New York Almost Joined The 21st Century On Gestational Surrogacy, No Thanks To Gloria Steinem

New York continues to be one of the few surprising gestational surrogacy holdouts, with an outdated law based on outdated notions and outdated technology.

The New York bill in support of regulated compensated gestational surrogacy — the Child-Parent Security Act (CPSA) — had the vocal support of Governor Andrew Cuomo, passed the State Senate, and likely had the votes in the House. But it never made it to the floor before the legislative session ended last week. What the heck happened?!new york surrogacy

Some Background.

New York is one of the few states in the country that legally prevents a woman from carrying a hopeful parent’s or couple’s embryo to birth, and receiving compensation for her nine months of intense effort and … labor. Other jurisdictions that had previously banned the practice have since changed course in the last few years — including New Jersey, Washington State, and D.C. In the meantime, New York continues to be one of the few surprising holdouts, with an outdated law based on outdated notions and outdated technology.

As previously discussed in my column, while gestational surrogacy is a big part of the New York bill, the CPSA includes other key protections for parents hoping to conceive using assisted reproductive technology. For example, it fixes the state’s legal loophole that allows sperm donors who donated to a single parent to seek legal rights to the resulting child! And vice-versa, it closes the loophole that currently allows single parents to seek child support from a donor. So these were improvements all around.

 

New York’s ban stems from the disastrous Baby M case in the 1980s. That case occurred in next door New Jersey, where a woman agreed to be inseminated and carry the resulting child for another couple. This type of arrangement is generally referred to as “traditional,” or “genetic surrogacy.” In the Baby M Case, the genetic surrogate changed her mind about giving up the baby, and fled the state with child. Both New Jersey and New York quickly over-corrected and outlawed all compensated surrogacy. Since then, genetic surrogacy has largely been abandoned across the U.S., while gestational surrogacy — where the surrogate is not genetically related to the child she carries — has flourished. Note that the CPSA only aims to legalize gestational surrogacy, not genetic surrogacy, the type found in the Baby M Case. Last year, New Jersey (ground zero for Baby M) recognized that the times and medical practices have changed, and reversed its position by passing supportive gestational surrogacy legislation.

So Close! 

The momentum for the bill was building, and supporters believed that the CPSA had a good shot at becoming law this year. So, what pulled the brakes? I spoke with Denise Seidelman, a prominent New York adoption and surrogacy attorney, and part of a coalition in support of the CPSA. Seidelman shared her experience advocating for the bill. “It was one the most profoundly inspiring, and also intensely disappointing experiences. Emotions were running high on both sides of the issue.”

Seidelman explained her view on some of the factors that led to this not being the CPSA’s year. For one, she noted that the author of the original New York surrogacy ban (from 30 years ago), Helene Weinstein, is still a current member of the Assembly, and she is outspoken in her position, perhaps colored by her experiences of a generation ago.

Seidelman felt another factor in this year’s failure was the timing of a letter by Gloria Steinem, famed author and feminist, against the CPSA. Steinem’s letter was disappointing, and really a bit shocking for those familiar with how surrogacy works. Her letter referred to a 1998 NY Task Force report that came out against surrogacy, with no mention of a more recent and more relevant 2017 NY Task Force report in support of gestational surrogacy, with measured regulation. Unfortunately, Steinem spoke not from firsthand knowledge of the recent experiences of women who choose to be gestational carriers for others, but from a perspective that has long since gone by the wayside.

The letter described how the bill would risk the well-being of the marginalized women in the state — those in conditions of poverty. However, as pointed out in the rebuttal letter written by RESOLVE, the national infertility association, of the women who raise their hands to be surrogates, only about 5 percent are determined to be medically qualified, and are able to move forward. And one of the requirements is that they are financially stable. Additionally, the 2017 Task Force report found that the women who are acting as surrogates are not the marginalized of society, but those not reliant on compensation that may be received from acting as a gestational surrogate. Steinem’s letter is an imagination of the Handmaid’s Tale, but ignores the current reality of what surrogacy is, and how it works.

AboveTheLaw.com, June 26, 2019 by Ellen Trachman

Click here to read the entire article.

in IVF / Legal / Legislation / Recently Added / Surrogacy  by Anthony Brown 0 comments

Infertility? Could a Uterus Transplant Help?

ethicsUterus Transplants May Soon Help Some U.S. Women Struggling With Infertility Become Pregnant

Infertility affects millions of women worldwide and in Cleveland within the next few months, surgeons at the Cleveland Clinic expect to become the first in the United States to transplant a uterus into a woman who lacks one, so that she can become pregnant and give birth.

Six doctors swarmed around the body of the deceased organ donor and quickly started to operate. The kidneys came out first. Then the team began another delicate dissection, to remove an organ that is rarely, if ever, taken from a donor. Ninety minutes later they had it, resting in the palm of a surgeon’s hand: the uterus.

The operation was a practice run. The recipients will be women who were born without a uterus, had it removed or have uterine damage. The transplants will be temporary: The uterus would be removed after the recipient has had one or two babies, so she can stop taking transplant anti-rejection drugs.

Uterine transplantation is a new frontier, one that pairs specialists from two fields known for innovation and for pushing limits, medically and ethically — reproductive medicine and transplant surgery. If the procedure works, many women could benefit: An estimated 50,000 women in the United States might be candidates. But there are potential dangers.

The recipients, healthy women, will face the risks of surgery and anti-rejection drugs for a transplant that they, unlike someone with heart or liver failure, do not need to save their lives. Their pregnancies will be considered high-risk, with fetuses exposed to anti-rejection drugs and developing inside a womb taken from a dead woman.

Eight women from around the country have begun the screening process at the Cleveland Clinic, hoping to be selected for transplants. One, a 26-year-old with two adopted children, said she still wanted a chance to become pregnant and give birth.

“I crave that experience,” she said. “I want the morning sickness, the backaches, the feet swelling. I want to feel the baby move. That is something I’ve wanted for as long as I can remember.”

She traveled more than 1,000 miles to the clinic, paying her own way. She asked that her name and hometown be withheld to protect her family’s privacy.

She was 16 when medical tests, performed because she had not begun menstruating, found that she had ovaries but no uterus — a syndrome that affects about one in 4,500 newborn girls. She comes from a large family, she said, and always assumed that she would have children. The test results were devastating.

Dr. Andreas G. Tzakis, the driving force behind the project, said, “There are women who won’t adopt or have surrogates, for reasons that are personal, cultural or religious.” Dr. Tzakis is the director of solid organ transplant surgery at a Cleveland Clinic hospital in Weston, Fla. “These women know exactly what this is about,” he said. “They’re informed of the risks and benefits. They have a lot of time to think about it, and think about it again. Our job is to make it as safe and successful as possible.”

Click here to read the entire article.

 

New York Times, by Denise Grady – November 12, 2015

in Ethics / In the News / Science  by Anthony Brown 0 comments

Surrogate Legal Expansion Expected in China

Surrogate, Legal Expansion Expected in China

Surrogate businesses in China are expecting a new wave of surrogate legal expansion following the end of the country’s decades-long one-child policy and allow all couples to have a second child, the media reported on Tuesday.

The Communist Party of China’s Central Committee announced on October 29 at the end of a four-day plenary session in Beijing that the country will ease its family planning policy and allow all couples to have two children in order to help deal with the aging population.

A week after the announcement, several surrogacy agencies said there has been an increase in the number of people reaching out to them about having a second child through a surrogate mother, the Global Times reported.

Following second child policy, surrogate legal expansion in China’s surrogacy sector expected

“There are three types of customers; the first type is those who are too old to risk giving birth to a child or due to the fact that the eggs of those aged over 35 have a bigger chance of having chromosomal abnormalities. The second type is those who have problems with the womb,” said an official from a Shanghai surrogacy agency.

“The third type is those who want to decide the gender of the embryo,” Li said.

Surrogacy was officially banned in China after a ruling in 2001 that no medical organisations or personnel would be allowed to be involved in any form of surrogacy. Violators faced a fine of up to 30,000 yuan ($4,730) and had to bear criminal responsibility.

Click here to read the entire article.

 

Daijiworld.com, November 5, 2015

in In the News / International / Surrogacy  by Anthony Brown 0 comments

International Surrogacy Cases; Foreigners Banned

India Surrogacy Cases: Ban booming surrogacy service to foreigners

In International Surrogacy Cases News; India’s government said Wednesday it would ban foreigners from using surrogate mothers in the country, a move likely to hit the booming commercial surrogacy industry. Ranks of childless foreign couples have flocked to the country in recent years looking for a cheap, legal and simple route to parenthood.

Health industry estimates put the size of India’s surrogacy business at nine billion rupees ($138 million) and growing at 20 percent a year. But critics have said a lack of legislation encourages “rent-a-womb” exploitation of young, poor Indian women.

In an affidavit to the Supreme Court on Wednesday the government said it “does not support commercial surrogacy”. “No foreigners can avail surrogacy services in India,” it told the court, which is hearing a petition regarding the industry, adding that surrogacy would be available “only for Indian couples”.

Thousands of infertile couples, many from overseas, hire the wombs of Indian women to carry their embryos through to birth. India, with cheap technology, skilled doctors and a steady supply of local surrogates, is one of relatively few countries where women can be paid to carry another’s child. Surrogacy for profit is illegal in many other countries.

The process usually involves in-vitro fertilization and embryo transfer, leading to a rise in fertility centers offering such services.

A top fertility expert branded the government’s move discriminatory, while a leading women’s activist warned it could push the industry underground and out of reach of regulators. “Banning commercial surrogacy will send some couples onto the black market and deprive other couples of the chance of children,” Ranjana Kumari, director of the Centre for Social Research, told AFP.

“Our research shows many surrogates do not have health insurance and are paid poorly, among other issues,” she said, adding that stronger regulation rather than an outright ban was needed. The private petition to the top court seeks a halt to the importation of human embryos for commercial purposes.

Earlier this month the court in Delhi expressed its concern and ordered the government to spell out measures for regulating the industry. The government’s affidavit, presented to the court by Solicitor General Ranjit Kumar, said it would “require some time to bring the law in place”.

surrogacy cases

India decided surrogacy cases: banning foreigners from surrogate mothers,similar decisions expected internationally by booming commercial surrogacy industry

The surrogacy process usually involves in-vitro fertilisation and embryo “The government will prohibit and penalise commercial surrogacy services,” it said.

The government has been consulting women’s groups and the health industry on a draft bill, the Assisted Reproductive Technology, that seeks to regulate the industry.

– ‘No exploitation’ –

Click here to read the entire article.

 

Yahoonews.com, by Trudy Harris, October 27, 2015
in Ethics / In the News / International / Surrogacy  by Anthony Brown 0 comments

Egg Donations, Should Women Be Paid?

Paying for Egg Donations

In an egg donations situation, should a woman who donates eggs to help people with fertility problems conceive a child be able to charge as much as she can get in a free-market transaction? Or are there ethical reasons to limit her reimbursement?

That is the issue raised in a federal lawsuit that accuses two professional societies and the fertility clinics associated with them of illegal price-fixing that limits donor compensation. A federal judge in northern California has ruled that the claim can move forward and certified it as a class action, which could go to trial next year.

Guidelines issued by the American Society for Reproductive Medicine and the Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology suggest that paying a woman more than $10,000 for her eggs is “beyond what is appropriate” and even paying $5,000 or more requires “justification.”

A vast majority of the nation’s fertility clinics follow these the guidelines. The stated rationale behind them is to avoid offering so much money that donors, especially those who are often young and poor, will rush to contribute their eggs without considering the risks.

This payment system is unfair. However well-intentioned, it favors the fertility clinics, which can keep more for themselves if they pay donors less, as well as the women who pay for fertility treatments. Meanwhile, it shortchanges the egg donors, whose wishes are ignored in the equation. And if there are indeed risks, they can be addressed and mitigated by the clinics and the doctors, who can strengthen their screening and counseling procedures and provide more information.

The money that donors get is meant to compensate them for physical and psychological tests; weeks of hormone injections to stimulate egg production; frequent tests and ultrasound examinations to track the developing eggs; repeated visits to the doctor, and minor surgery to remove the eggs when they are ready for retrieval.

Click here to read the entire article.

 

Editorial Board – New York Times, October 21, 2015
in Egg Donation / In the News / Legal  by Anthony Brown 0 comments