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

Thanks @FannyCann I might be able to make that one but it could be a stretch for me with childcare (strangely if it was earlier in the day it would have been fine for a change).

I'll DM you if I get to go. The eggsplotation documentary on you tube has been very informative on the egg donor side and I'm going to write about this when I fill in the consultation.

It would be great to have company if I manage to go. Quite understand about childcare of course.
Anyone would think they didn't want women who know a little about childbirth to go!

Exactly! Its at a funny time, after school but during working hours. Hmmmm.

I am reeling from this story.

A couple paid a surrogate to carry their child.. she had a healthy baby boy but he had (gasp) dark hair and vaguely Asiatic features.

Fair enough to be surprised, and DNA test showed there had been a mix-up - wrong sperm.

They are refusing to take the baby!! Who is the mom’s bio child! And their main concern doesn’t seem to be the welfare of the baby, but suing the clinic!

(Not to say the clinic shouldn’t be sued - but surely you would try to find a home for the newborn babe first)

OMG, what a terrible story. That poor baby. I'm speechless.

Here's another one:

American parents "commissioned"a baby and then, when baby born with disabilities, they rejected it [Kiev, Hungary]

www.abc.net.au/news/2019-08-20/ukraines-commercial-surrogacy-industry-leaves-disaster/11417388

How utterly heartbreaking for that poor beautiful baby. This is what surrogacy is. This is it in all its ugly glory. Not only will this baby learn when he is older that literally none of his parents wanted him, he’s going to have to go through fucking care as well. I hope he gets adopted by actual saints and loved to bits

I always used to be a bit live and let live about surrogacy, thinking that I couldn’t know everyone’s circumstances and who was I to judge etc. Well, I’ve learned a lot more now and the more I know, the more adamant I become that it is wrong in every possible way and should be banned everywhere. And to the (former) good friend who called me homophobic and couldn’t believe I thought her nice gay friends didn’t “deserve” a baby; yes, I’m still “wasting my time” campaigning against it and muddling through impenetrable consultations and emails to regulators and god knows what else. Nobody deserves a baby. Not when it means you need to buy one. Just horrified at some of the stories around this.

Absolutely agree Badger

These sorts of cases were always going to happen. When you reduce acquiring a baby to a contractual purchase of course products that don't meet the spec will be rejected.

And I'm just depressed and shocked at how few people see it. Work conversation at lunch today (a digression from a conversation about puppy farming), NHS professionals, all empathy, the need for a baby, a woman's right to be a surrogate, who are we to judge yada yada yada. One of them is a staunch catholic, went to an audience with the Pope. But wouldn't infringe other people's "rights".

And having been out of the midwifery profession for 20 years I'm hardly up to date with developments but had a little look around the RCM website. Can't find any position statement re surrogacy, but there is a brief mention of the consultation without any suggestion that there may be problematic issues. FFS.

This whole situation is just awful.

the Law Commission have been consulting with informed parties for many months before launching this consultation paper to the wider public. They have also looked extensively at other models used internationally as part of this. Hundreds of hours of research have gone into this paper.

I attended a Consultation event in Edinburgh on Monday. One woman pointed out that there is no mention in the consultation regarding egg "donors", despite 502 pages and 118 questions.
We were told that they (the law commissioners behind the report) had simply concerned themselves with surrogacy and that egg donation would be regulated by the HFEA. As if you can have one without the other!!!
When questioned further about this they threw up their hands and said they were lawyers and knew nothing of medical matters!

If it wasn't so serious it would be funny.

Remember they are recommending the lifting of all advertising in relation to surrogacy:

"Consultation Question 42.
19.51 We provisionally propose that the current ban on advertising in respect of surrogacy should be removed, with the effect that there will be no restrictions on advertising anything that can lawfully be done in relation to surrogacy arrangements."

In the USA young women at college are targeted, groomed and harassed to sell their eggs, Facebook adverts popping up as they look at ways of settling their college fees.

I have just read Jennifer Lahl’s Broken Bonds and the egg donor in the book recalls her first donation: the nurse said “You lit up like a Christmas tree in Times Square! I can’t wait to use you as a donor again”. And “use” they did - ten times over ten years after which she developed breast cancer which is thought to be related to the repeated hormonal assaults on her body. However “Egg donors are presented with the claim there are no risks, not because studies on egg donation and donors have proven this, but because donors are an anonymous population that has never been medically tracked or studied. So there are no directly proven risks that indicate links between egg donors and cancers”.

So they want to pass new laws but not bother to regulate egg "donation". Because they don't know about medical stuff.

And they did actually admit to the limitations of the research they have done - a small UK study is heavily relied on, not to mention the self selected group of surrogates and satisfied customers they have spoken to.
Have they looked at any of the research by people like Jennifer Lahl? I've missed that reference if it's there. They consulted with representatives from the Ukraine but haven't even asked for medical input from the RCM or RCOG.

I have a real problem with the egg donor side of it too Warned. I watch Eggsplotation on Vimeo (I think) and it showed several women all having medical issues, pain, breast cancer after donating eggs, it obviously had a huge impact. One doc took 60 eggs! Another woman was left infertile. It's just not spoken about and to leave it off the consultation is a deliberate oversight, we are being manipulated and it's not on at all.

BBC once again making it abundantly clear which side of the debate they come down on:

www.bbc.com/worklife/article/20190906-the-workplaces-that-will-pay-for-surrogacy

Yes, that Eggsploitation video is very telling. Honestly it's a horrible process and I have no idea why anyone would do it but of course in the USA the financial inducements are the reason why.
In the UK payment is capped at £750. But it has just occurred to me that if egg donation is left out of the surrogacy law then they can probably increase payment substantially without it being impacted by the new law which is trying hard to maintain that this whole business is "altruistic ". Those lawyers looking a bit less stupid all of a sudden.

Aargh. The Ukraine and Uganda. Cheap destinations for a surrogate. The BBC should be ashamed of themselves.

In my view anyone returning from abroad should be investigated and prosecuted for people trafficking. That might send a message that surrogacy tourism is NOT ok.

It is always abusive exploitation.

The joke is the money men behind it don't care for the commissioning parents any more than they do for the surrogates. They just want the money. So many of the surrogates have poor health or obstetric history or other reasons why it's madness to use them (apart from the ethics obviously). Don't these people want a healthy take home baby? They are going about it the wrong way.

Wrong in every way.

Correction Ukraine and Kenya.

Bump as the consultation ends on October 11th

Bump

Extremely concerning - concern being of Gilead proportions. If the person who carries the child is not legally its mother, then this opens up a huge ethical can of worms and potentially infringes upon the rights of the child, which in UK law at least is supposedly paramount. These rights should be held sacrosanct, not subject to the whims or feelings of adults.

The woman who carries and gives birth to the child is the mother, regardless of whether she conceived with donor gametes or not. The legalization of commercial surrogacy is a thorny ethical point in itself, but this is above all about the rights of the child to know who the identity of her or his legal mother.

Next, it will be men with uteruses, and with the ability to produce eggs, gestating, giving birth, and demanding to expunge the category of 'mother' altogether and be registered as 'father' on the child's birth certificate. Oh, wait ...

I am reviving this old thread as I found something from during the consultation process last year, dated 19th August, from Sir James Munby, former President of the Family Division of the High Court. This was just after he retired.

It covers some key points from the consultation and beneath is a long comment from Kim Cotton, of COTS. Also there are a number of articles I have been reading that are linked below the piece, very interesting for those who have followed the consultation process.

I hope no-one minds me putting this here, I know it isn't generally accepted to revive old threads!

www.bionews.org.uk/page_144350