The illegitimacy of the ‘Rumplestiltskin’ Surrogacy consultation

[JoanOfQuarks]

Thanks to Barracker for flagging up the consultation on the awful proposed change to British law with regards to surrogacy.

Barracker names it the Rumplestiltskin law as it proposes to legalise the technicalities around the stealing of newborn babies from their mothers once rich buyers are happy to pay for the commercial transaction.

The deadline is late September/ early October (I gather they have extended the deadline slightly)

Since then I’ve been trying to make my way through what I’ve realised is an intentionally exclusionary consultation.

It’s maddening as isn’t the premise of government consultations to ask the general public what our thoughts are - especially in the context of huge roll backs of human rights for babies and women? However, the consultation makes itself almost impossible to review unless you have ample time and an already established understanding of the technicalities of current British law.

The current government consultation is taking a ‘no debate’ aggressive stance towards making Britain one of the only countries in the world to fully legalise the buying and selling of new born babies illegitimate.

It takes as it’s premise for ‘no debate’ the fact that it got 340 positive responses to a previous unadvertised consultation a few years ago.

At the time, the general public was not adequately informed that the consultation was taking place. The previous consultation was gamed by a number of pro surrogacy lobby groups who boast on their websites how they flooded the consultation with their members responses. Meanwhile the general public weren’t even made aware that it was on.

The changes being put forward by this ground breaking law cannot be overstated. The government has a duty of care to the rights of the babies, children and women who will be directly harmed by this appalling and inhumane new law.

The government is breaching its own terms of proposals to change a law with this consultation.

The main actual stakeholders of this new law were not consulted in the initial consultation - mothers and babies. Mothers are the only group in the country who have a valid experience of the bond between a mother who has created, grown and given birth to her baby.

Not only were mothers not consulted with but with this new consultation they are being actively being pushed away from engaging with this latest incarnation of the consultation.

The current consultation is almost impossible for a lay person who isn’t a lawyer or an IVF specialist to understand without doing extensive additional reading and research. The consultation is not inclusive, it does not let anyone who is strapped for time, anyone who does not speak English as a first language or indeed the majority of people who don’t understand all of the technicalities of the law from responding. The consultation is not written in plain English. I think it fair to say the entire purpose of the current consultation is to exclude anyone who disagrees with the basic premise of selling babies.

Does anyone know how this can be challenged? How dare they ‘game’ the feedback by stating from the outset that their horrific law is universally accepted by the general public. How can we lodge a formal complaint? Who reviews these things and what actions do they take?

Good questions but i dont know the answers. I am working my way through the consultation and it is loooong.

I completely agree, I tried to comment on the proposal, but as you state without a legal/IVF background it was impossible to give informed opinions.
Therefore, it is clear, that those with an IVF/legal background, who care to respond (and have the time) are those who have an invested interest.

However, this is yet another huge concern as posters on other links have demonstrated namely

1. The huge inequalities that are at play in this arena.
2. Morally, ethically wrong, that the rich and also men who seek to benefit from the potential exploitation of young women, where experience matters significantly in making not only the informed choice to be

pregnant and the associated physical and mental health risks, many lifelong. NHS taxpayers should not be picking up the tab for this nor should the NHS Human rights, women and children are not commodoties, the rights of both are crucially important here. should this not be raised with the (uncorrupt!) press?

Very Handmaids Tale

Do you have a link to it please?

JoanOfQuarks

Thanks for that interesting background to the consultation. Very interesting to hear how the previous consultation was gamed. I agree, it is very long and seems designed to discourage a response from anyone who isn't very determined to engage. The consultation itself is 501 pages long, and many of the questions end "Do consultees agree?" Suggesting a done deal.

Even filling in a few questions and saving to complete more later is less than simple compared to other online forms that just let you save and go back in at will.

I am aiming to cover a minimum of two chapters a week to finish my replies by mid September.

I wonder if we should post some replies that people can copy in for themselves, maybe changing the wording to suit, to help each other complete the consultation. A bit like the GRC consultation last year - I would never have got that sensibly completed without help from Fair Play for Women.

For anyone trying to do it, I suggest looking at the 24 page summary of the consultation, which is more manageable and gives a good general explanation.

s3-eu-west-2.amazonaws.com/lawcom-prod-storage-11jsxou24uy7q/uploads/2019/06/Surrogacy-summary.pdf

Then head to particular chapters for more detail if needed.

At the consultation event I went to one of the presenters said please send in you answers, she stressed there's no need to answer all 118 questions. Also they will accept comments by email. I would suggest trying to order them a little according to subject headings in the paper. Even if you just want to comment on the issue of payment for instance. A lot of issues to do with the law, for instance for employment law and rights is quite complex. But don't let that put you off.

Here is a link to a thread I started earlier this week.

Building families through surrogacy: A new Law - Consultation www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3649812-building-families-through-surrogacy-a-new-law-consultation

Screenshots I meant to add.

I don't know what happens after the consultation closes - presumably parliament have to have some sort of discussion for it to become law?

"After reviewing all responses, we will decide on our final recommendations for law reform, which we will publish in a report, accompanied by a draft bill (legislation) in 2021."

I suppose somewhere nearer the time (and after Brexit so perhaps MPs will finally start turning their attention to other matters) would be a good time to start writing to MPs.

twinklystar Yes I agree it’s all about the rich, powerful and ultra privileged exploiting the poor and disadvantaged.

Somehow the fantastically wealthy IVF lobby has hoodwinked sections of the press (Guardian I’m looking at you) into thinking there’s something noble about the selling of babies from poor women to rich people (predominantly men)

Codenamevillanelle Sure, here’s a link to the consultation

www.lawcom.gov.uk/project/surrogacy/

FannyCann Thank you so much for going to the consultation.
I agree the layout of the online submission is another factor in its design to put off average members of the general public who don’t have vested interests in the law change going through.

I agree that the best way for people to respond is by email. Just choosing one or two questions if that’s all the time they can give to it.

I think that’s a brilliant idea for us to share our ideas on filling it in. It’s really not doable on your own. I’ve been disheartened at how little progress I’ve made and I’ve filled in a lot of these things over the past two years.

Shall we set up a new thread where we can share our thoughts on the questions?

I thought one useful thing could be to scour the document for even one question that could allow us to voice how we think all forba of surrogacy should be abolished. I know they have frames this as a done deal but the law is not passed yet abd as it stands what they are proposing is absolutely illegal in the UK and is directly against the EU’s recent declaration that surrogacy should be abolished as it contravenes basic human rights.

Also, I think the sooner we start talking to our MPs the better. The Brexit process is likely to go on and on and on...

This is very worrying, I would welcome help to fill out the consultation

A lot of people have begun to highlight the concept of institutional capture with regards to legislation around gender identity, and it looks as though the same sort of cosy lobbying is going on with this topic, as regards specialist interest groups being involved in framing language and discussion, and loaded/unpublicized consultations. It might be worth a slew of FOI requests to find out who has been involved and set the stage for this exercise, so dots could be joined and the institutional capture issue highlighted here too?

Yes please to help in completing and yes please also to FOI requests.

I need to do one for the trans prisoner crime break down so can do one for this too - help on the wording would be appreciated, as in what exactly do we want to know? A list of questions would be great.

It's an extremely user unfriendly consultation to complete. Some suggestions...

I've downloaded it onto my iPad books if you are able to or another similar format as it has all the pages tabulated so it's quite easy to scroll through to what I want to look at.

You may just want to send an email response as detailed on an earlier screenshot from the summary of the consultation (24 pages) linked above.

There's absolutely no need or expectation to reply to all 118 questions!

Home into a particular aspect and just answer that if you like, for instance just the chapter regarding payment.

I'm just going to try and do a bit each week, to submit nearer the close date at the end of September. It'll be time consuming and faffy but I may put my thoughts and answers in a word document and then copy and paste it all in one go at the end as so far I have just answered the first seven questions (section one, about me!) but the save for later generates an email with a link to get back in, and I'm not sure I trust it not to lose my work half way through if I keep doing it bit by bit.

They've covered eventualities I hadn't even thought of - who gets the baby if it is still born...(I suppose this is to do with the legalities and expenses of registering the death and paying for a funeral, but still )
Not to mention provision for if the surrogate dies and also for if one or both of the intended parents die before the baby is born...as other people have remarked, the more you look into it, the more appalling the whole business is.

Also some of it seems rather contradictory - eg:

question 35 "We provisionally propose that regulated surrogacy organisations should be non-profit making bodies"

question 41 "We provisionally propose that there should be no prohibition against charging for negotiating, facilitating and advising on surrogacy arrangements"

I assume that means that agencies will be non profit making but have extremely beneficial terms of service for employees whilst charging whopping fees for making arrangements....

I've never done a FOI, but Joan is right, we need to start lobbying our MPs. Mine is a staunch Catholic so surely he will be against it? I plan to go to one of his surgeries. I'm also planning letters to the health minister and various other big wigs in the NHS, as I am very concerned about the impact on the NHS.

For instance the section on international arrangements leads me to believe that this would be open to intended parents from abroad, who, depending where they live in the world, would save themselves a lot of money at the expense of the NHS due to all antenatal, postnatal and intrapartum care being free on the NHS. And is the UK to become a surrogate destination like India was before they clamped down on it, and Thailand, and Cambodia? I'm embarrassed for anyone who thinks this is a good idea.

I am also very concerned about women who are high risk for complications being allowed to be surrogates and the NHS having to pick up the pieces. Take the woman Dustin Lance Black interviewed who had had 13 babies (not sure how many pregnancies as there had been twins and triplets along the way).

Question 71 "We provisionally propose that there should not be a maximum number of surrogate pregnancies that a woman can undertake..."

It is well known that high parity increases a range of risks including post partum haemorrhage, malpresentation/unstable lie (raising chance of needing an LSCS), for starters.

As for the morality (lack of) of using a woman's body like driving a clapped out car until it packs up well, I can't begin to articulate what I think about that.

The current consultation is almost impossible for a lay person who isn’t a lawyer

It's not my field but I've had 2 attempts and given up. It's part of my job to respond to consultations. I'm a member of a Law Society committee which is regularly expected to respond to Government consultations. I've never come across one so complicated.

No maximum number of pregnancies? Fuck me, even the Kennel Club limits the number of litters a pedigree Spaniel can have before they withdraw 'approval' on grounds of maternal health.

Ha. The law allows six litters but the kennel club has further restricted it to four litters.

Women know your place. Somewhere behind a breeding bitch!

That's definitely going in my reply to the consultation. Thanks MitziK
*
Lass* I think you should email the law commission with your comments re the inaccessibility of the consultation.

Women know your place. Somewhere behind a breeding bitch!

Also behind ivory which cannot be sold at all, even if its antique. Because the government understands that selling antique ivory fuels the demand for more ivory, putting all living elephants in danger. But women are different. Men must have have a right to the things our bodies can do.

Does any one know what these constant government consultations are supposed to achieve?

It seems to me they are anything but democratic. Surely politicians should be owning policies that they believe in and are able to defend to the public? And taking responsibility for those policies and putting them in their manifestos.

Instead these odd consultations that no one (including the MPs) seem to know anything about are shaped by and completed by various lobby groups.

It's no wonder everyone has lost faith in politics.

It's not actually a government consultation. The Law Commission will make recommendations but that doesn't necessarily translate into law. It's for parliament to decide so there will be opportunities to lobby MPs etc further down the line. Here's what the Law Commission website says:

The Commission’s recommendations for law reform have a profound practical effect on the legal rights, duties and liabilities of a large number of people – but only if they are implemented by Parliament. We can make recommendations but only Parliament can change the law. More than two-thirds of the Commission’s law reform recommendations have been implemented, and a number await the Government’s decision or Parliamentary time.

www.lawcom.gov.uk/our-work/implementation/

Lass Well, the fact that an experienced solicitor struggles with this consultation speaks volumes. Do you know who we can complain to about the consultation? I’m assuming there are guidelines and best practice that they should be following but that they’ve thwarted.

FannyCann Thanks for the advice - I’ll try and put together a resource thread over the next few days so we can start to crowdsource our knowledge on this.