bringing this to our attention. I have emailed my MP

This is such a reasonable and balanced piece - from James Kirkup:

twitter.com/jameskirkup/status/1645744619634712581?s=12

Agreed!