Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Law Commission Review of Surrogacy Laws – Just “Streamlining"

13 replies

Iused2BanOptimist · 09/01/2019 20:59

The Law Commission has Government backing to review the laws around surrogacy, to “streamline” the process, and having agreed government funding, the independent law reform bodies “will strive to make sure that the UK has surrogacy laws which work for everyone in the modern world”.

https://www.lawcom.gov.uk/surrogacy-laws-set-for-reform-as-law-commissions-get-government-backing//_
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/jan/06/keeping-up-with-the-kardashians-paying-other-women-to-have-your-babies-surrogacyy_
Personally I would like a review to ban surrogacy all together, as I remain implacably opposed to surrogacy under any circumstances, and I wish our Government would follow others around the world that have banned surrogacy. I was surprised after a quick look at (yes, I know) Wikipedia to see how many countries ban surrogacy outright including France, Germany, Spain, Iceland, Italy, Sweden, Serbia, Switzerland. An increasing number of countries in the developing world recognise how their vulnerable citizens are being exploited by wealthy international clients to provide a baby factory for the world and are following suit. India, Thailand, Nepal and Cambodia have introduced various restrictions – either outright ban or bans on international arrangements. In Cambodia 32 women who embarked on surrogacy and have been arrested for human trafficking are now in a desperate situation : they must either agree to keep children they can’t afford to feed, which aren’t genetically theirs or face up to 20 years in jail.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m0001bppp_
The European Parliament rejected surrogacy in a 2015 non-binding resolution,
https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2017/03/left-wing-feminists-conservative-catholics-unite/520968//_
and European feminists have urged the UN to ban it outright, describing it as “incompatible with human rights and with the dignity of women” and “reproductive exploitation” that “undermines the human dignity”.
Feminist writer Marina Terragni who authored the anti-surrogacy book “Temporary Mother” says “To me, fighting surrogacy, it’s part of fighting the patriarchy,…For thousands of years the patriarchy has tried to reduce women to livestock for reproduction, and this is a newer, more extreme form of it”.
Sadly I fear that the ship has sailed in the UK, I believe the general public are so unquestioning, they lap up the joy of the Kardashians and other celebrities who have had children via surrogacy and see it as an entirely acceptable process without a second thought about who the suppliers might be. So the current plan is for “streamlining” and modernising and the laws to provide protection to buyers and surrogates.
I have listened to all six of Dustin Lance Black’s programmes on BBC Radio 5
Surrogacy: A Family Frontier. (Iplayer radio).
I have enjoyed the programmes which are informative and cover all aspects, Dustin is warm and empathetic, baby Robbie Ray gurgles endearingly in one of the programmes.
But make no mistake, Dustin bridles when he comes up against an opposing view, he thinks most of the opposition in the UK boils down to homophobia and he is doing what he can to break down any taboos and to advise the five lawyers currently reviewing our laws with a plan to make the UK every bit as welcoming to parents seeking surrogate arrangements as California is. And lawyers like Natalie Gamble with her ready made agency Brilliant Beginnings are queuing up to be at the front of the gold rush, leading the charge of lawyers looking for a piece of the action.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/dec/04/surrogacy-money-law-women-payments-fairr_
And how business will boom. There will be a need for egg donors, no doubt students will be encouraged to sell their eggs to fund their studies like they do in California. Egg donors with evidence of a high IQ are much sought after.
There will be counselling. Screening. Contracts.
And I believe Britain will be a very attractive destination for international buyers. American customers would make a substantial saving if delivery costs are born by the NHS compared to the medical fees in the USA for instance.
Even now, with less and less NHS funded IVF available fertility services are increasingly the preserve of the rich. How much more will this be the case with a gold plated surrogacy service. No doubt less wealthy Britons will continue to try seek a budget purchase, exploiting impoverished women in areas of the world with less regulation.
How will this impact the NHS? You may say that the infertile couple would have been entitled to an NHS birth, but what about international clients? I do not believe Britons should be providing a service to the wider world, and at the very least I want to make sure that British surrogates providing babies for foreigners do not do so at the expense of the NHS. Dustin interviewed one surrogate who was a one woman baby factory - she had two children of her own and had produced thirteen babies via ten pregnancies counting twins and triplets. (It wasn’t clear if that was thirteen plus her two or including them). It is important that any legislation absolutely limits the number of times a woman can do this, both to protect the health of the woman and to protect the NHS from having to deal with high risk births.
I plan to write to the Health Secretary Matt Hancock and to Simon Stevens, head of the NHS for starters. If laws are to be “streamlined” then other implications must be considered and prepared for.

OP posts:
Knicknackpaddyflak · 09/01/2019 21:22

This is sick, particularly considering that in Ireland with places like Tuam, actions are still being decided on how to investigate and deal with crimes which include the trafficking of UK children abroad to wealthy US buyers.

Iused2BanOptimist · 10/01/2019 07:00

"Britons travel to evade a ban on surrogacy for single people, and for couples who need both donor eggs and donor sperm to conceive. (In a rare example of liberalisation, Britain’s government is considering getting rid of these restrictions.)"

I had no idea that in some cases both the speed and the egg are donated. In what way is that not buying a baby or people trafficking? Ordering a baby that has no biological link to either parent. It's no different than going to a stud farm, choosing the stallion and the mare and having the embryo put in a lesser mare for gestational purposes.

www.economist.com/international/2017/05/13/as-demand-for-surrogacy-soars-more-countries-are-trying-to-ban-it

OP posts:
Iused2BanOptimist · 10/01/2019 07:01

"sperm" obv not speed!

OP posts:
Funkyfunkybeat12 · 10/01/2019 07:18

I think that the current procedure for obtaining a parental order is not particularly clear, so a review is no bad thing. The law has now been updated to allow a single person to apply for a parental order following surrogacy. Also, the law in this country is very child-focused so I really can’t see full blown commercial surrogacy being allowed. The surrogate mothers who go through the procedure in this country tend not to be poor, lack education or be very young, as might be the case in India or Cambodia. The expenses tend to be in the region of 10k, so you would earn more working in McDonalds for 9 months.

theOtherPamAyres · 10/01/2019 08:14

There is some similarity between the government/state's view of surrogacy and transgender rights/legalisation of sex industry.

They don't see any problems or ethical issues. They have already decided that the UK will press ahead and there is just a requirement to "tidy up" some "administration".

In the case of surrogacy and prostitution, the talk is about the liberation of poor women - giving them agency and self-employment. Just like the proposals to change the GRA, there has been no consultation with the range of womb-havers but plenty of input from those who would benefit from renting/renting out women's bodies.

It's as if the state believed that women's bodies were commodities to be bought and sold.

Funkyfunkybeat12 · 10/01/2019 08:29

Well this is the Law Commission so all they do is recommend reform anyway. It’s not the government. And I think they are looking at the procedure under s 54 of the Human Fertilisafion and Embryology Act 2008 which needs tidying up. I will be extremely shocked if they in any way recommend that commercial surrogacy should be lawful or indeed that the surrogate mother should not be allowed to change her mind after birth. Of course they are aware of the ethical implications.
The Law Commission has also never reported on trans rights

Iused2BanOptimist · 10/01/2019 11:10

I will be extremely shocked if they in any way recommend that commercial surrogacy should be lawful or indeed that the surrogate mother should not be allowed to change her mind after birth.

Prepare to be shocked Funky.

I have listened to all Dustin's podcasts. Episode 4 deals with the law and speaks with some of the lawyers concerned with the review as well as Natalie Gamble.

Dustin is appalled at the British system of not providing a parental order until a later date, potentially allowing the surrogate a chance to change her mind and leaving the commissioning parents in limbo. He wants a system like they have in California where all the paperwork is dealt with before the birth. This keeps the putative parents "safe" in Dustin's words. It also protects the surrogate against the possibility of the commissioning parents changing their minds and refusing to take the baby. Apparently this is not so uncommon as you might think, parents splitting up being a common cause.

OP posts:
Bluestitch · 10/01/2019 11:19

I had no idea that in some cases both the speed and the egg are donated. In what way is that not buying a baby or people trafficking?

There is another surrogacy thread running at the moment where somebody described their friends in the US using a surrogate in this exact scenario. Not only that but they were apparently the legal parents from conception too. How is this anything other than ownership of a 'product' they've commissioned? It's sickening to me.

R0wantrees · 10/01/2019 11:29

Recent article by Catherine Bennett in The Observer about this:
'Keeping up with the Kardashians means paying other women to have your babies
If a group of men have their say Britain could soon have its own lucrative surrogate industry'
(extract)
After decades in which the UK reproductive industry has lost out, thanks to the insistence on expenses-only carrier altruism, to less regulated overseas gestators – with resulting legal struggles for parents – the Law Commission has been asked by the Department of Health to consult on surrogacy law. Already, for any would-be clients and reproductive entrepreneurs who fear that the commission might be influenced by Sweden’s recent decision to ban surrogacy, the discussion looks likely to proceed along more pragmatic lines. Sir Nicholas Green, chair of the body, has noted that while British surrogacy has increased tenfold in 10 years, the law remains “quite cumbersome”. Streamlining, you gather, is a priority. Moreover, to the extent that the ethics of trading in gestational services, anywhere, do come up, they will be debated – more great news for the womb trade – by a body whose leading figures are, exclusively, male.

In charge of reviewing laws on UK womb rental will be five law commissioners who could only be at the paying end of such a transaction: Green, assisted by Professor Nick Hopkins, Stephen Lewis, Professor David Ormerod QC and Nicholas Paines QC. While the men are undoubtedly conversant with the ethics of gestational labour, and more sensitive to women’s biological reality than Maria Miller, it’s not great for appearances. That part of the female population that notes the uncomfortable parallels between current surrogacy practices and the regimes imposed in Margaret Atwood’s The Handmaid’s Tale may need reassuring that Green’s commission had not, before the off, accepted that outsourced gestation, in docile human containers, is so unremarkable as to require only improved paperwork." (continues)

thread
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/a3470970-Catherine-Bennet-in-the-Guardian

Bowlofbabelfish · 10/01/2019 17:18

Surrogacy should be banned.

It’s going to be legalised and commercialised is t it?

bananafish81 · 10/01/2019 18:18

The only people pushing for a commercial model in the UK are the lawyers and agencies who would benefit financially - UK surrogates have made it very clear they do not support the commercialisation of surrogacy, and many would walk away from surrogacy if it were introduced.

www.kent.ac.uk/news/society/20704/research-led-by-kent-shows-most-surrogates-dont-think-they-should-receive-a-fee

A number of surrogates have posted on Twitter about their frustration with the legal position advocating for commercialisation, as that doesn't speak for them.

I don't agree with commercial surrogacy. My womb is too damaged to sustain a pregnancy, so the only way any of our frozen embryos could become a person would be through surrogacy. 3 close friends have offered to be an altruistic surrogate for us, but I'm conflicted about the many different ethical considerations for my friends and for any future baby, so I don't know how we will proceed. The commercialisation of UK surrogacy concerns me greatly.

Law Commission Review of Surrogacy Laws – Just “Streamlining"
bananafish81 · 10/01/2019 18:23

I had no idea that in some cases both the speed and the egg are donated. In what way is that not buying a baby or people trafficking?

I believe the case mentioned on the thread is in the US, as that's illegal over here. In the UK at least one of the intended parents has to be genetically related to the child (as the law currently stands). A woman can have a baby of her own conceived with both donor egg and donor sperm, but double donation is illegal for surrogacy at the moment.

Funkyfunkybeat12 · 11/01/2019 06:43

I will of course be prepared to be proved wrong, but I genuinely think people underestimate how different our legal system is compared to the US. One fundamental thing is the way that human rights are embedded throughout the law here and another is how much the law is guided by welfare- particularly that of the child. The Law Commission will not be particularly swayed by Dustin Lance Black’s podcast. They will look at clarification of the law. What they say will be a recommendation in any event and not in any way binding in terms of leading to any law reform. If they recommended that there should be commercial surrogacy that would be out of line with the rest of children law, which is guided by the welfare of the child. So it couldn’t work.

Surrogacy as it stands now with payment of expenses is hardly a financial incentive for anyone. If it was 100k rather than 10k, then maybe. But no woman will be drawn to it just because she will get 10 grand, because being pregnant will be inconvenient, mean time off work or possibly lack of ability to get work and a whole raft of other issues. It probably is a genuine reflection of the financial loss suffered by altruistic surrogates. Which is why the research shows that they do not tend to be poor or desperate women at all.

New posts on this thread. Refresh page
Please create an account

To comment on this thread you need to create a Mumsnet account.

This thread is closed and is no longer accepting replies. Click here to start a new thread.