Apologies. I absolutely don't want to reduce maternity rights, of course I would never suggest that someone who had a still birth was not entitled to leave.
However parts of the discussion up thread have made me think about other implications of surrogacy:
I start from the position of opposing surrogacy under all circumstances.
Personally I find it very depressing that more enlightened countries around the world and across Europe have banned it but the UK is looking to update our "not fit for purpose" laws and a Law Commission Review has begun, funded in part by the Department of Health.
www.lawgazette.co.uk/law/commission-begins-work-on-not-fit-for-purpose-surrogacy-laws/5065988.article
Given that an outright ban is not on the table I have been thinking about what "improvements" to the law we can expect. I am very concerned about quite a few issues.
Discussion upthread has raised financial issues I had not previously thought about.
If you consider the Californian model, that Dustin Lance Black extols, all the costs fall to the commissioning parents which is why it is so expensive over there.
ALL medical costs, IVF, payment for donor eggs, antenatal care, delivery and I would hope post natal care.
Legal expenses, for both parties.
Agency fees.
Counselling and screening of the surrogate.
The surrogate herself is paid. Whether her general living expenses etc are expected to be met from the fee or they are charged on top I do not know. However USA alone in the western world gives practically no maternity leave. About two weeks at the most I believe.
So if the surrogate takes a break from work I would imagine the cost falls to the commissioning parents, either on top of the fee as expenses or the fee is sufficient to allow for these costs.
I think we can be sure that the state in the USA will not contribute one single dollar to any of the costs associated with surrogacy.
In the UK at present commercial surrogacy is not allowed so I believe agencies are voluntary and do not charge fees, contracts are not enforceable and probably not drawn up most of the time.
IVF would have to be done via a private clinic as the NHS does not offer this to surrogates yet.
But once the surrogate is pregnant she can rock up to her nearest maternity unit and have all the rest of her care on the state. OK, you could say if the commissioning parents were able to get pregnant the NHS would fund their pregnancies so fair enough, so long as both parties are British.
Then you have other benefits such as maternity leave. Adoptive parents are entitled (rightly) to parental leave. Adding in the surrogate means it is paid out three times potentially.
Paid surrogacy is not allowed but they can claim expenses. These are suggested to range from £10k to £15k. Isn't it fair that leave from work should come under expenses?
Legal costs such as court costs and any social work input for the parental order - I assume they fall to the state too.
With "improved, up to date" laws and an increasing demand significant expense will fall to the state.
I fully expect that international customers will be attracted to the UK unless the new laws specifically outlaw it. An American could make a substantial saving with medical costs and leave from work falling to the state (and employers).
No way do I want maternity rights affected but I really don't think it is fair for employers or the state to take the hit for surrogate mothers.