Now the Independant is on the pro-surrogacy bandwagon

[OhHolyJesus]

...and almost completely misrepresents the law and doesn't present the surrogate mother's side of the story at all.

As this was gestational surrogacy the twin embryos were implanted and the surrogate mother doesn't have a genetic link to the twins, however as the article mentions adoption I assume that pre-birth orders don't apply in Michigan like they do in California and whilst the couple knew the risks they just thought the judges would role over because of their sad story (the commissioning mother has breast cancer and the couple already had a child).

They met Lauren Vermilye through Facebook (nice) who offered to do it for free. Now she wants to keep the twins who are legally hers. (The state laws sound similar to U.K. law and again the typical 'old fashioned' opinion is trotted out by the Independent.)

www.independent.co.uk/life-style/surrogate-parents-legal-rights-biological-b1792383.html

I don't have a subscription to be able to comment and comments are down anyway.

So far I can see the Daily Mail being the only slightly objective source for surrogacy stories, and I'm being generous.

Blimey, where are the shades of grey? Why have the "left" of centre press decided to have a brain fuse on this subject too? The ethics of surrogacy and using women as host bodies deserves more depth of thought than this. As far as I can see only Julie Bindel is giving this any serious consideration?

Will have a look at Mail coverage. Thanks for sharing OhHoly.

It's a pretty poor show from the States on this too, it seems to depend on where the report is coming from, which state and what the laws are there. Same in NZ as I shared the other day.

Basically we're being had. Pretty much all media outlets are pushing the pro-surrogacy agenda, no balance, very obvious bias and always the 'outdated/old fashioned' law angle is being spun to strongly imply the laws need updating, which is before a public consultation on reform or a reform Bill.

The Times has a piece by one of their staff - not the columnist Sophie Beresiner who is also on the surrogacy tip - but a different staff member, same sex male couple and in the comments he is downplaying the ethics/moral and upselling how the kids of the surrogate mother are fine, oh you just don't understand, we just wanted a baby but we only had the sperm.

Lots of support for him and his husband but reassuringly there are some commenters dissenting.

Does the surrogate actually want to keep the babies? It doesn’t say that anywhere in the article. My take was that the judge is forcing them to go the adoption route not that the surrogate is making a claim.

The Independent hates women and has done so for a while, so I suggest people don’t click on their articles.

I haven’t clicked, but I imagine the term used for the birth mother was suitably dehumanising.

I didnt read it as the mother wanting to keep the babies either.
They have had to adopt because of the laws in the state which they knew before they went ahead and are now complaining about.
Entitled much.
Finding someone to carry twins for free via facebook of all places, I cant imagine how that would even come about.

@CP26

Does the surrogate actually want to keep the babies? It doesn’t say that anywhere in the article. My take was that the judge is forcing them to go the adoption route not that the surrogate is making a claim.

There's no comment on the ethics of hooking up with a surrogate via Facebook. No exploration of the lack of attendant checks and balances that should come with going down that route. No questions asked about support for the surrogate, rights of the child etc Simply a narrative about parents who took a risk because they were desperate. This is what frustrates me. The lack of depth around the ethics. If they knew there was a risk and they've chosen this path there should at least be a voice cautioning anyone else from doing it and pointing out the possible dangers (health of surrogate mother included).