Comparing surrogacy in Colorado to the U.K.

[OhHolyJesus]

PhD student from Exeter University thinks the surrogacy laws in Colorado would be well suited to the U.K., seemingly because the laws there are 'inclusive' and consider the well being of everyone involved.

Well...not everyone...

Though I agree, the consultation papers do indicate very strongly indeed that we are heading somewhere...Under his eye.

"The Coloradoan approach could be an ideal model for the UK. Wider than the New York Parent-Child Security Act, the Colorado legislation regulates both genetic and gestational surrogacy, which widens access to surrogacy for both surrogates and intended parents. When genetic surrogacy is seen as a viable alternative to gestational surrogacy, the process is less time-consuming and less costly, as less medical intervention is required.
Reforms are likely to be controversial, as is surrogacy itself, however they are essential to reflect the needs of contemporary society. The law commissions’ consultation papers indicate that we are headed towards a more accepting and inclusive regulatory framework. Ideally, proposed reforms to UK legislation reforms will additionally safeguard the health and wellbeing of all those involved."

Anyone for any clue as why Colorado is the gold standard for surrogacy according to this woman?

https://www.bionews.org.uk/page_157443

Is this inclusivity centred around the well-being of the resulting child or the mother that bears them?

Thanks for sharing OP.

The more discussion around surrogacy there is, the better.

I saw no centring of the child of these arrangements, but that seems too much to ask.

Thanks for sharing op. This is interesting. Something I feel I need to investigate further.

This is one of those things, where I can't believe that everyone else isn't reading it and screaming 'BUT BUYING BABIES IS OBVIOUSLY WRONG'

"The NEEDS of contemporary society" I feel WANTS is what is being discussed. Different thing.

@Kotatsu

This is one of those things, where I can't believe that everyone else isn't reading it and screaming 'BUT BUYING BABIES IS OBVIOUSLY WRONG'

yep

why can i buy a baby but i can't buy you?

at what age does buying humans become wrong?

Good point about the age - so newborns can be purchased but say, 5 or 10 years old, that's a no right?

I've been down a rabbit hole of this woman's Twitter account (some of the tweets and retweets from young female Drs who are all over surrogacy are truly worrying) and also her other articles on BioNews. I'm further disturbed by this

"Each woman highlights how surrogacy is not maternal, as their bond is not with the baby, but instead with the intended parents. However, the documentary introduces each woman as a mum, using that as their primary identity and as a marker of their suitability as surrogates. Their maternal role is emphasised throughout the documentary, as they are seen playing with their own children. This reinforces a narrow – and condescending – view that surrogates should have their own children, or at the very least, have given birth. This is an issue under consideration by the Law Commission, who are unpersuaded that prior experience of giving birth would be necessary for a potential surrogate."

I think she is suggesting that the current requirement to already have experienced pregnancy and labour and having completed your own family, should be removed and that previous experience of this isn't necessary to be a surrogate mother. Even the youngest surrogate mother in the U.K. (having triplets) already had a son when she got into her arrangement. Emma, a surrogate mother featured in the BBC programme ZM is reviewing was 26 and a single mother (who talked about feeling suicidal but she seems to have missed that part of the interview).

For me this brings up the issue of informed consent, aside from the health risks and risk of exploitation.

https://www.bionews.org.uk/page_155490

FWIW I think this is a better review of the programme

stopsurrogacynowuk.org/blog/

The stop surrogacy now uk blog looks brilliant. Thanks for posting.

That stopsurrogacynowuk.org site has a couple of links to clips that are really interesting.

Thanks for sharing.

I've been checking it out since it was shared on another thread. It's quite shocking really to have only a couple of sources which show the other side, the true side of surrogacy. (I know Nordic Model Now do too but in the mainstream it's completely swamped, with no alternative voices.)

I think the BBC programme was actually quite even-handed and the women were very honest about why they were getting involved with surrogacy, one saying she was addicted to it and Emma saying it 'healed' her suicidal thoughts.

Pro-surrogacy lobby groups, PhD students like ZM here and columnist Sophie Beresiner (who was also critical of the programme) clearly don't like the association of surrogacy being about being pregnant and therefore being about mothers and motherhood.

The attempt to disassociate one from the other is just bonkers. If we are going to encourage women who haven't experienced pregnancy and labour to be giving away their babies and sanctioning this in law, I just don't see how that can be good for women.

Is this where body autonomy for women has got us?

Late to the party for this one.
We hear many terms of late when it comes to surrogacy and the progress some want made for legislation.
'progressive' 'flexible' 'modern' 'keeping up with society'.

The theme is about making commercial surrogacy widespread and relaxing laws. When money is exchanging hands and children are the subject of that transaction, I always think 'trafficking'.

And safeguarding is not mentioned anywhere.
Protecting pregnant women and their babies. It's not hard to imagine they need protection in society.

@WeRoarSometimes

Late to the party for this one. We hear many terms of late when it comes to surrogacy and the progress some want made for legislation. 'progressive' 'flexible' 'modern' 'keeping up with society'.

The theme is about making commercial surrogacy widespread and relaxing laws. When money is exchanging hands and children are the subject of that transaction, I always think 'trafficking'.

And safeguarding is not mentioned anywhere.
Protecting pregnant women and their babies. It's not hard to imagine they need protection in society.

Agreed.

Question earlier about whether the interests of the mother or the child are important.

As I read that article: neither. The only people to be considered are the "intended parents."

From the article: "Colorado’s new legal framework is unique in treating gestational and genetic surrogacy (where the surrogate uses their own eggs), similarly. Regardless of the arrangement pursued, surrogates may receive compensation and expenses for their involvement. In both types of surrogacy, intended parents – and not surrogates – are legally recognised as parents. Treating gestational and genetic surrogacy similarly respects surrogates’ autonomy, shying away from the assumption that a genetic link would render genetic surrogates less likely to honour the agreement to hand over the baby after birth. Instead, genetic surrogates are rightfully [!] seen as both egg donors and surrogates.

"Currently, the law in the UK does not differentiate between the two forms of surrogacy. Since legal motherhood is assigned on the basis of gestation, regardless of whether the surrogate’s egg, the intended mother’s egg, or a donor egg is used, the surrogate is automatically recognised as the legal mother. This is a major concern for intended parents, children and surrogates."

Complete oblivion that anybody except the intended parents might have any problems with any of it.

And because nobody but the "buyer" counts, the big advantage is it means anyone can be a buyer. Inclusivity!

@TeaAndStrumpets

"The NEEDS of contemporary society" I feel WANTS is what is being discussed. Different thing.

Lots of people have lost sight of the difference. That’s 30-40 years of consumer culture at work, sadly.

Perhaps buying in the States is just such a norm, no one thinks about it. The Matilda movie was moved to the States and the Dad was complaining about the five thousand pound bill. I had to explain to dd that no, Matilda was not adopted, that was just hospital fees.

With the NHS providing free maternal care you can understand the attraction of 'surrogacy tourism'.

Ukraine is looking at their surrogacy industry and as we saw with Thailand when it closed its surrogacy trade you have people continue on and break the law, but it largely pushed it elsewhere. If Ukraine shut up shop those commissioning parents will want to go elsewhere and get a cheap deal.

I was watching the TV the other day and one of the Stacey Dooley programmes came on. I only saw the first little bit but it did make me think about the issue of surrogacy. It was regarding pregnant women who were choosing to have their baby adopted following the birth, I hadn't realised this (even with having watched Friends) that in this situation the mother of the unborn child is able to choose the adoptive parents.

This got be then thinking about the similarities and differences with surrogacy. Is it worse because the child, whilst not created with the sole purpose of being given away, is still going to be taken from their mother but with a choice (however difficult a decision it was), so is there then feelings of rejection (for the child).

I feel confused and conflicted.

How can we make surrogacy sound more ok and less like rich people buying babies?

Just slap the tag of inclusivity on it and get people humled through hoops to 'prove' they aren't homophobic.

Governments across the world are currently lining up to apologise to people adopted as a result of the misguided adoption policies in the 50s 60s and 70s. They finally recognise the lifelong trauma which comes with growing up away from the biological family.

In parallel governments are legislating to make buying grown to order babies easier.

Some confusion there?

There's so much that doesn't make sense:

Gestational surrogates are just 'egg donors' but ordinary mothers are mothers. There is no actual difference other than the intention of the adults.

Non-gestational surrogates are just incubating a non-related child but IVF mothers using donated eggs are mothers. There is no actual difference other than the intention of the adults.

Mothers who want to give up their baby for adoption are still mothers and can halt the process at any point but surrogates are not mothers and cannot. Again - no difference other than intention of adults.

Babies come out of the womb knowing their mothers voice and smell. Surrogacy only makes sense if the needs of the baby are at best second to the needs/wants of the adults involved, or at worst they are irrelevant and the adults intentions are literally the only thing that matters.

@SusanBAnthony999

Governments across the world are currently lining up to apologise to people adopted as a result of the misguided adoption policies in the 50s 60s and 70s. They finally recognise the lifelong trauma which comes with growing up away from the biological family.

In parallel governments are legislating to make buying grown to order babies easier.

Some confusion there?

Women forced to give up their babies were young and had little agency or power. The people who wanted to adopt babies were often middle class and better off.

Now the people who are surrogates are not high flying women or Hollywood Actresses. And those buying babies are always very well off and generally in positions of power. But surrogacy gives more of a sense of 'ownership' and genetic vanity.