All-male Law Commission discussing surrogacy

[NotAtMyAge]

An excellent and justifiably angry article by Catherine Bennett in last Sunday's Observer.

www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/jun/09/who-better-than-men-to-rule-on-delicate-subject-of-surrogacy-law-commission

This is a great piece from a gay man. www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2019/06/52715/

Happy days.

I am not saying that. I am saying there is no substance to your arguments that a woman will see any objections to surrogacy.

The argument isn't that any particular woman would necessarily object to surrogacy and so should be included. It's that a non-diverse group of people, especally a group that has no experience of a very significant part of what they are discussing, will be much less likely to have the same sort of wide-ranging and in depth consideration of the issue as a diverse and experienced group of people would.

We see this time and again in policy discussion - representation matters.

KTara, I think your point is really good. It's about the ability to empathise with the people who will be in a position to be surrogates. These will be women of few financial means.

Surrogacy is an invasive procedure, with considerable health risks and even a very altruistic woman will weigh up those risks very carefully.

If history is any guide, it wouldn't be the first time that wealthy women have made decisions that had a negative impact on poor women. And absolutely, the most salient point here is class - or, more bluntly but also more honestly, money.

Lass, I appreciate we are on the same side of this argument and I take your point that what’s wrong with this proposed law supersedes the sex of the people judging it.
You have always been a strong voice against surrogacy and it would be great to get your thoughts as a lawyer on how this consultation can be tackled.

Getting back to the discussion...
Yes, absolutely the IVF industry is driving this and yes, infertile women were at the initial forefront of surrogacy arrangements.

However, the Baroness warnock example actually proves how the lived experience of recent motherhood in fact did allow Warnock to see the inhumanity of surrogacy at the time.

Surely for a law to be passed, relevant and appropriate people with an understanding of the rights of the child should be included in the legislative process. A bunch of middle / older aged men who have and never will be pregnant are definitely not a suitable group.

Excluding representation from half the population on any serious issue is problematic

You have always been a strong voice against surrogacy and it would be great to get your thoughts as a lawyer on how this consultation can be tackled

Thank you. I suppose we will have to tackle the consultation paper. I started it and gave up. I found the wording very opaque. I've had to respond professionally to many Scottish Government consultations (of varying degrees of obvious bias) but this one is by far the most complicated I've seen.

I went to a conference on international surrogacy a year or so back, in London. I was one of a few women there (aside from a panel of surrogates). The room was stuffed to the gills with men both representing the intended parents (single men and gay couples) and the agencies/companies organising the surrogacy. I'd say there were around 200 men there to 10 women.

Sadly that says it all all really

SadlyMissTaken That’s very at odds with the image the surrogacy lobby likes to present to the public of kindly women helping other women. But it is not surprising at all.

Of interest is that this Law Commission is being led by a man with no legal experience of anything to do with surrogacy.

www.reading.ac.uk/law/about/staff/n-p-hopkins.aspx

Professor Nick Hopkins has extensive experience and publications on housing and property law. What qualification does he have to lead a revolution in the commercial reproductive industry. How did he get chosen for this role?

Surely it would have made more sense and been fairer to have this led this consultation with a background in child protection / women’s rights or ethics.

• correction:

Surely it would have made more sense and been fairer to have appointed someone with experience and a background in child protection/ women’s rights or ethics.

'child protection/ women’s rights'

I don't think the powers that be are interested in those things.

They are interested in business and in giving men what they want.

Googled the consultation on surrogacy and was bombarded with websites advertising their services.
So I looked at one, it’s really really disturbing
www.mother-surrogate.com/delivery-in-ukraine.html

Online consultation here:
consult.justice.gov.uk/law-commission/surrogacy/

Really disturbing link 1984in2019 and this is exactly the ‘trade’ that this change in law hopes to attract to the UK.

Wow. That link from 1984in2019
*
"*Unlimited number of ovarian stimulations of egg donor"

Is that for real?

I recently watched "Eggsploitation"

Even though I was a midwife for twenty years (and did some work in the fertility clinic), still work in the NHS (not midwifery any more) and recently had dealings with a young woman who ended up in ICU and nearly died due to complications of the egg retrieval procedure I was deeply shocked by some of the complications and the exploitation of the young women featured in that programme.

I may have missed it - I've only skim read parts of the 501 pages of consultation - but I haven't seen ANY reference to the egg donors - who will undoubtedly be a key part of the whole programme.

Another thing to raise in replies to the consultation.

Btw that programme in the link is English language with Spanish subtitles. Check it out.

Good article. It highlights some of the concerns. I really like the analogy to religious consultation.

Surragacy is an issue that inpacts women, ONLY women can do it and therefore women must be consulted.

Agree Mediocre and yet it seems women and mothers in particular were the one group that were not consulted at all at either stage of this consultation.

Lawyers ramping up business, all ready for when the new laws are unleashed and profit beckons.

twitter.com/familyissuesbr/status/1160188264814403584?s=21

I know that now Ukraine is the center of surrogacy in Europe. Here is the article about surrogacy law in Ukraine www.new-life.ua/surrogacy/surrogacy-in-ukraine-legal-aspects/. Maybe, someone will be interesting in reading this

So the Ukraine has commercial surrogacy but provides no rights for surrogate mothers, it's normal for the surrogate mother to move in with the commissioning parents, or move to a space they provide so they can keep an eye on her in the last few months of her pregnancy, they provide top notch tech for getting her pregnant and you don't need a VISA to enter.

Well yes, no wonder it is the "global centre for surrogacy"!

And New Life have some family lawyer contacts handy if you need to swiftly register the child's birth and fly back to where you came from. How lovely for those who want to buy babies.

I do hope the Law Commission isn't using this as a model for UK practice.

I am unsure how using a poor woman to carry a baby for a rich childless couple differs from using a woman to carry Good Aryan Babies for the Fatherland, really. The key words are "using a woman".

If you say "baby farming" or "child harvesting" or "baby factories", I am fairly sure that right-minded people will tend to get a shudder down their spines about the implications of these phrases. But the only difference I can really see is that those practices were and are abhorred, whereas this new practice is being applauded.

Babies in any case should be regarded as people, not commodities.

As I understand surrogacy clinics like New Life provide full legal support for a woman who will be a surrogate mother. And on the other side, if there is demand, there will be supply. No one forces women to be a surrogate mother, she goes for it herself. Of course, because of the money. But it's her choice