Showing posts with label surrogate mother. Show all posts
Showing posts with label surrogate mother. Show all posts
Monday, 12 August 2013
Coming out of the infertility closet
Although one-in-six U.S. couples face problems conceiving, many still feel funny telling others that they are undergoing treatment. In fact, infertility is one of the last great cultural taboos. One survey of infertile couples conducted by the pharmaceutical companies Schering-Plough and Merck found that 61% hid their infertility from family and friends, and half didn’t share it with their mothers. Why the secrecy? The study also found that seven-in-10 women admitted that being infertile made them feel “flawed,” and half of men reported feeling “inadequate.”
It’s no wonder then that talk show host Jimmy Fallon waited two weeks after the birth of his daughter Winnie Rose to reveal that she was carried by a surrogate. “My wife and I had been trying for a while to have a baby,” Fallon told Today’s Savannah Guthrie Friday morning. “We tried a bunch of things. So we had a surrogate.”
Fallon’s openness came as a surprise, considering that most celebrities have been notoriously mum on the subject. Who can blame them? Remember all the rampant speculating about whether Kate Middleton had infertility problems? And—gasp!—was Baby George conceived via IVF?
We should applaud Fallon—along with his wife and other high-profile women willing to share their stories—for going public with facts so many would prefer to keep hidden.
Article: 11th August 2013 www.ideas.time.com Read more...
Saturday, 24 March 2012
Mother who had a baby through surrogacy challenges legal right to maternity leave
A mother who had a baby through a surrogate has launched landmark legal action for the right to paid maternity leave
Her employer refused to give her maternity leave, so she went to an employment tribunal. The woman, who has been allowed to remain anonymous by judges, was refused the leave by her employer when she became a mother. She is suing her employer, alleging sex and maternity discrimination, and has taken her case to the European Court of Justice (ECJ) to decide whether the British laws comply with European Union directives, which could force a change in the rules. The court is expected to make a decision later this year.
An estimated 70 women became mothers through surrogates last year and campaigners say they deserve the same rights as other women. Natalie Gamble, an expert in fertility law, said that only mothers who were pregnant or those who have adopted are entitled to take maternity leave under the existing rules, which left “a gap” in cases where mothers used surrogates. Stuart Walne, a spokesman for Surrogacy UK, a support organisation, said the rules created an added “trauma” for these women, who faced disputes over paid leave.
The woman started working as a midwife sonographer for her employer in July 2001. Her baby was born through a surrogate mother in August last year and the woman began breastfeeding the child soon after the birth, something that can be induced through hormone treatments and drugs. Her employer offered a career break, reduced hours and unpaid leave, but refused to give her maternity leave, so she went to an employment tribunal. It ruled that the issue had to be decided by the ECJ.
A spokesman for the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills said that there were no plans to change the law regarding people who have a child through surrogacy.
Natalie Gamble has stated 'We hope the case will make a significant difference, although it is unlikely to do so for some time'. Read more about surrogacy law at www.prideangel.com
Her employer refused to give her maternity leave, so she went to an employment tribunal. The woman, who has been allowed to remain anonymous by judges, was refused the leave by her employer when she became a mother. She is suing her employer, alleging sex and maternity discrimination, and has taken her case to the European Court of Justice (ECJ) to decide whether the British laws comply with European Union directives, which could force a change in the rules. The court is expected to make a decision later this year.
An estimated 70 women became mothers through surrogates last year and campaigners say they deserve the same rights as other women. Natalie Gamble, an expert in fertility law, said that only mothers who were pregnant or those who have adopted are entitled to take maternity leave under the existing rules, which left “a gap” in cases where mothers used surrogates. Stuart Walne, a spokesman for Surrogacy UK, a support organisation, said the rules created an added “trauma” for these women, who faced disputes over paid leave.
The woman started working as a midwife sonographer for her employer in July 2001. Her baby was born through a surrogate mother in August last year and the woman began breastfeeding the child soon after the birth, something that can be induced through hormone treatments and drugs. Her employer offered a career break, reduced hours and unpaid leave, but refused to give her maternity leave, so she went to an employment tribunal. It ruled that the issue had to be decided by the ECJ.
A spokesman for the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills said that there were no plans to change the law regarding people who have a child through surrogacy.
Natalie Gamble has stated 'We hope the case will make a significant difference, although it is unlikely to do so for some time'. Read more about surrogacy law at www.prideangel.com
Wednesday, 14 September 2011
Can you trust your surrogacy lawyer?
Theresa Erickson, a high profile Californian attorney specialising in assisted reproduction law (self-styled online and in the media as ‘the surrogacy lawyer’) pleaded guilty last month to charges relating to her involvement in a baby selling scam. The case has sent shock waves through the US assisted reproduction law community, which is reeling at the disgrace of one of its best known members.
But although the story is shocking, I would hate to think that wider conclusions might be drawn about the way in which commercial surrogacy is practiced (legally) in many US states, or that US surrogacy lawyers in general should not be trusted. As well as being a story about the wrongs, this is a story of ethical boundaries being enforced, and a story of reputable US surrogacy attorneys who ensured that an unethical and illegal scheme was exposed and stopped.
How did the scheme work?
According to news reports and information posted online from those involved, Ms Erickson, working with another lawyer, Ms Neiman, and a third woman, Ms Chambers, recruited ‘surrogate mothers’ in the USA and arranged for them to travel to the Ukraine where embryos were transferred which had been created with donated eggs and sperm. The birth mothers were assured that this was perfectly legal and was ‘just another way of doing surrogacy’, and that there was a long list of intended parents waiting for their help.
Once the birth mothers were three months’ pregnant then – and only then – would the conspirators advertise for prospective intended parents. The couples who approached them were told, falsely, that intended parents had backed out of a planned surrogacy and that, for a substantial fee, they could step in. Ms Erickson then filed fraudulent papers with the Californian court to enable the parents to be named on the birth certificate. The scheme was said to have been carried out on at least twelve occasions.
What happened to expose the scam?
One of the birth mothers involved, suspecting something was amiss, approached another US assisted reproduction attorney for advice about whether this really was legitimate surrogacy practice. The attorney was concerned and contacted the chair of the American Bar Association’s Assisted Reproductive Technology Committee. He approached Ms Erickson to ask her about the scheme (she denied any involvement) and then, with the support of a colleague based in California where Ms Erickson was based, followed his professional duty to report dishonest or criminal conduct, and referred the case to the FBI. Following an investigation, Ms Erickson was charged and pleaded guilty. She is currently awaiting sentencing and faces up to five years in prison.
(I should add that the intended parents involved, all of whom were exonerated of any wrongdoing, have since been legally confirmed as the parents of the children they have, in effect, adopted).
Why was the scheme wrong?
This baby-making scam was so deeply and fundamentally wrong that it is difficult to know where to start. What shocks me the most, I suppose, was the flagrant disregard for all those involved – for the birth mothers who became pregnant on the basis of a lie (and the abuse of trust, relying on the reputation of a well-known lawyer, which that involved), for the intended parents whose desperation was exploited so greedily, and most of all for the preciousness of the lives of the children conceived, not within a loving family, but by design and for profit.
This was not, on anyone’s definition, really surrogacy. Under UK law, surrogacy involves artificial conception with the gametes of one or both of the intended parents (which quite obviously has to involve the intended parents from the outset). The rules are different in California, but surrogacy still has to involve an arrangement between specific individuals made before conception. Baby selling or adoption for profit is therefore probably a more accurate categorisation, although of course Ms Erickson was a well known surrogacy lawyer and so those involved were able to ‘sell’ the scam as surrogacy.
Interestingly, Ms Erickson was ultimately convicted, not of baby selling or any offences directly related to assisted reproduction, but of wire transfer fraud. Given the context, this has the resonance of Al Capone being convicted for tax evasion. However, I suppose it is appropriate that Ms Erickson has been held to account for deception (the scheme had, as I understand it, involved lies to the surrogates, the intended parents and even the Californian court). If the rules are anything like they are in the UK, whether or not she goes to prison, Ms Erickson will never be able to practice law again.
To read more go to http://bit.ly/ri0LQO
But although the story is shocking, I would hate to think that wider conclusions might be drawn about the way in which commercial surrogacy is practiced (legally) in many US states, or that US surrogacy lawyers in general should not be trusted. As well as being a story about the wrongs, this is a story of ethical boundaries being enforced, and a story of reputable US surrogacy attorneys who ensured that an unethical and illegal scheme was exposed and stopped.
How did the scheme work?
According to news reports and information posted online from those involved, Ms Erickson, working with another lawyer, Ms Neiman, and a third woman, Ms Chambers, recruited ‘surrogate mothers’ in the USA and arranged for them to travel to the Ukraine where embryos were transferred which had been created with donated eggs and sperm. The birth mothers were assured that this was perfectly legal and was ‘just another way of doing surrogacy’, and that there was a long list of intended parents waiting for their help.
Once the birth mothers were three months’ pregnant then – and only then – would the conspirators advertise for prospective intended parents. The couples who approached them were told, falsely, that intended parents had backed out of a planned surrogacy and that, for a substantial fee, they could step in. Ms Erickson then filed fraudulent papers with the Californian court to enable the parents to be named on the birth certificate. The scheme was said to have been carried out on at least twelve occasions.
What happened to expose the scam?
One of the birth mothers involved, suspecting something was amiss, approached another US assisted reproduction attorney for advice about whether this really was legitimate surrogacy practice. The attorney was concerned and contacted the chair of the American Bar Association’s Assisted Reproductive Technology Committee. He approached Ms Erickson to ask her about the scheme (she denied any involvement) and then, with the support of a colleague based in California where Ms Erickson was based, followed his professional duty to report dishonest or criminal conduct, and referred the case to the FBI. Following an investigation, Ms Erickson was charged and pleaded guilty. She is currently awaiting sentencing and faces up to five years in prison.
(I should add that the intended parents involved, all of whom were exonerated of any wrongdoing, have since been legally confirmed as the parents of the children they have, in effect, adopted).
Why was the scheme wrong?
This baby-making scam was so deeply and fundamentally wrong that it is difficult to know where to start. What shocks me the most, I suppose, was the flagrant disregard for all those involved – for the birth mothers who became pregnant on the basis of a lie (and the abuse of trust, relying on the reputation of a well-known lawyer, which that involved), for the intended parents whose desperation was exploited so greedily, and most of all for the preciousness of the lives of the children conceived, not within a loving family, but by design and for profit.
This was not, on anyone’s definition, really surrogacy. Under UK law, surrogacy involves artificial conception with the gametes of one or both of the intended parents (which quite obviously has to involve the intended parents from the outset). The rules are different in California, but surrogacy still has to involve an arrangement between specific individuals made before conception. Baby selling or adoption for profit is therefore probably a more accurate categorisation, although of course Ms Erickson was a well known surrogacy lawyer and so those involved were able to ‘sell’ the scam as surrogacy.
Interestingly, Ms Erickson was ultimately convicted, not of baby selling or any offences directly related to assisted reproduction, but of wire transfer fraud. Given the context, this has the resonance of Al Capone being convicted for tax evasion. However, I suppose it is appropriate that Ms Erickson has been held to account for deception (the scheme had, as I understand it, involved lies to the surrogates, the intended parents and even the Californian court). If the rules are anything like they are in the UK, whether or not she goes to prison, Ms Erickson will never be able to practice law again.
To read more go to http://bit.ly/ri0LQO
Sunday, 11 September 2011
Surrogate mother abandoned with twins by intended couple
Cathleen Hachey’s first try as a surrogate mother took a heartbreaking turn when she was abandoned via text message last spring, 27 weeks into the pregnancy she’d initiated to help another couple start a family.
The young New Brunswick stay-at-home mom was carrying twins for a British couple. But three months before Hachey’s due date, the couple declared their marriage had ended and they would not be coming for the babies.
Hachey, 20, who was already the mother of a 1- and 2-year-old, delivered the twins — a boy and a girl — on June 28. She was able to find the twins an adoptive home, but experts in the field say the episode is a lesson on the need for better safeguards for both surrogate mothers and the intended parents.
Without a lawyer or a fertility doctor to advise her, Hachey was left vulnerable and outside Canada’s fertility laws. “Here’s a lovely, trusting young woman who should have taken care of herself,” says Sherry Levitan, a Toronto-based fertility lawyer. “The law is there for a reason.”
Hachey, who lives in Bathurst, N.B., tried to do what experts say all surrogate mothers should do before she agreed to carry a child for the couple in Hertfordshire, England, whom she met through the website Surrogate Mothers Online.
She spent about six months getting to know them, speaking with them daily by phone. She met the pair when they flew to New Brunswick in November. The three signed a surrogacy contract prepared by the couple that declared them the child’s legal parents and granted Hachey $200 per month for expenses related to her pregnancy.
The trio decided Hachey would be a “traditional” surrogate: she would use her own egg and the husband’s sperm to conceive the child because the wife suffered from polycystic ovarian syndrome and was unable to conceive or carry a baby.
Surrogacy advocates frown upon this approach, and few fertility clinics will agree to inseminate women who choose it. So Hachey performed an “at home” insemination using a medical syringe and semen from a cup.
“Traditional surrogacy is too fraught with issues,” says Toronto fertility lawyer Nancy Lam. The child is genetically connected to the surrogate, unlike in a much more common “gestational” surrogacy, in which the surrogate mother carries a baby conceived with a donated egg and has no genetic connection to the child she delivers.
The traditional surrogacy complicated Hachey’s situation, leaving her even more vulnerable when the couple backed out 27 weeks into her pregnancy. The intended mother sent Hachey a text message stating the couple had separated and she wouldn’t be taking the unborn boy and girl because she felt that as a single mother she couldn’t care for twins.
“It said she mentally couldn’t handle herself right now,” Hachey recalls, “so she didn’t think she can handle two other human beings.” The expectant mother was stunned: “They were my biological children so they were my biological problem.”
With the help of a friend, Hachey did find a Nova Scotia couple who had been waiting several years to adopt and were overjoyed to take the twins. “It was hard,” she says. “If I was in a better position, I would have kept them.”
But she had to care for her two children alone because her fiancé left 18 weeks into her surrogate pregnancy. Faced with the prospect of sole breadwinner for a family of four, he said he couldn’t cope with the financial stress. They have since reunited.
The Star was not able to reach the intended parents in England.
To read more go to http://bit.ly/oZs986
The young New Brunswick stay-at-home mom was carrying twins for a British couple. But three months before Hachey’s due date, the couple declared their marriage had ended and they would not be coming for the babies.
Hachey, 20, who was already the mother of a 1- and 2-year-old, delivered the twins — a boy and a girl — on June 28. She was able to find the twins an adoptive home, but experts in the field say the episode is a lesson on the need for better safeguards for both surrogate mothers and the intended parents.
Without a lawyer or a fertility doctor to advise her, Hachey was left vulnerable and outside Canada’s fertility laws. “Here’s a lovely, trusting young woman who should have taken care of herself,” says Sherry Levitan, a Toronto-based fertility lawyer. “The law is there for a reason.”
Hachey, who lives in Bathurst, N.B., tried to do what experts say all surrogate mothers should do before she agreed to carry a child for the couple in Hertfordshire, England, whom she met through the website Surrogate Mothers Online.
She spent about six months getting to know them, speaking with them daily by phone. She met the pair when they flew to New Brunswick in November. The three signed a surrogacy contract prepared by the couple that declared them the child’s legal parents and granted Hachey $200 per month for expenses related to her pregnancy.
The trio decided Hachey would be a “traditional” surrogate: she would use her own egg and the husband’s sperm to conceive the child because the wife suffered from polycystic ovarian syndrome and was unable to conceive or carry a baby.
Surrogacy advocates frown upon this approach, and few fertility clinics will agree to inseminate women who choose it. So Hachey performed an “at home” insemination using a medical syringe and semen from a cup.
“Traditional surrogacy is too fraught with issues,” says Toronto fertility lawyer Nancy Lam. The child is genetically connected to the surrogate, unlike in a much more common “gestational” surrogacy, in which the surrogate mother carries a baby conceived with a donated egg and has no genetic connection to the child she delivers.
The traditional surrogacy complicated Hachey’s situation, leaving her even more vulnerable when the couple backed out 27 weeks into her pregnancy. The intended mother sent Hachey a text message stating the couple had separated and she wouldn’t be taking the unborn boy and girl because she felt that as a single mother she couldn’t care for twins.
“It said she mentally couldn’t handle herself right now,” Hachey recalls, “so she didn’t think she can handle two other human beings.” The expectant mother was stunned: “They were my biological children so they were my biological problem.”
With the help of a friend, Hachey did find a Nova Scotia couple who had been waiting several years to adopt and were overjoyed to take the twins. “It was hard,” she says. “If I was in a better position, I would have kept them.”
But she had to care for her two children alone because her fiancé left 18 weeks into her surrogate pregnancy. Faced with the prospect of sole breadwinner for a family of four, he said he couldn’t cope with the financial stress. They have since reunited.
The Star was not able to reach the intended parents in England.
To read more go to http://bit.ly/oZs986
Sunday, 24 April 2011
Surrogate mother to 6 pregnancies, says this is to be her last
Amanda Broomhall, 39, from Penhill, has two children of her own, but since 1997 has helped couples from all over the UK have babies. Surrogacy UK has recently recorded a surge of interest following high-profile surrogacy stories concerning Elton John and Nicole Kidman. Miss Broomhall said that surrogacy was something she "fell into".
She said: "I can, so I thought why not if it helps somebody else? People give blood and give bone marrow. I'm just using a part of my body that would otherwise lay dormant."
Surrogate arrangements are usually set up through agencies, although private arrangements can be made. As a surrogate in the UK, it is illegal for Miss Broomhall to receive payment, although some couples have offered her large sums of money to carry their child.
"People can be desperate," she said. "People ring me up and say 'can you help me have a baby?' and when I tell them I can't at the moment they say, 'I'll pay you lots of money'. They think if they throw money at me I will help them. They think they can buy a child."
For each birth, Miss Broomhall only takes two weeks off work and has never let the process affect her day-to-day life. She said: "If I sat at home and rested as other new mothers do when they are looking after their new baby, I don't think that would help me. I want to get my life back on track, so that's the way I deal with it."
However, nine weeks into her sixth surrogate pregnancy, Miss Broomhall has decided that this time will be her last. She said her age was the main factor in her decision to give up. "I'm not as young as I used to be," she said.
To read more go to
She said: "I can, so I thought why not if it helps somebody else? People give blood and give bone marrow. I'm just using a part of my body that would otherwise lay dormant."
Surrogate arrangements are usually set up through agencies, although private arrangements can be made. As a surrogate in the UK, it is illegal for Miss Broomhall to receive payment, although some couples have offered her large sums of money to carry their child.
"People can be desperate," she said. "People ring me up and say 'can you help me have a baby?' and when I tell them I can't at the moment they say, 'I'll pay you lots of money'. They think if they throw money at me I will help them. They think they can buy a child."
For each birth, Miss Broomhall only takes two weeks off work and has never let the process affect her day-to-day life. She said: "If I sat at home and rested as other new mothers do when they are looking after their new baby, I don't think that would help me. I want to get my life back on track, so that's the way I deal with it."
However, nine weeks into her sixth surrogate pregnancy, Miss Broomhall has decided that this time will be her last. She said her age was the main factor in her decision to give up. "I'm not as young as I used to be," she said.
To read more go to
Thursday, 7 April 2011
Neice acts as Surrogate, ending 15 year fertility struggle for her Aunt
A 29-year-old woman has given birth to her own 'cousin' after agreeing to help in her aunt's 15-year fertility fight. Emma Vaughan, 29, donated her eggs to her 42-year-old aunt Sandra Barlow and uncle Chris and acted as a surrogate for the birth. Miss Vaughan has now given birth to a baby girl called Maia, who is her biological daughter but her cousin by law after Mrs Barlow applied for a parental order.
It brings Mr and Mrs Barlow's 15-year battle to conceive to an end. Their hopes of having a baby naturally were dashed early on when doctors told Mrs Barlow that her fallopian tubes had fused shut and had to be removed.
She was sent for a dye test, where dye is injected into the cervix and uterus to check the fallopian tubes. It showed they were completely blocked and she was operated on immediately. After she recovered, she and her husband, 50, decided to try IVF. In total they spent £40,000 on seven cycles over five years, with Mrs Barlow suffering two miscarriages.
Then in 2008 the couple from Maidstone, Kent, made the decision to seek help from someone in their family, namely their niece Emma. Mrs Barlow said: 'Surrogacy seemed like our only hope. I did some research and looked at a surrogacy agency website. 'I was in awe that people did these amazing things for complete strangers but I wanted to do it within the family. I started to think who in the family could help us. I'm not sure what made me think of Emma.' Emma is the daughter of Mrs Barlow's brother Jim but they lost touch when Emma's parents split up and she moved away to live with her mother. They were reunited 11 years ago after meeting at Jim's funeral and have stayed in regular contact since.
Mrs Barlow said she spent months agonising over whether she should ask her niece before mentioning it to her husband. She said: 'I could tell he was shocked but he said: "We've got nothing to lose". When I rang Emma she instantly said yes. I told her to take some time to think about it but she never hesitated.'
Shortly afterwards, Mrs Barlow joined a surrogacy agency for advice about what would be involved. The couple signed a surrogacy agreement with Emma, although these agreements are not legally binding. 'Sandra and Chris never put me under pressure. It was my choice, I knew I could do it'
To read more go to
It brings Mr and Mrs Barlow's 15-year battle to conceive to an end. Their hopes of having a baby naturally were dashed early on when doctors told Mrs Barlow that her fallopian tubes had fused shut and had to be removed.
She was sent for a dye test, where dye is injected into the cervix and uterus to check the fallopian tubes. It showed they were completely blocked and she was operated on immediately. After she recovered, she and her husband, 50, decided to try IVF. In total they spent £40,000 on seven cycles over five years, with Mrs Barlow suffering two miscarriages.
Then in 2008 the couple from Maidstone, Kent, made the decision to seek help from someone in their family, namely their niece Emma. Mrs Barlow said: 'Surrogacy seemed like our only hope. I did some research and looked at a surrogacy agency website. 'I was in awe that people did these amazing things for complete strangers but I wanted to do it within the family. I started to think who in the family could help us. I'm not sure what made me think of Emma.' Emma is the daughter of Mrs Barlow's brother Jim but they lost touch when Emma's parents split up and she moved away to live with her mother. They were reunited 11 years ago after meeting at Jim's funeral and have stayed in regular contact since.
Mrs Barlow said she spent months agonising over whether she should ask her niece before mentioning it to her husband. She said: 'I could tell he was shocked but he said: "We've got nothing to lose". When I rang Emma she instantly said yes. I told her to take some time to think about it but she never hesitated.'
Shortly afterwards, Mrs Barlow joined a surrogacy agency for advice about what would be involved. The couple signed a surrogacy agreement with Emma, although these agreements are not legally binding. 'Sandra and Chris never put me under pressure. It was my choice, I knew I could do it'
To read more go to
Saturday, 26 February 2011
Gay fathers fear following India's surrogacy ban
Gay father Barrie Drewitt Barlow revealed how six gay couples are in a "huge panic" over India's recent ban of surrogacy to gay couples.
Mr Drewitt Barlow, who runs the British Surrogacy Centre with his partner Tony have said “embryos had been transferred to women acting as surrogate, but the men fear they will never see their children”.
The Essex father-of-five, whose children were conceived through US surrogate mothers, warned all Britons against using surrogacy in India. He claimed pimps in India are forcing prostitutes into surrogacy, and families sell their daughters into the service.
"We think ethically it's not the place to carry out surrogacy because women are being exploited," he said. "Most couples go there because it's a cheap option. We discovered the squalor some of these surrogate mothers were living in, it was disgraceful.”
"I've heard of two virgins, both 19, sold by their parents. These girls have recently given birth for two German couples. Both are now pregnant again.”
"I've had at least five emails today from clinics in Mumbai and Hyderabad wanting me to send them English couples who need surrogates. Remember, surrogacy in India is very big business."
To read more go to http://bit.ly/hdZjan
Mr Drewitt Barlow, who runs the British Surrogacy Centre with his partner Tony have said “embryos had been transferred to women acting as surrogate, but the men fear they will never see their children”.
The Essex father-of-five, whose children were conceived through US surrogate mothers, warned all Britons against using surrogacy in India. He claimed pimps in India are forcing prostitutes into surrogacy, and families sell their daughters into the service.
"We think ethically it's not the place to carry out surrogacy because women are being exploited," he said. "Most couples go there because it's a cheap option. We discovered the squalor some of these surrogate mothers were living in, it was disgraceful.”
"I've heard of two virgins, both 19, sold by their parents. These girls have recently given birth for two German couples. Both are now pregnant again.”
"I've had at least five emails today from clinics in Mumbai and Hyderabad wanting me to send them English couples who need surrogates. Remember, surrogacy in India is very big business."
To read more go to http://bit.ly/hdZjan
Friday, 25 February 2011
India to ban gay couples from surrogacy arrangements
India is to ban gay couples from using surrogate mothers. As part of reforms to the country’s surrogacy and fertility treatment laws, only heterosexual couples will be allowed to have children by surrogate.
The Assisted Reproductive Technologies (ART) Regulation Bill 2010 was sent to the law ministry for approval this week. There is apparently nothing in the bill to stop a single gay man from having a surrogate baby, as single men and women will be eligible.
Married and unmarried straight couples who live together will also be permitted to use surrogate mothers. However, women must be able to prove that they cannot have a baby naturally. According to the Evening Standard, a senior Indian official said: “We have to look after the interests of our own citizens as well as handle the tricky matter of the sensitivities of these couples who have not been able to have children in the normal way.
“But above all, we have acted to put some kind of hold on the whole surrogacy issue by banning homosexual couples from coming to India to enter into such deals. India is one of the top destinations for gay and straight couples seeking a surrogate child as it is far more cost-effective than other countries.
In the UK, single people cannot gain full legal rights over their children born by surrogate mother – a problem which affects gay single men in particular. Parental orders are used to extinguish the rights of a biological mother and her husband or partner. However, these can only be granted to couples.
India’s emergence as a surrogacy hotspot has prompted authorities to clamp down on unscrupulous practices, such as the persuading of impoverished women to rent out their wombs. This month, media attention focused on a Spanish gay couple who had twin girls born to a surrogate mother.
The Delhi Commission for Protection of Child Rights ordered the clinic involved to explain its procedures and suggested that the transaction had not been legal. Chariman of the commission Amod Kanth said: “As the Indian laws are yet to approve of a gay marital relationship, the commission shows its grave concern over the issue as to whether the gay foreigner couple have the legal status to assign such surrogacy or having the legal status of adopting parents or otherwise.”
To read more go to http://bit.ly/fqpQFH
The Assisted Reproductive Technologies (ART) Regulation Bill 2010 was sent to the law ministry for approval this week. There is apparently nothing in the bill to stop a single gay man from having a surrogate baby, as single men and women will be eligible.
Married and unmarried straight couples who live together will also be permitted to use surrogate mothers. However, women must be able to prove that they cannot have a baby naturally. According to the Evening Standard, a senior Indian official said: “We have to look after the interests of our own citizens as well as handle the tricky matter of the sensitivities of these couples who have not been able to have children in the normal way.
“But above all, we have acted to put some kind of hold on the whole surrogacy issue by banning homosexual couples from coming to India to enter into such deals. India is one of the top destinations for gay and straight couples seeking a surrogate child as it is far more cost-effective than other countries.
In the UK, single people cannot gain full legal rights over their children born by surrogate mother – a problem which affects gay single men in particular. Parental orders are used to extinguish the rights of a biological mother and her husband or partner. However, these can only be granted to couples.
India’s emergence as a surrogacy hotspot has prompted authorities to clamp down on unscrupulous practices, such as the persuading of impoverished women to rent out their wombs. This month, media attention focused on a Spanish gay couple who had twin girls born to a surrogate mother.
The Delhi Commission for Protection of Child Rights ordered the clinic involved to explain its procedures and suggested that the transaction had not been legal. Chariman of the commission Amod Kanth said: “As the Indian laws are yet to approve of a gay marital relationship, the commission shows its grave concern over the issue as to whether the gay foreigner couple have the legal status to assign such surrogacy or having the legal status of adopting parents or otherwise.”
To read more go to http://bit.ly/fqpQFH
Saturday, 22 January 2011
Surrogate mother allowed to keep her baby
A surrogate mother who had a baby girl for a couple but changed her mind about handing her over is allowed to keep her, a judge has ruled.
The welfare of the six-month-old child, known only as T, "requires her to remain with her mother", said Mr Justice Baker, giving reasons yesterday for a decision he made after a hearing in Birmingham last month.
He said: "In my judgment, there is a clear attachment between mother and daughter. To remove her from her mother's care would cause a measure of harm. It is the mother who, I find, is better able to meet T's needs, in particular her emotional needs."
The judge said the risks of entering into a surrogacy agreement are "very considerable".
He added: "In particular, the natural process of carrying and giving birth to a baby creates an attachment which may be so strong that the surrogate mother finds herself unable to give up the child."
He said the mother met the couple, Mr and Mrs W, over the internet in 2009 and agreed informally that the mother would be inseminated by Mr W, and hand the baby over after the birth.
During the pregnancy, however, she changed her mind, and at T's birth refused to hand over the baby as agreed.
The mother has two older children. Mr W is a chef and he and Mrs W were married in 2005.
After Mr and Mrs W were married, they tried to have a baby themselves, but their attempts resulted in a series of miscarriages, which led them to consider surrogacy.
It was agreed that the mother would act as a surrogate for the Ws, using Mr W's sperm, and she became pregnant, but at some point during the pregnancy, relations between the parties deteriorated.
To read more go to http://bit.ly/e7uV7q
The welfare of the six-month-old child, known only as T, "requires her to remain with her mother", said Mr Justice Baker, giving reasons yesterday for a decision he made after a hearing in Birmingham last month.
He said: "In my judgment, there is a clear attachment between mother and daughter. To remove her from her mother's care would cause a measure of harm. It is the mother who, I find, is better able to meet T's needs, in particular her emotional needs."
The judge said the risks of entering into a surrogacy agreement are "very considerable".
He added: "In particular, the natural process of carrying and giving birth to a baby creates an attachment which may be so strong that the surrogate mother finds herself unable to give up the child."
He said the mother met the couple, Mr and Mrs W, over the internet in 2009 and agreed informally that the mother would be inseminated by Mr W, and hand the baby over after the birth.
During the pregnancy, however, she changed her mind, and at T's birth refused to hand over the baby as agreed.
The mother has two older children. Mr W is a chef and he and Mrs W were married in 2005.
After Mr and Mrs W were married, they tried to have a baby themselves, but their attempts resulted in a series of miscarriages, which led them to consider surrogacy.
It was agreed that the mother would act as a surrogate for the Ws, using Mr W's sperm, and she became pregnant, but at some point during the pregnancy, relations between the parties deteriorated.
To read more go to http://bit.ly/e7uV7q
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
