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?

Joan I have a half day tomorrow and am hoping to make a start on some answers. I think I will pdf the document and post the link from time time to time as and when I add more answers.

Will also be sending a covering email when I submit as there are issues not covered. For instance I can't find any mention of egg donors and how that will be regulated. At present egg donors are paid a maximum of £750 (I assume per cycle) and some may come from "egg sharing" schemes offered by some ivf centres.

I watched this "Eggsploitation" the other night. It's really shocking.

The film is in English with Spanish subtitles.

I suppose one could complain to [email protected] about its impenetrability. There is nothing to indicate it was intended that only professionals in this sector would respond.

Thanks Lass, I guess I was thinking more of a body who regulates government consultations. I don’t think that the people organising and running this consultation are unbiased and I don’t think the fact that it is skewed to give a certain result is accidental. Therefore I think any complaints sent to the surrogacy email would fall on deaf ears.

FannyCann That would be incredibly helpful to see any ideas you’ve had by going through it. I have been repeatedly stopped by general kids and work responsibilities but had good intentions to try to put together a single sheet to help other to fill it in. Something like the FairPlay for women one and the WPUK one for the GRA.

OhHolyJesus I just saw your wonderful offer to do a FOI.

Questions that could be good:

Which groups did you consult with for the initial consultation in 2017?
(I don’t have the exact date to hand but will check and report back)

How many times did you meet with each group that you consulted with?

How many times did you meet with the Surrogacy now lobby group?

Did you consult with any psychologists who specialise in maternal and child attachment?

Did you consult with any ethics academics?

Did you consult with any mothers of new born babies?

Did you consult with any children born from surrogate mothers?

The government have a Code of practice on consultations document that outlines how consultations should be done.

assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/100807/file47158.pdf

This surrogacy consultation and its previous incarnation do not meet the criteria.

We can register our complaints about this flawed consultation to:

Better Regulation Executive
Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform 1 Victoria Street
London
SW1H 0ET
Telephone: 020 7215 0352

E-mail: [email protected]

Cross-posting this from the longer thread:

Interesting Nordic Model Now piece about the consultation. Looks like they will be creating a crib sheet to help feminists respond. Huge thanks to those women!

nordicmodelnow.org/2019/08/15/the-law-commissions-surrogacy-consultation-how-to-bamboozle-through-a-dangerous-new-law/

@JoanOfQuarks thanks for this, I've been reeling off a few FOIs this week! Will submit one with your questions. Thanks for this, really helpful.

I'll send to the law commission by the end of next week.

And thanks for that link @spinninghag also very useful, will have a good read of that later.

Thanks OhHolyJesus

I can't stand Facebook and don't go there but here are some comments someone made on Facebook.
Complaints about the consultation itself would be a great help.

I'm still wading my way through the questions but making progress.

Sometimes social change is just as necessary as legal change. Let's start criticising, and not celebrating, all those couples who use paid surrogacy. No-one should be able to purchase a child. I really do not care how much they want a child. Having children is not a right that can be bought.

Thanks again Fanny that's a useful summary.

I think all consultations are written deliberately to discourage completion or at least they encourage the views of people who are particularly interested and informed on the concerned issue.

I'm determined to complete it but I'm a working mum, maybe they only want answers from people with time on their hands

Not my summary OhHoly , it was sent to me.
As I get more into the questions it gets easier.
Nordic model now will be posting a crib sheet at some point and I will post my suggestions too.

Just to say my FOI request has been submitted and should be found the what they know website. Used your A's Fanny and one of mine. Should get a confirmation then answers should follow within 20 days xx

Thanks OhHoly
"Women's Voices Matter" are also going to campaign on getting the consultation withdrawn as not fit for purpose and a breach of the guidelines.

Meanwhile Nordic Model Now are also working on a downloadable word document reply to the consultation.

Bumping as I am very unhappy about this consultation and really feel it needs to be abandoned and started again as it is deeply flawed and I question the legality of it (notwithstanding five lawyers think they've nailed it).

1. At the consultation event on Monday one woman raised the issue that there is no discussion of egg donors. The explanation we were given was something along the lines that their remit was with surrogacy and they had confined themselves to that. Egg donation would be regulated by the HFEA. Further questioning by this lady resulted in them throwing up their hands and saying they were lawyers and didn’t have medical knowledge!!!

Clearly egg donors are an essential part of the process and this absolutely needs to be regulated as part of any new law.

Furthermore, I raised the issue of not regulating the number of times a woman can undergo a surrogate pregnancy. They responded that in their view this would self regulate through medical assessment at the beginning of the process. I believe this is quite wrong. Who, really is naive enough to think people will abide by guidelines. This needs to be clearly set in law.

The fact is they have not consulted with the RCOG or the RCM - they said the RCM said they would await proposals and then comment.

This is all about reproductive medicine and rather than lawyers picking over the details of exactly what expenses might be allowable and so forth, medical opinion and advice should have been at the heart of the proposals in order to protect the health and well being of surrogate mothers and egg donors as well as minimising the impact on the NHS.

1. One of the purposes of the consultation is to "encourage domestic surrogacy in the first instance".

ie rather than commissioning parents seeking to make arrangements abroad. I think it should not be so much a case of "encouraging" domestic surrogacy as firmly "discouraging" international arrangements. Through all the reading and research I have done over the past 2-3 months it is clear that basically all international arrangements are exploitative and in many cases abusive. The UN warns against this. Too many of the proposals seek to ease the path of commissioning parents using international arrangements, looking at ways to help them with passports and visas etc to bring the baby home. I say they should be prosecuted for people trafficking and a firm message sent that international surrogacy tourism will not be treated tolerantly any more than paedophile tourism is. So this part of the proposal is, in my view, very poorly thought through and not really in keeping with the suggestion of seeking to limit overseas arrangements.

1. I suggested that the proposals were not compliant with recommendations from the UN.

Professor Nicholas Hopkins who is the head honcho countered that they had consulted closely with the UN special rapporteur and they were compliant with UN recommendations. I do not see how this can be. She very clearly states protections must include that the (surrogate) mother must ALWAYS retain parentage and parental responsibility at birth. A key tenet of the new proposals is that the commissioning (intended) parents are the legal parents from birth.

www.ohchr.org/EN/Issues/Children/Pages/Surrogacy.aspx

Finally there is the issue of payment - they are clear they want to retain an "altruistic" model.
But lifting the ban on advertising and allowing "fixers" (regulated agencies) to charge for making introductions,arrangements etc to charge - how is that anything but commercial? Meanwhile the surrogate is not paid. Which they accept could be seen to be exploitative. Hence numerous questions and proposals about what "expenses" might be allowed - in order to rack up enough expenses that the surrogate is rewarded but is not seen to be paid. How is that even legal?

I am thoroughly disgusted with the dishonesty of the whole thing and will be making complaints as per @JoanOfQuarks 8 Aug 07:43

@OhHolyJesus Thanks so much for submitting the FOI. When did they say you’ll hear back?

I've had an answer, will DM you.

Others can search www.whatdotheyknow.com for the response, I'm not going to link to it here so to remain anon.

Brilliant, thanks ohholyJesus!