The Rumplestiltskin Law

[Barracker]

There is a consultation happening regarding surrogacy.

Here is a link to the Law Commission on the subject.

It's key aim is horrifying.
To sever all rights of a woman over the child she has created with her body, the moment she gives birth to it. Presumably, to sever her rights before she gives birth, in fact. To contractually grant someone else ownership of her body and the child within it.

"Creating a new surrogacy pathway that will allow, in many cases, the intended parents to be the legal parents of the child from the moment of birth."

I'm calling it what it is. The Rumplestiltskin Clause.

I'm taking your child, and there's nothing you can do about it. A deal is a deal. Your body is mine. Your human rights were forfeit when you signed the contract.

It's the stuff of nightmarish fairytales.
Rumplestiltskin was not the good guy.

#TheRumplestiltskinLaw

Once again, I must respectfully disagree. I am a liberal feminist. You have interpreted feminism in a particular way and made a sweeping generalisation based on your own perspective.

Again I say this as someone who has extensively studied feminism - at degree level.

You’ve come into our space. What are you trying to achieve?

I am trying to provide a reasoned and balanced alternative perspective so that those reading this thread more impartially can see that there are other valid viewpoints to consider and reach their own decision. That is all.

Also, I wonder what the employers/colleagues of the 'lawyer' surrogate above think of her taking time off work and getting taxpayer subsidised maternity leave to have a baby that she's going to give away?

Again I say this as someone who has extensively studied feminism - at degree level.

A lawyer, a 'surromum' and a 'degree level' feminism expert?

Wow.

You’ve come into our space. What are you trying to achieve?

I don't know who said this but there isn't any "our space" here. This isn't a private club and any one is free to post whatever they want.

I am neither a radical feminist nor hold any religious beliefs. I think all surrogacy should be banned.

I just want to say Anon992 as Lass said this is an open forum and anyone is free to post. I think having the alternative viewpoint expressed is very helpful.

Indeed, I hadn't considered the human dignity angle quite so thoroughly before your posts and the excellent posts by Lass so it has been quite thought provoking.

It has however, reconfirmed my opinion that all surrogacy should be banned except I now believe I have a rather more thorough and less 'emotive' set of reasons why this should be so.

@Anon992 You’ve alluded here to more than one surrogate pregnancy and have a highly paid, demanding job as a lawyer. Can I ask how you make that work? Are your employers supportive of your repeated periods of maternity leave? How much leave have you taken? Has this affected your career progression at all?

It does seem to me that the consultation completely fails to consider that the baby, the commissioned product, will actually grow up to be a human with human rights like everyone else.

Why is this missing?

What I'm trying to express is that of course anybody can be against surrogacy, or for it, but if you state you're a radical feminist then it is assumed you are against surrogacy because that's part of the radical feminist politics.
I personally don't consider liberal feminism to be real feminism, just my opinion of course.
And of course anybody can post here, but I just wanted to remind people that this is a feminist board so you may come across a lot of people with radical feminist views

There is a touch of self aggrandisement about it isn't there?

Agree Lass.

I do wonder, given the video of Jessica Kerns posted above and the well known problems that many adopted children have, why so called 'altruistic' surrogates are so entirely sure that what they are doing is a good thing. Do they just not see the baby as a real person that will grow up? It doesn't seem to me to be that 'altruistic' towards the child. Life is hard enough and throws up enough problems for us all without intentionally creating lots of problems from birth.

@Haworthia

I asked a similar question.

I have to say if I was an employer - especially in a competitive, labour intensive field like the law - I would not be best pleased at an employee taking time off to have someone else's baby. Their own baby, fine, but why should an employer subside the 'generous act' their employee chose to take on?

There is a lot of evidence that a significant number of children of sperm donors and adoptees have a lot of issues with the way they were brought into the world / around their removal from their birth parents.*

Just as a quick aside, I know a man who only discovered that he was conceived using donor sperm when he submitted his DNA to one of the popular genealogy sites out there, and got matched with a whole bunch of half siblings he had no idea existed. Imagine that

I studied jurisprudence at university (which is the philosophy of law) and covered modules on feminism as part of my undergraduate degree.

I don’t currently practice as a lawyer - I work at senior level in another field (I sit on the Board). My employer are very supportive of my journey and I will be taking 8 weeks maternity leave - of which they are also supportive. This hasn't held my career progression back at all but I work for a very progressive and forward thinking organisation and not all women are so lucky.

This is my first surrogate pregnancy but I do have children of my own.

And I do respect that there are different views on this, I am just surprised at how heavily one sided the views on this thread have been and am trying to provide another perspective. I’m not sure that my views are welcome and feel a little offended to be accused of being a liar. As such, and having said my piece, I will duck out and leave you all to it.

Good questions Haworthia and Iced I'd be interested in the responses to those questions. If commercial surrogacy comes in (hopefully not) then there will need to be consideration of impact on employers. I do not see why employers should subsidise paid surrogacy through maternity provisions.

IIRC correctly there is part of the consultation where there is discussion of how surrogacy should affect / not affect benefits if the surrogate is a benefit claimant. Which is interesting. Will try and find and post.

Lets wait until the generation of surrogate mother babies reach adulthood. Adopted kids often want to know their bio parents. Sperm donor babies are looking for their biological fathers and are fighting for their rights to know. I think there will be many people looking for their surrogates and plenty of legal issues will arise.

My employer are very supportive of my journey and I will be taking 8 weeks maternity leave - of which they are also supportive.

It isn't a 'journey'. It's a pregnancy.

This hasn't held my career progression back at all but I work for a very progressive and forward thinking organisation and not all women are so lucky.

There's nothing 'progressive' about commissioning babies to order.

Here

Consultation Question 78.
15.47 We invite consultees to share their experiences:
(1) of the impact that payments received by a surrogate from the intended parents has had on the surrogate’s entitlement to means-tested social welfare benefits; and
(2) where a surrogacy arrangement has had an impact on the surrogate’s entitlement to means-tested social welfare benefits, how that has been addressed in their surrogacy arrangement.

I do not see why employers should subsidise paid surrogacy through maternity provisions.

Even when the surrogacy is 'altruistic' I don't like the idea of it being subsidised by employers. Obviously I'm not sayng the woman shouldn't get maternity leave and all the other relevant provisions - of course she should now that she is pregnant - but in effect the employer is subsidising people (the IPs) to whom he/she owes nothing.

If I decided to undergo the 'selfless, generous act' of, say, volunteering in a foreign country, I wouldn't expect my employers to pay my airfare or give me paid time off.

I would ask anon, why the need for these proposed new laws to place all the power and legal rights into the hands of the IPs? Surely in the case of true altruism (such as a woman carrying a baby for a sister, close friend or relative) it’s unnecessary to law change because the whole thing is based on those people’s symbiotic relationship, love, and trust for each other and the surrogates only desire is to give the people she loves and trusts to be good parents a baby to enable them to complete their family? Why do the IPs need legal rights in the instance? Is it because in practice most surrogacy in the UK is far more towards commercial that true altruism perhaps? Because that’s what the proposal is making me think.

This is interesting, I don't know why it is 'evident' that "double recovery" should not be required from the commissioning purchasers.

"15.46 We discuss below whether the law should be changed so that intended parents can pay a woman for her service as a surrogate, and we invite consultees’ views on that issue. If the law was changed to enable such payments, then they would clearly constitute income for the purposes of means-tested social welfare benefits.15 If the surrogate’s entitlement to social welfare benefits was reduced as a result of this income, then, evidently, the intended parents should not be required to pay the surrogate additional sums to make up that shortfall, otherwise this would amount to a “double recovery”."

There seems to be no consideration of impact on businesses of commercial surrogacy in the consultation that I can see - but I don't have time to read it all, as it's massive (deliberately difficult for busy people to respond in my opinion, they only want certain people responding).

However, the consultation does say this:

15.31 Where a surrogate is entitled to maternity payments, her lost earnings may be compensated for in whole or in part by receipt of those payments. Where that is the case, any payments made by the intended parents should take into account money the surrogate receives. In other words, the intended parents would pay only any shortfall between the surrogate’s lost earnings and her maternity payments.

Which seems to imply that the intention of these proposals is that employers should subsidise a surrogate pregnancy in the same way as for normal pregnancies. Which I think is absolutely scandalous to be honest.

Sorry for multiple posts, DD2 is asleep and I'm spending all my time for housework on this. The house will be a tip.

Anyway, agree Tiny with all of your post.

Which seems to imply that the intention of these proposals is that employers should subsidise a surrogate pregnancy in the same way as for normal pregnancies. Which I think is absolutely scandalous to be honest.

Me too. And if the IPs work - which surely at least one of them will - do they also get paid parental leave?

Makes me think of the situation in the US, where there is no equivalent of the NHS and maternity leave is much less. This is why women with medical insurance are favoured as 'surromums' as the IPs don't have to subsidise their health care. This in turn means that military wives, who get health insurance as part of their husband's employment package, are targeted by surrogacy agencies (ugh) and may make up as many as 50% of all surrogates in the US.

And since this health insurance is subsidised by the US taxpayer, what it in effect means is that, in a country with no universal health care, the taxpayer is helping to fund commercial surrogacy.

This consultation is so unbelievably biased towards the commissioning parents.

Where that is the case, any payments made by the intended parents should take into account money the surrogate receives. In other words, the intended parents would pay only any shortfall between the surrogate’s lost earnings and her maternity payments

Remember also that employers can usually reclaim92% of employees' StatutoryMaternity( SMP ), Paternity, Adoption and Shared ParentalPay. They can reclaim103% if their business qualifies for SmallEmployers' Relief. Obviously an employer can choose contractually to pay more than SMP.

So, it does seem this gift is being subsidised by employers and tax payers.

Interesting about the US Iced surprised that the health insurance companies aren't putting provisions in the healthcare about not being surrogates. Perhaps only a matter of time.

I wonder if business groups are aware of this? It could potentially make sex discrimination worse too - we know women in their fertile years may not be hired / promoted due to employer fears they'll have a baby. How much more so if there's a chance they could be a surrogate several times over.