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/

Maybe we should get all those celebs instrumental in getting 'lucy's law' enacted to consider whether they're in favour of similar safeguards for human babies or not.

That's rather a good idea IloveJKRowling Might be worth a few letters.

I also think it's a) not right and b) most voters wouldn't support the already underfunded and on it's knees NHS funding care for these pregnancies, where lawyers and private doctors are racking up the thousands. It's exploiting the taxpayer. And whilst so many people, including children, are on endless waiting lists and aren't even getting life saving cancer treatments on time it's not OK, not when others are profiting handsomely (if the lawyers and IVF clinics were doing it entirely altruistically then I'll revisit this, until then, nope).

@IloveJKRowling I absolutely guarantee that if the Law Commission proposals are adopted, particularly the pre-birth parental rights arrangement that the U.K. will see an explosion of international procuring parents targeting the U.K. and free health care from the NHS for a cheap, safe surrogacy arrangement. There is some evidence that this is already happening, and certainly evidence of it happening in the past.

I quote from a letter for MPs which is on the Nordic Model Now website:

"EXPLOITATION OF THE NHS AND EXPOSURE OF THE NHS TO BABY TRAFFICKING
If the proposals go ahead, there’s likely to be a sharp increase in the numbers of commissioning parents coming to the UK from abroad to avail themselves of services here – and one of the attractions would be that the NHS provides free maternity care.
It’s clear from the consultation paper that foreign commissioning parents are already entering surrogacy arrangements in the UK – although numbers are unclear. For example: Paragraph 3.67 says that one agency required foreign commissioning parents to place the money to be paid to the surrogate mother in an escrow account; and Question 100 asks for experiences in the UK “involving foreign intended parents.” Further evidence comes from the websites of UK agencies that include material directed at foreign commissioning parents.
The case of: Re G (Surrogacy: Foreign Domicile) [2007] EWHC 2814 (Fam) [10] provides shocking evidence that the COTS surrogacy agency facilitated the exploitation of British women and the trafficking of babies – underpinned by the taxpayer and the NHS.
One COTS worker gave evidence that he knew of at least 20 cases and another said that COTS “helped many couples from Europe, and currently have couples from France, Greece, Norway, Belgium and Germany going through surrogacy.” That surrogacy is illegal in several of these countries may explain why the UK is an attractive surrogacy destination.
The judge was concerned by the evidence and described it as the illegal traffic in babies for adoption:
“The traffic in young babies for adoption between one country and another is rightly now the subject of very strict control and is only authorised after proper and detailed scrutiny by the social services and other authorities. It is therefore a matter of significant concern that COTS has, albeit naively, been involved in the activities that I have described which are, and have long been, outside the law.”

By the way, something I only recently discovered (which you all probably already know) but where you see a court case quoted as in:

Re G (Surrogacy: Foreign Domicile) [2007] EWHC 2814 (Fam) [10]

If you copy and paste into Google it will come up with the family law report.

Here's the link anyway, to that particular case.

https://www.familylawweek.co.uk/site.aspx?i=ed984

Thanks for posting the links @FannyCann, really helpful.
COTS is presented as a voluntary organisation out there to help childless adults.
A brief look at their social media presence shows a lot of marketing activity, almost begging for women to come forward to help these desperately sad couples.

The criteria for would-be surrrogate mums includes:
[You need to]
Have had a baby already although we do accept women who have chosen never to have a child themselves.

Why is it ok to seek women who have not had babies before?
Meeting demand perhaps?

Meeting demand perhaps?

Cotton and COTS do talk about the 'shortage' of surrogate mothers (so a supply and demand issue...still not commercial though remember!) and I do think if it as a requiring a 'good stock' of willing women so to keep their business organisation going against tough completion from Surrogacy U.K.

I think Cotton was on Lorraine fairly recently or maybe it was This Morning, fairly recently...anyway the media messaging of course helps to generate new interest around surrogacy that ultimately results in it growing, that then leads to the lobbying for law reform...and here we are.

You have to congratulate them really on a successful strategy efficiently executed.

Sorry I wrote that too fast - please ignore spelling errors!

The criteria for would-be surrrogate mums includes:
[You need to]
Have had a baby already although we do accept women who have chosen never to have a child themselves.

I don't believe it is possible to give informed consent without having previously been pregnant and given birth.

Also first births are usually the most difficult - I was lucky to have straight forward births, I can only imagine the horror of going through a nightmare delivery, failed forceps followed by LSCS, maybe topped off with a haemorrhage, ending up with stitches top and bottom, being cared for on a maternity ward where everyone has a baby and meanwhile your commissioning parents are cheerfully making off with the baby.

Of the women coming forward to 'help' couples order a newborn baby, I wonder how many are:
Lone parents of a young child/children
Single women under the age of 30
Women with a history of poor emotional health
Women isolated from family network
Women isolated from friends
Women earning minimum wage

The very nature of marketing on platforms such as Facebook and asking women to help to do something amazing will draw certain women to be lured into this.

WeRoarSometimes, that is such a good post.

I could imagine a young woman in dire financial straits being tempted to be a surrogate, without thinking of the long term implications, just desperate for money.

It's frightening. I hope it is stopped altogether soon. However I do not want to stigmatise any child already here who has been born that way. Ideally it would be a private matter anyway, nobody would need to know any details if the parents were a heterosexual couple. With a gay couple it would be obvious that some sort of donor was involved.

Thanks @Maggiesfarm
No-one wants to burden the children born as a result of surrogacy arrangements. They should have the same rights as all children living in the UK.

The responsibilities should all sit with the commissioning parents.
In broader terms policymakers and lawmakers who have a duty to protect the vulnerable in society.

I notice that Dame Diane Jackson is on the APPG for Surrogacy.
Interestingly, she is also the chair of the APPG for Sexual Exploitation
as well as being on the APPG for Sexual and Reproductive Health.

I feel she could be a sensible voice on the APPG for Surrogacy and advocate for the rights of vulnerable women.

Here's a link to the APPG information, it's from last autumn.
(Apologies if this has been posted before).
www.andrewpercy.org/storage/app/media/appgs/Surrogacy%20APPG%204.pdf

I feel she could be a sensible voice on the APPG for Surrogacy and advocate for the rights of vulnerable women.

Do you think it would be worth writing to her @WeRoarSometimes ?

With the APPG sounding like it's a fait accompli I do think it's worth showing that it's not socially acceptable to some of us anyway. It does sound like she would be a critical voice or one to lend balance.

Oh yes.
What do we have to lose other than a bit of time. I appreciate none of us are blessed with lots of free time though.
I'm going to write to her this week if I can.
She already has an interest in women being exploited and why women's reproductive rights need attention, particularly at a time when her political party aren't so welcoming to adult females.

@WeRoarSometimes

Of the women coming forward to 'help' couples order a newborn baby, I wonder how many are: Lone parents of a young child/children Single women under the age of 30 Women with a history of poor emotional health Women isolated from family network Women isolated from friends Women earning minimum wage

The very nature of marketing on platforms such as Facebook and asking women to help to do something amazing will draw certain women to be lured into this.

This!!!!

I know plenty of very altruistic, upper middle class women who work in charities and volunteer to help those in need...most are selfless and generous women, who have given gifts of time, expertise and money.

Yet, interestingly, not one of them has considered surrogacy as a way to "give back," to their communities.

I read through many of the posts here and feel bad at attacks on @OhHolyJesus who I have never seen as disrespectful.

Why attack women whose activism is inspired by protecting vulnerable women and children?

I used the slavery example below as I'm an American-but it's an interesting comparison because abolitionists were routinely told to butt out of discourse on slave labor. But aren't we happy they didn't listen?

Thank you Delphinium I appreciate that x

This story came up today, a Scottish couple and the woman has crohns disease and even if she could get pregnant the doctors advised her it would be very dangerous for her health. This is of course very sad, she is a young woman and was diagnosed almost a decade ago.

Interestingly they signed up with COTS

"But voluntary surrogates are rare so the East Ayrshire couple have been advised they too much be proactive in the search for a life-changing stranger"

So they have paid the membership fees but still need to do the hard graft of finding the woman who will have a baby for them. I thought COTS were a matching service?

"Robyn added: "Surrogacy isn't something that a lot of people know or understand and it is a complex thing to go through for everyone involved. But this is the only way we can have our own biological bundle of joy."

Well it's not the only way to have a child.

"We are not long into the journey and we know it can take a long time but we are just hoping someone amazing will come along and help us create our family."

And the love bombing begins. Someone amazing, well of course it's an 'amazing' thing to do as it's risky and painful and emotionally and physically taxing so to do all that for someone else, for no payment is considered very generous. But it's still making a baby so to give it away.

"Robyn said: "Obviously they tell you to look at friends and family first, because it is all about trust so having someone you know is usually recommended.
"I have spoken to one of my close friends and someone in my family but it is such a huge thing to take on, I understand why people are reluctant."

Reluctant or said no? Is this a form of coercion where you provoke sympathy or even guilt, to get someone to do what you want them to do for you?

I'm just exploring this I'm not saying that is what is happening in this situation. I think the praise put to women who decide to do this must be a motivational factor, you're told how amazing you are all the time. I can understand why, when that goes away, you want it back again.

@OhHolyJesus

Thank you Delphinium I appreciate that x

This story came up today, a Scottish couple and the woman has crohns disease and even if she could get pregnant the doctors advised her it would be very dangerous for her health. This is of course very sad, she is a young woman and was diagnosed almost a decade ago.

Interestingly they signed up with COTS

"But voluntary surrogates are rare so the East Ayrshire couple have been advised they too much be proactive in the search for a life-changing stranger"

So they have paid the membership fees but still need to do the hard graft of finding the woman who will have a baby for them. I thought COTS were a matching service?

"Robyn added: "Surrogacy isn't something that a lot of people know or understand and it is a complex thing to go through for everyone involved. But this is the only way we can have our own biological bundle of joy."

Well it's not the only way to have a child.

"We are not long into the journey and we know it can take a long time but we are just hoping someone amazing will come along and help us create our family."

And the love bombing begins. Someone amazing, well of course it's an 'amazing' thing to do as it's risky and painful and emotionally and physically taxing so to do all that for someone else, for no payment is considered very generous. But it's still making a baby so to give it away.

"Robyn said: "Obviously they tell you to look at friends and family first, because it is all about trust so having someone you know is usually recommended.
"I have spoken to one of my close friends and someone in my family but it is such a huge thing to take on, I understand why people are reluctant."

Reluctant or said no? Is this a form of coercion where you provoke sympathy or even guilt, to get someone to do what you want them to do for you?

I'm just exploring this I'm not saying that is what is happening in this situation. I think the praise put to women who decide to do this must be a motivational factor, you're told how amazing you are all the time. I can understand why, when that goes away, you want it back again.

Why is their need for ‘a biological bundle of joy’ so great that it trumps the health and safety of another person? Why must the child be a biological one? Why must one person’s bodily limitations be overcome by another person sacrificing their own body?

And it’s true with the love-bombing. I am sure the commissioning parents are very grateful but it does make me feel uncomfortable, especially as the surrogate is expected to act ‘altruistically’ and just bask in the feeling that she is making people happy, regardless of the impact on her own body. Do we ever expect men to act altruistically with respect to their bodies?

It is crazy and very acceptable to some people their desire for a child takes over, now celebrities are doing it saves them working out afterwards it'll become more popular.
I had a disagreement with a friend she didn't see any issue with it, considered it a win/win sell baby beat poverty.

I have no problem with surrogacy so long as it is tightly regulated to prevent exploitation of surrogate mothers and/or the resultant children. I do believe that women are fully capable of giving informed consent to be a surrogate and that the ethics/morality of surrogacy should be left to each individual woman to decide, not the State.

There is a lot of speculation in this thread with unfounded generalised statements about psychological harm to the children of surrogacy as well as surrogate mothers. Anecdotal stories of surrogacy gone well or wrong are just snap shots of evidence, but not the full picture of what most children of surrogacy or surrogate women experience.

I think it is therefore important to look at the scientific studies to date on the overall impact of surrogacy. And the studies to date show that there are often no significant differences in psychological outcomes and adjustment between children conceived naturally and their families and those children born through third-party reproduction, their families and those individuals serving as surrogates:

Psychological Outcomes and Adjustment of Children

Soderstrom-Anttila et al (1) conducted a systematic review to summarize current knowledge of the medical and psychological outcomes of surrogate mothers, intended parents and the children born of surrogacy. Results indicated no major psychological differences between the children from 1-10 years of age. However, one study found that at 7 years of age, children born via surrogacy showed higher levels of adjustment difficulties than children born via gamete donation; however, this difference disappeared at 10 years of age.

Psychological Outcomes and Adjustment of Adolescents and Young Adults

Golombok and colleagues (2) assessed the psychological health of adolescents (age 14) between those born through reproductive donation (donor insemination, egg donation and surrogacy) and natural conception. Overall, there were no significant differences found in quality of mother-adolescent relationships.

Based on parental ratings, differences were found in regards to gestational link, with surrogacy families exhibiting lower levels of negative parenting and family relationship difficulties and greater parental acceptance, than in gamete donation families. Also, greater family relationship difficulties and lower parental acceptance were found in egg donation versus donor insemination families. Interestingly, per adolescent report, there were no differences found in adjustment, wellbeing or self-esteem between any family types.

In a recent study by Zadeh et al,(3) directly assessing the perspectives of adolescents (age 14) raised in heterosexual two-parent families conceived using surrogacy or gamete donation (egg or sperm), when asked about their feelings regarding their conception, the majority of respondents described feeling indifferent; reported an interest in contact with the surrogate or donor; and positive feelings about the surrogate or donor. None of the adolescents reported feelings of distress concerning their conception.

Psychological Outcomes and Adjustment of Intended Parents and Families

In a recent study, Van Rijn-van Gelderen et al (4) found no differences in parental well-being, namely parental stress, psychological adjustment and partner relationship satisfaction, between gay-father families with infants born through surrogacy, lesbian-mother families with infants born through donor insemination and heterosexual-parent families with infants born through IVF.

Soderstrom-Anttila et al (1) found no difference in parents’ psychological states or mother-child interactions between mothers using a surrogate, mothers receiving oocyte donation and mothers who conceived naturally. There were differences in marital quality and parenting stress noted in two studies, but these differences disappeared over time.

Psychological Outcomes and Adjustment of Donors and Surrogates

In their systematic review, Soderstrom-Anttila et al (1) found no significant psychopathology noted among surrogate mothers. Concerning contact, the majority of studies indicated regular and harmonious contact during pregnancy and after birth.

The frequency of contact decreased while relationship quality maintained, even after 10 years. Some relinquishing difficulties were noted in one study. This review also included one study examining the wellbeing, family relationships and experiences of the surrogate mothers’ own children. Results indicated no negative consequences as a result of the mother’s role as a surrogate.

References

1. Soderstrom-Anttila V, Wennerholm U, Loft A, Pinborg A, Aittomaki K, Romundstad, L, et al. Surrogacy: Outcomes for surrogate mothers, children and the resulting families-a systematic review. Human Reproduction Update. 2016;22(2):260-276.

1. Golombok S, Ilioi E, Blake L, Roman G, Jadva V. A longitudinal study of families formed through reproductive donation: Parent-adolescent relationships and adolescent adjustment at age 14. Developmental Psychology. 2017;53(10):1966-1977.

3.Zadeh S, Ilioi EC, Jadva V, Golombok S. The perspectives of adolescents conceived using surrogacy, egg or sperm donation. Human Reproduction. 2018;33(6):1099-1106.

4.Van Rijn-van Gelderen L, Bos HWM, Jorgensen TD, Ellis-Davies K, Winstanley A, Golombok S, et al. Wellbeing of gay fathers with children born through surrogacy: A comparison with lesbian-mother families and heterosexual IVF parent families. Human Reproduction. 2018;33(1):101-108

@EmeraldShamrock

It is crazy and very acceptable to some people their desire for a child takes over, now celebrities are doing it saves them working out afterwards it'll become more popular. I had a disagreement with a friend she didn't see any issue with it, considered it a win/win sell baby beat poverty.

Presumably she’d have issues with the sell kidney beat poverty for residents in slums in Brazil though? Or is it only womb-rental that’s okay?

The tales from Ukraine and other countries are horrific. Disabled babies being dumped in orphanages with zero hope for the future because they aren’t what the commissioning parents wanted. And the mothers are impoverished beyond belief and this is not a free choice for them.

We gloss it over and give it a friendly face because it benefits rich people and men.

the ethics/morality of surrogacy should be left to each individual woman to decide, not the State.
Ethics go out the window if you're from a poor country.
If it was legal to pay for a baby in the UK or Ireland it'd only be disadvantaged women from poverty in line for the job.
The longterm psychology effects would depend on their parents and their situation.
There is no age limit parents in their 50's having DC who wants to be a teenager with parents in their 60's.
Then the black market or the DC born with disabilities that parents won't take they're left in care on the Ukraine.
There was a case or a few unknown to the couple when they didn't use new mum's donor eggs.
It is a fabulous gift for any parent struggling with infertility it needs stronger regulation.

Between 2000/2500 surrogate babies are born each year, sites advertise guaranteed baby. I'm wondering how many they have put through insemination who didn't conceive or maybe 2 did they could pass on the 2nd baby as someone else's. DNA testing on departure unless a donor egg was used.

@EmeraldShamrock
Ethics go out the window if you're from a poor country.

That’s a shocking thing to say. Women in poor countries are just as ethical as those from rich countries. Their ethics may be different from yours due to cultural differences, but that doesn’t mean ethics do not exist in poor countries.

The longterm psychology effects would depend on their parents and their situation.

Well yes, and as I posted several studies and surveys of hundreds of studies have repeatedly shown no difference in psychological well being of children/teens born by surrogacy and children/teens born naturally. Posters here are scaremongering when they talk about “4th trimester” and “harm of taking a baby away from birth mother”....their opinion that these actions cause harm is not supported by the scientific evidence. The opinion is based on their own moral code rather than logic. It’s not dissimilar from anti-abortion activists that claim abortions cause women untold psychological distress due to guilt and regret (when scientific evidence says the opposite...)

@PlanDeRaccordement

The longterm psychology effects would depend on their parents and their situation.

Well yes, and as I posted several studies and surveys of hundreds of studies have repeatedly shown no difference in psychological well being of children/teens born by surrogacy and children/teens born naturally. Posters here are scaremongering when they talk about “4th trimester” and “harm of taking a baby away from birth mother”....their opinion that these actions cause harm is not supported by the scientific evidence. The opinion is based on their own moral code rather than logic. It’s not dissimilar from anti-abortion activists that claim abortions cause women untold psychological distress due to guilt and regret (when scientific evidence says the opposite...)

I’ve only seen small studies on this - too small to draw firm conclusions. How is it that removing a child from the birth mother in adoption causes known harm (attachment disorder), even when removal is immediately upon birth but there are no issues when a contract has been signed? Either it is not good to remove a child from the woman who gave birth to it or it has no effect. And why are we aware of the adverse impacts of adoption on the adopted child, yet no such effects are felt by children born of surrogacy?

How is it that removing a child from the birth mother in adoption causes known harm (attachment disorder)

Evidence?