New feminist campaign "Stop Surrogacy Now"

[RabbitOfCaerbannog]

A new feminist campaign has been set up against the commodification of babies and women's wombs for rent - Stop Surrogacy Now. Looks like an important cause to get behind. From Stop Surrogacy Now's home page:

Surrogacy is the social practice where a woman is ‘used’ for her body, her fertility and reproductive capacity to grow and birth a baby without the intention of being a mother to that child and giving that baby away, or ‘gifting’ that child to ‘Intended Parents’.
We see Surrogacy is the sale of a child where any profit is made. No amount of pretending its ‘gestational service’ changes the reality. Commissioning parents want a baby not a service, the baby is the ‘end product’.
Surrogacy as a practice developed from the demand of wealthy, infertile people to have exclusive parenthood of a biological child.

1. exploiting women as baby making machines does not advance women’s rights
2. The child’s right to have a relationship with all its parents are disregarded
3. It perpetuates that same old structural injustice where poor/ vulnerable women are used for the benefit of the wealthy – the power imbalance in surrogacy is a key argument ‘Using a surrogate’ means replacing the only mother a child has ever known. “People who seek a surrogate have a very specific desire…it is not only a desire to raise a child, but also a demand that the mother be absent.” ~ Kajsa Ekis Ekman “Being and Being Bought”

This is the website:

stopsurrogacynowuk.org/2021/04/22/welcome-to-stop-surrogacy-now-uk/

I wonder why those lobbying for surrogacy are so aghast at safeguarding concerns even being mentioned when advocating for relaxation of laws relating to surrogacy arrangements.

I think those tagged in this tweet are a fair indication of who is lobbying for surrogacy reform and also sends a message from the Law Commission of who they want to consult and include.

twitter.com/appgsurrogacy/status/1354066741371011074?s=21

The Law Commission live tweeted the Q&A from the webinar they held today (I missed it due to work meeting). The questions are interesting, as are the answers. Reform is "looking good", they encourage people to contact their MPs, red tape will be "robust" but not increases for regulatory purposes (so the 'light touch' approach looks likely) etc.

Worth checking to see if safeguarding within the NHS is mentioned @WarriorN.

I'm so glad this campaign has begun, looks like it is needed more than ever.

Sorry @WeRoarSometimes that was a bold fail - I was trying to expand on your point.

@OhHolyJesus
Thank for posting that.
So the people who really really need the surrogacy laws changed include:

Law firms involved in surrogacy services. It also mentions adoption but that is more about international adoption/step-parent adoption
Paid for service

Surrogacy advisory service - reporting over 1000 babies born through surrogacy (on their social media pages), paid for service

Generally a lot of legal services providers (gain ££), advisory services (gain ££) commissioning parents (gain a baby someone else risked her body for).

Not a peep from anyone representing women's rights.
Or representing the rights of the children born to surrogate mums.

@noisasentence

There was a lady who reported being depressed before becoming a surrogate. I don't think either of those scenarios should have got past an ethics committee and it seemed odd, when I know so many perfectly normal set-ups, that they would have shown these examples as if they were typical. In the surrogacy world, there would be eyebrows raised about this.

But these surrogate mothers did get passed the ethics/counselling panel. I'm not sure but I think you are referring me to Faye, who has been interviewed subsequently as she had a baby boy for David Watkins, who claims to be the first single man to have a surrogate baby in the U.K. They met through Surrogacy U.K. who, from what I can see, appear to be held up as the gold standard for surrogacy agencies in the U.K. and no one stopped her from matching and going ahead with the pregnancy.

Of course you might have been referring to one of the other surrogate mothers, I tagged you for that purpose as I don't want to take your words out of context.

I appreciate that it's none of my business in regards to the 'expenses' you paid your friend/surrogate mother but it's a question I ask as I'm interested to understand what constitutes an expense in your view and what doesn't (this was a big part of the law commission's consultation and key to differentiating between what is altruistic and what is commercial surrogacy).

It's pretty jarring to talk about payments and money in relation to babies being born, also it's private so I do understand why you wouldn't address abs answer that question. I didn't ask to make you feel you couldn't post here.

I don't really understand why more people don't have a problem with donor eggs being used in IVF, following on from the points raised in the OP. This seems to be considered mostly fine, yet it involves a number of issues comparable to the issues around surrogacy. We all have our blindspots, I suppose

This was mentioned in the blog post, specifically about advertising so I don't think there is a blind spot on gamete donation from this campaign. It's towards the end of the blog in case you missed it.

Lastly, @ForeverAintEnough12 who thought my reading of various boards of MN around adoption and donor conception was 'voyeuristic', it seems reasonable to suggest I'm not the only one, based on the threads created at the weekend along. Also most of the regular posters on AIBU and FWR are aware that the Daily Mail journalists stop by for ideas for stories and I don't think they are the only ones...

Sperm donors on Facebook as fertility clinics run short

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/5407cede-6d47-11eb-ba86-e516f9df6e0a?shareToken=7725e7b07aa03de72325d418a5c511ca

Regular posters in FWR will be aware of how public it is, with screenshots shared on Twitter and regular 'monitors' who come to tell us how we are 'wrong', and support threads on this or any other board aren't private clubs where we all talk amongst ourselves.

Those seeking support could do well to be reminded of that maybe as anything shared on MN is public, you don't need to be a member to view threads and we know from experience that private information shouldn't be shared so if you don't want someone else to read it don't say it. It's the internet after all and it might be better to use private chat rooms or WhatsApp or other apps that afford privacy if you don't want your experiences laid bare for all (even those who disagree with you've even judge you) to read.

Bang in I'd say @WeRoarSometimes

I'm aware of a few women's orgs who the law commission did consult with, after the consultation was closed, but they weren't tagged in that list so maybe they only wanted a certain portion of groups, perhaps only those 'stakeholders', to be aware of the webinar and the report.

There was a presentation with a list somewhere, hang on I'll dig it out.

Here it is - there is a slide here listing the women/pregnancy orgs the law commission did speak to

The current media narrative is so focused on the 'be kind' /'do something amazing for a family' that safeguarding is not being discussed by any of the vested interests.

This is so very true.

It all works towards coercion to some degree.

WeRoarSometimes

It is always quite startling when you see the lack of representation for the women and the children involved and when you start delving into just who are the parties that actually benefit from surrogacy as a whole.

This is information in the public domain.

A London-based clinic charges around £20k for IVF associated with surrogacy services. This might include 2-3 rounds of IVF treatment, donor eggs or donor sperm (or both), storage costs, transfer of embryos.

A London-based surrogacy agency charges £20,750 for its surrogacy services (£24k with VAT).
It also reports that surrogates (I prefer to call them surrogate mums) receive on average just under £15k to carry babies to term as a part of a surrogacy arrangement.

This is one organisation but it has been very vocal in its campaign and work with high profile individuals pressing for a more commercial approach in surrogacy.

Remember that wise ladies on this board.

The legal people working on these surrogacy arrangements get paid more than the women risking their health to give birth to a baby for someone else.

But of course, it is all not for profit.
It is altruistic.

The APPG account linked to above, tweeted that Lord Bethell, a health minister, ‘agrees’ with ‘legal parenthood reform’. That’s a significant voice in Parliament if so.

@ChattyLion
Yes it is. Lord Bethell is the chair of the APPG.

Lord Moonie is one to watch for, I think. He asked Lord Bethell a very pertinent question about surrogacy policy.

To ask Her Majesty's Government what consideration is given to the welfare of (1) women, and (2) children, when developing policy on surrogacy.

The response from Lord Bethell tells us we need to be concerned
' The Law Commissions for England and Wales and Scotland have been undertaking a review of United Kingdom legislation about surrogacy with significant engagement from a range of stakeholders. The Law Commissions are currently considering responses to a public consultation about proposed changes.
The key consideration of these proposals is to balance the best interests of children born through surrogacy, treated as paramount in line with the current law, with the interests of women acting as surrogates, and the interests of intended parents.
Draft legislation is expected in 2022 and is intended to be subject to pre-legislative scrutiny.'

So the laws are about balancing the rights of three groups of individuals. Again, not a peep at safeguarding issues.

I needed a kidney transplant and it was definitely part of my paid donor’s life plan and I can’t see why people have a problem with it. The idea of a trade in vital organs is really empowering for many donors and you shouldn’t just dismiss it. My body my choice can’t have any limits.

People who need an organ will literally die without one. Nobody needs a child in order to survive. Yet almost everyone is opposed to selling organs but many think surrogacy is just fine.

Well done raising awareness WeRoarSometimes , very pertinent questions.

Lord Moonie I think might have been very helpful and I don't want to write him off or spread rumour but he is 74 and I have heard his health is not what it used to be.

You paid a kidney donor Pota2 ?
Do you mind my asking what country that was in?

Just leaving this here to remind everyone that even in the US, in the last 15 months, a woman has died by becoming a surrogate. She leaves two of her own children without a mother.

It's unknown whether this was a commercial or altruistic pregnancy but at the end of the day it's irrelevant. Pregnancy and childbirth can be lethal and I question anyone's suitability to parent who would consider engendering a situation in which their choices leave other children motherless:

https://www.today.com/parents/mom-acting-surrogate-another-family-dies-while-giving-birth-t172216

Another point to consider is the indirect impact on children placed for adoption. If it becomes easy and relatively cheap to procure a child via surrogacy, why would anyone adopt?
Also, what is being proposed in the UK is that almost everyone involved in the surrogacy process can make money from it. Oh, apart from the surrogate. Funny that. I think it was Kajsa Ekis Ekman who said that if you have to have commercial surrogacy, your starting point should be that the surrogate mother makes a large profit from it. But of course she doesn’t. Everyone else profits while she puts her body through considerable trauma for someone else.

@FannyCann

You paid a kidney donor Pota2 ? Do you mind my asking what country that was in?

Sorry, I should have been clearer that I was being sarcastic. It’s just that we hear so many arguments about free choice and autonomy when it comes to surrogacy but would we use them when it comes to paying someone for a vital organ? What if someone said that it’s empowering for them to hand over their kidney to a stranger? Should we allow this and legislate to make it harder for the donor to change their mind once they have promised it?

@Pota2

Comparisons are often made between children joining families through adoption and those joining families as a result of surrogacy arrangements.
Adoption is managed with the child's welfare and needs at the centre of the process. Safeguarding features highly as the children will most often have suffered neglect or abuse before coming into the care system. Adopters' assessments are long and thorough.
It can be difficult for the adopters and it is jolly well intrusive.

The legal threshold to remove babies at birth is very very high indeed and often follows when a birth mum has had several children removed from her in the past. The courts are heavily involved.

But it is recognised that children suffer loss and separation from birth parents, and this still is a consideration after being placed with adopters, no matter how loving the adoptive family is.

I struggle with knowing how high the legal threshold is to remove a baby at birth to place a child in care and yet, surrogacy arrangements facilitate this as the normal expected and desired outcome.

@WeRoarSometimes it just shows how children are being treated as accessories and the property of the commissioning parents. It’s really quite barbaric when you think about it.

@FightingTheFoo
Terrible, terrible sad story about the lady dying in the US.

A bit on that story stood out to me, where it mentioned the US having the highest rate of maternal deaths in the developed world.
And yet, it's a go-to destination for transactional surrogacy for commissioning parents from Europe.

I read something about maternal death in the states fairly recently, I'll see if I can dig it out but I'm pretty sure it was 50% or close to 50% of maternal death was believed to be preventable. I was looking at uk MBRACE reports and the US doesn't have quite the same approach in reporting is my understanding.

As with the Uk I don't think they measure or separate any of the data or details around surrogacy nationally at least, all we know in the Uk is how many pregnancies are IVF (and then how many come from fresh eggs, frozen embryos etc if you dive into the detail).

There are quite a few things to worry about from this article, not least the language or the reasons why these women are embarking on surrogacy pregnancies but at least there are age restrictions on surrogacy in the states (though not controlled by federal law).

"Most states — and agencies — have strict regulations as to who can become paid surrogates. They cannot be younger than 21 or older than 45 (40 for a first-time surrogate). They had to have carried at least one healthy pregnancy to term — which is why there aren’t many super young surrogates, and why so many of them are married with their own children. After more than three C-sections or more than six vaginal deliveries, women are no longer allowed to work as surrogates."(My bold)

"Once their initial application passes the initial screening by an agency, surrogate wannabes have to go through multiple health and psychological tests to prove that they can safely carry a baby with minimal risks. If they clear those, then the agency works on matching the surrogate with an intended parent." (no psychological tests for the commissioning parents though?)

But this was interesting in terms of stats:

The CDC reported 3,432 surrogacy births in 2013 — the last year for which data are available — though experts say that number has only increased. In 2016, the CDC recorded 5,521 embryo transfers using gestational surrogates, but did not disclose how many of those resulted in pregnancies or live births.
(CDC = Centre for Disease Control)
So nearly doubled in 3 years, based on what CDC figures.
nypost.com/2021/04/24/why-married-moms-with-good-jobs-are-becoming-surrogates-for-other-women/

and this

The global fertility industry is forecasted to be worth $47.9 billion by 2030, and “a big driver of that growth is surrogacy,”

"Surrogates typically make between $35,000 and $45,000 per pregnancy, and the intended parents pay for any medical-related expenses on top of that. Yet that doesn’t mean that a rash of New Yorkers will suddenly start applying to be surrogates, despite increased demand during a pandemic.

Most agencies require that their surrogates have financial stability, and some disqualify applicants who are on government assistance. "

But remember it's altruistic.

I just think of people like Kim Kardashian who chose not to carry two of her pregnancies yet thought it was perfectly fine to put another woman at risk in order to do it. Same with Hilaria Baldwin who clearly wanted another daughter and couldn’t even wait until her youngest son was a year old before purchasing a sibling. Both families have fathers of questionable quality (one of them in his 60s who has been emotionally abusive to his older child and the other one thinks it’s okay to talk about his kids’ mother considering aborting one of them). I would fear for the mental well-being of those kids as it is, let alone having to deal with being born by surrogate. With both those families, they seemed to treat kids like commodities and thought nothing of paying for them to get what they wanted.

Sorry, I should have been clearer that I was being sarcastic. It’s just that we hear so many arguments about free choice and autonomy when it comes to surrogacy but would we use them when it comes to paying someone for a vital organ? What if someone said that it’s empowering for them to hand over their kidney to a stranger? Should we allow this and legislate to make it harder for the donor to change their mind once they have promised it?

You're forgetting that men could donate donor organs, not just women. Which may explain why there's such an otherwise inexplicable difference in approach between the two. Particularly given organ donation doesn't involve imposing an inherently traumatic start to a child's life.

@IloveJKRowling

Sorry, I should have been clearer that I was being sarcastic. It’s just that we hear so many arguments about free choice and autonomy when it comes to surrogacy but would we use them when it comes to paying someone for a vital organ? What if someone said that it’s empowering for them to hand over their kidney to a stranger? Should we allow this and legislate to make it harder for the donor to change their mind once they have promised it?

You're forgetting that men could donate donor organs, not just women. Which may explain why there's such an otherwise inexplicable difference in approach between the two. Particularly given organ donation doesn't involve imposing an inherently traumatic start to a child's life.

That’s very true.

I found the link I was looking for on maternal death in the US. Though this thread is about U.K. law around surrogacy I thought it relevant as I agree that pregnancy and birth can be lethal as a PP pointed out.

https://www.medpagetoday.com/obgyn/pregnancy/91888?xid=nlcovidupdatee2021-04-01&eun=g394940d0r&utmsource=Sailthru&utmmmedium=email&utmcampaign=DailyUpdatee040121&utmterm=NLLGenInttDailyNewssUpdateactive&fbclid=IwAR30XONzmm_DYq3oLT2FYGN21yD1b0LN7guTEpq77zplCXp8ZXC0t4lUkVlY