#surrogacy agency in uk

[surrogacyconsultancy]

Making your first move towards Single parent surrogacy: What to expect?

Surrogacy for singles work like any other surrogacy program and the only difference here is the involvement of only a single intended parent into the procedure. Moreover, you will need a sperm donor or an egg donor to facilitate the program and get desired results. On the other side, there will remain certain challenges during single parent surrogacy given the country you have opted for. Hence, as an intended parent, you must stay aware and updated of any such challenges and concerns.

Stay updated of the laws and regulations

The biggest challenge for the single parents during surrogacy for singles in USA is to stay updated and aware of the legalities around surrogacy process. That said, they must read and comprehend these laws while getting in touch with a legal professional. Also, these professionals come with the right knowledge and update around the surrogacy laws and are expert enough to guide you in this direction.

For example, if you are pursuing surrogacy for singles in USA, you must get in touch with a legal professional that can help you with the requisites. That said, there are many legal professionals in the USA that are offering customized services to all the intended parents while guiding them around in their surrogacy journeys.

Connect with the right surrogacy agency

The surrogacy agencies have a big role to play within a surrogacy program and the same goes true for surrogacy for singles. For example, they can find a suitable surrogate for you and screen it for all the physical and mental health problems.

 On the other side, they can match them according to your respective needs and requirements. At the same time, they can offer end to end support for every key aspect an element involved in a surrogacy program. Even though the agency would charge the fee for the surrogacy services, every penny spent would come worth it.

The surrogacy agency also has a wide pool of surrogate mothers to choose from. Hence, the intended parents can make the selection while picking the most suitable option from the list. On the other hand , they can make you connect to the egg donors and sperm donor agencies in case if you require them during the surrogacy process

Do your research

Conducting your own research is quite important for the success of surrogacy for singles in UK. Moreover, if you are single parent looking for surrogacy you have to check all the information that is available on the Internet in the same regards. That said, check about the laws available, medical facilities, supportive framework or community guidelines before proceeding with surrogacy for singles in any country.

 That way, you can avoid all the glitches and obstruction on your way to parenthood. At the same time there are some countries that have created certain eligibility criteria for single parents to purse surrogacy within their territories. So, in case you’re opting for surrogacy in these countries, you must get the right knowledge and information about it.

Don't forget to take second opinion

There may be a situation that you are not finding the current surrogacy agency capable to deal with your concern. In all such cases, you can always take a second opinion to precede with your surrogacy aspirations regarding surrogacy for singles in UK. Remember, it is always advisable to connect with more than one surrogacy agency suitable for your purpose.

Even if you are connected with a surrogate mother and doest like her approach, you can always switch while communicating the same with the surrogacy agency. That way, you can avoid all the future disputes while staying on course with your surrogacy aspirations as a single parent.

Don’t fall into the trap of malicious agencies

There may be a chance that you are getting a good deal from a fake agent or agency on surrogacy. While that may sound tempting, that may also lead you to big trouble. In all such situations, it is highly recommended to check and verify the history and experience of the concerned entity. That way, you can make an informed choice while getting the desired results.

Final words

Surrogacy or singles has its own joys, yet it also come with certain unique challenges. Hence, it is always advisable to stay in right hands whole getting along with the process. On the other hand, choose your surrogacy agency mindfully and while taking every factor and element into consideration.

Source: https://surrogacy-consultancy.blogspot.com/2024/02/making-your-first-move-towards-single.html

[becomeparentsurrogacy]

Surrogacy agency in UK

As a well-known surrogacy agency in UK, we stand out as the best option for linking you with top-tier fertility clinics. Our partnerships with well-known IVF clinics known for their significant experience in the industry ensure that you receive unrivaled care. We are the right location if you are looking for a surrogacy facility in the UK for single-parent surrogacy or homosexual surrogacy. 

[gaiafertility]

Surrogacy Agency in UK

United Kingdom will include not only the surrogate cost (for medical care), but also the clinical charges for IVF and embryo transfers, consultancy fees, and legal expenses. We are a leading surrogacy agency in UK and overseas.

[coochiequeens]

A woman wanted to have a relationship with the child she gave birth to. And the men's response "was to insist that their son had no mother — only a surrogate — and that the child’s identity was as part of a motherless family." But the kid was created from her egg. She is the kids biological mother.

5 June, 2024 By Julie Bindel

This article is taken from the June 2024 issue of The Critic. To get the full magazine why not subscribe? Right now we’re offering five issues for just £10.

There is a contradiction at the heart of the international surrogacy industry. Its participants pretend that surrogates’ feelings for the children in their wombs do not exist, whilst simultaneously trying to prevent them acting on those feelings. Many commissioning parents broker the babies in jurisdictions that allow restrictions on surrogates’ rights.

In the UK, this contradiction was recently laid bare in a Family Court case (citation number: [2024] EWFC 20). A gay male couple were engaged in a long-running legal battle with their son’s surrogate. Rather than vanish after handing over the child, she wanted a role in the boy’s life. The men’s response was to insist that their son had no mother — only a surrogate — and that the child’s identity was as part of a motherless family. There was “no vacancy” for her to occupy in his life, they claimed, and it was prejudicial to gay families to suggest otherwise.

At the start of this story, G, the surrogate in question, was a 36-year-old single mother of a teenager and naive about what surrogacy entailed. The commissioning parents were friends of her sister but not people she knew. Aged 43 and 36 and married, they were members of an agency, Surrogacy UK, and very familiar with its protocols — which included a “getting to know you” period — and support. However rather than go through the agency, the men chose to fast-track the process with an independent arrangement with G.

Following a failed transfer of a donor egg, the trio decided to use G’s own egg. The men agreed that G would have contact with the child, but none of the parties properly considered the implications. The relationship between the three deteriorated during G’s pregnancy. G gave birth to a boy in September 2020.

After the birth, G would not initially consent to the parental order, under which she would lose parental responsibility as she feared being cut out of the child’s life. But during a lengthy online hearing in which she was alone and unrepresented — unlike the men — G was pressured by the judge to agree to the parental order along with a contact agreement called a child arrangements order.

After obtaining parental responsibility, the men quickly reneged on the agreement. When G turned up at their house for a pre-arranged visit they threatened to call the police. She recorded the meeting. The Family Court judge later declared of the recording “what was said has rightly been described as ‘horrendous’”. The men told G she was “harbouring a desire to have an inappropriate relationship” by wanting the boy to recognise her as his mother and accused her of having “rejected the role of surrogate”.

In January 2022, the men refused to allow G to visit her son and applied for the contact agreement to be changed. G then made her own application for the parental order to be overturned. She won her case in November the same year. This restored her parental responsibility for the child and removed it from the man who was not the child’s biological father.

The men redoubled their efforts to remove G as a parent, this time applying for an adoption order. During court proceedings, they claimed their son’s identity was that of a child of same-sex parents being raised within the LGBT community and that he belonged to a “motherless family”.

As a lesbian who came out in the 1970s, I’m only too aware of the history of demonisation of lesbian and gay couples. Parents who conceived children in heterosexual relationships were often denied custody and contact if they came out as gay after separation. Foster and adoption agencies were openly prejudiced. But times have changed, and same-sex parents are now a common sight at the school gates in some parts of the UK.

Claims that the children of same-sex parents are disadvantaged in some way have largely been defeated with an expanding body of evidence (e.g. Zhang Y, Huang H, Wang M, et al., BMJ Global Health, 2023) showing their outcomes are similar to those of heterosexual families. Gay rights are robustly supported in most public institutions and private organisations. For a gay couple to call on historic prejudice to justify excluding a mother from a child’s life is unforgivable.

In any case, the men’s argument was fatally — and obviously — undermined by its own logic. If the boy did not have a mother, there would be no need for the court case.

As the jointly-instructed clinical psychologist in the case recognised, the driver of the men’s case was the “elephant in the room” — G’s existence as the child’s legal and biological mother — and the men’s fear of her maternal bond with her son. The men had difficulties “accepting the reality” of the child’s conception, the psychologist found, and considering what sense the boy might make of the situation as he grew up.

“They have strongly held to the surrogacy agreement and the narrative of [G] being a ‘surrogate’ because in that narrative there are no, or hardly any feelings from the surrogate for the baby,” the psychologist wrote. He described the men as attempting an “erasure of the mother”, which he said was not in the child’s best interest as it did not reflect reality.

Refusing an adoption order that would likely have resulted in cutting G from her son’s life, the court ruled that G should have direct and unsupervised contact with him. The judge criticised the men for blaming G for everything that went wrong. The judgment also raised questions about how an adoption order would be explained to the boy, given it would have been made without his mother’s consent.

To some extent, history repeated itself in this case. There are multiple examples of legal battles involving lesbian couples who created a child with the help of a sperm donor who later inconveniently insisted on contact or on playing the role of father.

As the Court of Appeal ruled in one such case in 2012: “What the adults look forward to before undertaking the hazards of conception, birth and the first experience of parenting may prove to be illusion or fantasy. [The couple] may have had the desire to create a two-parent lesbian nuclear family completely intact and free from fracture resulting from contact with the third parent. But such desires may be essentially selfish and may later insufficiently weigh the welfare and developing rights of the child that they have created.”

What’s concerning in this case is the language used — the “erasure” of the mother

Contested surrogacy cases are little different from these wrangles and, indeed, from any other contact disputes. What’s concerning about G’s case, and what makes it different from the case of the lesbian parents above, is the language used. The psychologist explicitly referred to the men’s attempted “erasure” of the mother. They simply refused to acknowledge G’s existence in any of the forms in which she fulfilled a maternal capacity: legal, genetic and as the person who gave birth. They were supported in this illusion by the professionals who weighed in on their behalf.

In the space of a few years the term “motherless” has moved from an emotive description of absence to a positive identity argued for in court. This shift is entirely consistent with the narrative that surrogacy participants feed to the public.

When celebrity couples introduce their surrogate children on social media, the women who gave birth to them are rarely mentioned. The new babies are “welcomed” as if they have been sent by special delivery. That is in line with the attitude of the international surrogacy industry, which reduces the role of the birth mother to that of a “carrier” or rented womb.

For commissioning parents, it must be very easy to regard the woman who bore their child for nine months as a mere service provider, someone to be gratefully forgotten as soon as the final instalment is paid and the product handed over.

Meanwhile, parts of the NHS are determined to de-gender childbirth, routinely referring to “birthing parents” rather than mothers. As an example (there are multiple) the Royal United Hospital Bath’s “information for families” on labour induction refers to dads, but there is no mention of mothers — only birthing parents.

Feminists have long campaigned for gender-neutral language to reflect roles that are indeed, or can be, gender-neutral. But the uncoupling of sex from the necessarily female processes of pregnancy and childbirth is a step towards a dystopian future. In 2015 Victoria Smith wrote, “Gender-neutral language around reproduction creates the illusion of dismantling a hierarchy — when what you really end up doing is ignoring it.” I would go further. Gender-neutral language around reproduction — just like any language that obscures reality — reinforces and helps establish hierarchies of oppression.

To the men, G was simply a surrogate womb to a motherless child. But to G and to Z, she was his mother. As the psychologist said, “‘Motherlessness’ does not exist. The child was born from two people, biologically, and from three people, psychologically … The mother certainly played a part, biologically and psychologically, in the conception of the child.”

The case — unremarked and unnoticed by the media — will do nothing to change popular opinion of surrogacy. It is likely to encourage intending parents to explore dubious overseas jurisdictions, where surrogates have fewer rights. The surrogacy profiteers will continue to cheerlead wealthy couples in their exploitation of impoverished and naive women.

As for the word “motherless”: in time it may lose its negative connotations and become solidified as an identity. Will it become a badge that straight children can use to signal their connection to LGBTQ+ community? Or an oppression card that can be deployed by the children of wealthy men to explain bad behaviour towards women? Either way, Disney and Dickens are going to need a lot of rewriting.

[someone-will-remember-us]

Elton John and David Furnish have done it, and so have Paris Hilton, Kim Kardashian and Kanye West.

There’s a bloke from Essex who recently joined the club via an undisclosed overseas location and a 72-year-old Scotsman has just been recognised as the legitimate owner of an American one he bought back in 2020.

What we are talking about here is surrogacy: the incubation and effective purchase of babies after the careful selection of their component parts.

The global market – already worth almost $18 billion (£14 billion) – is projected to rise to $129bn by 2032, according to the research firm Global Market Insights, with anywhere between 5,000 and 20,000 babies incubated to order annually.

This covers the whole caboodle in which you can DIY things with a friend at one extreme, or go for the full Lamborghini treatment where, in some countries, an agent will help you shop around the globe for the finest sperm, eggs and wombs money can buy.

For those opting for the international pick and mix route, there are BOGOF deals (two implants for the price of one), the option of sex selection and a pay-as-you-go plan.

And that’s because you, the customer, are always right. As one agency, New Life Conceptual Limited, based in Lagos, Nigeria puts it: “…it takes four ingredients to make a baby: an egg, a sperm, a womb to grow in, and a family to go home to. You have the last ingredient, but you need a place for your baby to grow, and that’s why you’re here.”

Some companies even offer legal guarantees around defective foetuses that have to be aborted.

If you think I’m making this up, think again.

In the UK, where commercial surrogacy is banned but international imports are not, there are now between 400 and 500 new surrogate-incubated babies registered each year, while globally the business is more than doubling in value every two years.

Some call it a “miracle” and point to the invisible hand of the market creating a profitable multi-billion dollar industry in which everyone wins; a benign system of supply and demand the libertarian economist Leonard Read might have called I, Baby.

And while there is no suggestion that the multi-millionaire celebrities who have used surrogacy, like Elton John and the Kardashians, have exploited the surrogate mothers who bore their children, for others – including feminists like myself – the global surrogacy trade reeks of false entitlement.

It has been sanitised by the liberal “rights” agenda and the same self-serving logic that brands prostitutes “sex workers”. If it brings to mind a book or essay, it is Brave New World, Aldous Huxley’s dystopian novel about social engineering and evil hiding in plain sight.

To what extent, for example, is the lack of regulation around surrogacy driving impoverished women into unsafe and unconsented arrangements, as it once did so extensively with domestic and international adoption?

And what do we really know of all those hundreds of Brits now shopping for children around the world.

Can it really be right that you can effectively buy a baby overseas but raise it in Britain where commercial surrogacy is supposed to be banned?

Just as in the 1950s, ‘60s and ‘70s, when we thought of adoption as a favour to unsuitable mums whether they be “wayward” teens or impoverished Mexicans, surrogacy is being sanitised.

Delve into the subject on the Internet and you will find that almost everywhere you look, it’s celebrated. These babies, magicked into welcoming arms, are seemingly a modern miracle for childless couples of every stripe. TikTok is full of it.

Here in Blighty, we have only “ethical surrogacy”, says Surrogacy UK, a leading non-profit “providing a safe, supportive environment for surrogates, intended parents and families”.

Such organisations emphasise the benefits to infertile couples, and the “great gift” bestowed by women (aged 16 or older) who are happy to “altruistically” lend their womb to another for nine months.

Whilst such arrangements do work for some, there is no reliable data on what is really going on in the UK. This is because the sector is governed by a bizarre mish-mash of statute and common law, and because regulation, where it exists at all, is opaque.

Echoing the words of a Tarantino script, surrogacy is legal in the UK but not a hundred per cent legal.

It’s legal to enter into an agreement with a surrogate, it’s legal to pay her “reasonable expenses”, and, if you’re the owner of a womb, it’s legal to grow a child (made with your eggs or someone else’s) and give it away once it’s born.

But it’s illegal to advertise you are looking for a surrogate in the UK or solicit for business if you want to become a surrogate. It’s also an offence to arrange or negotiate a surrogacy arrangement as a “commercial enterprise”, but that doesn’t really matter because, get this: “reasonable expenses” can stretch beyond the average annual wage.

If money is still an obstacle, you can always rent a womb from a woman in a country like California, Cyprus or Greece where for-profit surrogacy is legal, before bringing the child back home to the UK.

Another oddity of the UK system is that, while it is a criminal offence to advertise surrogacy services, there are “some exemptions for not-for-profit organisations”. It is not clear how these agencies are selected but they are organisations that officials at the Department of Health and Social Care deem trustworthy. It is how agencies like Surrogacy UK and Brilliant Beginnings are able to proactively recruit and advertise a willing pool of surrogates in Britain.

“All our surrogates benefit from being a part of our thriving community and can enjoy a range of events and gifts along the way,” says the Brilliant Beginnings website. “Surrogate retreats” and “milestone gifts” such as chocolates, flowers and even bellybuds - speakers that allow mothers to play music to babies in the womb - are all part of the service.

Brilliant Beginnings says “expenses” payments to surrogate mothers in the UK typically range between £12,000 to £35,000. It is not known how well off the typical UK surrogate is in relation to the intended parents check, but there is potentially a stark economic divide.

“For surrogates who receive means-tested state benefits, it is important to be clear about whether benefits might be affected by any expenses received,” says the Best Beginnings website. “We would always recommend surrogates are upfront with their benefits office”.

Evidence for the benefits and harms of surrogacy in the UK are almost entirely anecdotal.

Disputes do occur but no one really knows their frequency or what they entail because they are heard in the secretive Family Court, which sits mainly in private and from which detailed reporting is banned.

An obvious problem in the UK, is that the flash point for disputes typically arises after the fact - that is, after a child has been born. This is the point at which the intended parents (or parent) must apply to the Court for a “transfer of legal parenthood” and, in most cases, will be the first time the state even becomes cognisant of the surrogacy arrangement.

An application for such a transfer can only be made with the surrogate’s consent but the decision hinges on what the Court considers to be in the best interests of the child, not the surrogate mother.

“The parental order process takes place after birth and involves the family court, and a court-appointed social worker,” says the DHSC website. “This provides a valuable safeguard for the best interests of the child”.

There is a growing recognition that the regulation of surrogacy in the UK is inadequate but the agencies who run it want legislative reforms that favour the would-be parents rather than the surrogate mothers.

They are especially exercised about the fact that written agreements between surrogates and intended parents are ultimately unenforceable in the UK courts.

Others, including myself, want the practice banned – as it is in many countries across the world. Miriam Cates, the former Conservative MP for Penistone and Stocksbridge, caused a storm in January when she said surrogacy was “just ethically not acceptable”.

“Of course adults have a strong desire to be parents, both men or women. Of course it’s a sadness if that’s unfulfilled for whatever reason – they can’t conceive, don’t have a partner, whatever it is.

“But to deliberately bring a child into the world in order to separate it from its mother at birth I think is just ethically not acceptable,” she said.

Alan White, chairman of Surrogacy UK, told a webinar hosted by the Royal College of Midwives in February that those of us who see the practice as unethical and exploitative were limiting choice and free will because we failed to properly understand the motivations of surrogate mothers.

“Surrogates don’t see themselves as mothers, they see themselves as extreme baby-sitters,” he said. “[They are] doing that wonderful thing of doing the part of having children women or gay men can’t do for themselves”.

To survive the psychological impact of giving away a child, there is little doubt that this sort of thinking helps.

As Helen Gibson, the founder of Surrogacy Concern points out, surrogates are encouraged to see themselves as a bystander – just the “the oven” or “the microwave”, as some describe themselves.

But this sort of psychological dissociation doesn’t always work, and perhaps seldom does.

I spoke to one UK woman who feels deep regret at her decision to enter into a surrogacy arrangement. Sandra, whose name I’ve changed, was 32 with two children of her own. She had escaped a violent husband, and was struggling to make ends meet.

A friend suggested she could make money by carrying a baby for an infertile couple. And, after approaching a UK agency she found via Facebook, she was told that in return for having the baby, she could enjoy “unlimited expenses, within reason”.

She was introduced to a gay male couple who wanted her to carry an implanted embryo, engineered with selected eggs to give them the best chance of a “tall, blonde child”. Sandra, by contrast, is short and dark.

The embryo transfer failed three times, and the IVF process made Sandra extremely sick. Eventually, the couple decided to go to California, but not before admonishing her for wasting “their time, and a lot of money.”

“I felt like a broodmare,” she told me.

If the UK surrogacy market is a classic British muddle, the global market is the wild west.  

And because no UK Court or Home Office official can possibly check the provenance of all the elements that go to make up a child (the sperm, the eggs, the IVF, or, crucially, the free agency of the surrogate mother), anything goes for the unscrupulous.

Although most countries around the world still ban the practice, there are more than enough who don’t.

In Greece and various US states including California, Washington DC and Arkansas, commercial surrogacy is fully legal. In many other countries it is either unregulated or very lightly regulated, enabling the trade to flourish. Countries in this bracket include Brazil, Mexico, Colombia, the Czech Republic, Argentina, Guatemala, Iran, Kenya, Nigeria, the Philippines, Russia and Ukraine.

WFI Surrogacy, one of America’s biggest providers, offers its customers what it calls a “live birth guarantee” – the promise that a birth will occur once the process is underway.

“The high quality of our egg donors and surrogate mothers enables us to make this type of guarantee”, says WFI. “Our live birth guarantee programs are available for either: singleton or twins [or] one specimen source or two specimen sources”.

“All our surrogate mothers are medically and psychologically screened,” it adds.

This is Big Fertility, whose business model relies on the commodification of every aspect of pregnancy.

A healthy overall budget for a Brit using the US surrogacy route sits between £250,000 to £320,000, according to the UK agency Brilliant Beginnings.

Often freelance agents or “fixers” will shop around the world for their clients to increase choice and reduce costs. A surrogate mum in Los Angeles, California costs a whole lot more than one from rural Mexico, for example.

Denmark has long been prized for its sperm, its tall blond donors making the most of their viking heritage.

For eggs, there are also options galore – and all pushed with a good dose of fairy tale genetics.

Egg Donor number “241222_01” on the World Center of Baby website (motto: every person deserves to be a parent) conforms precisely to the modern notion of female beauty as defined by Instagram.

Weighing in at just 66kg, she’s also “an artistic soul with a flair for creativity”. If you would prefer a sporty one, just go for donor number 241222_02 – “an athletic enthusiast, deeply engaged in fitness and sports”.

Embryos can be made up from the customers chosen eggs and sperm in any number of IVF labs around the world. They are then frozen and shipped to wherever the chosen surrogate may be. Fixers facilitate the entire process, including the negotiation of complex legal agreements and the careful arbitrage of international and domestic laws and regulations.

The wording of commercial surrogacy contracts is telling, the text reflecting the economic disparity between carrier and client.

“If Gestational Carrier suffers a loss of her uterus as a result of the performance of her obligations under this Agreement, she shall receive $5,000.00 from Intended Parents”, stipulates one contract.

It continues: “If Intended Parents jointly request Gestational Carrier to terminate the pregnancy because of the Child’s medical condition(s), she will do so promptly. If Gestational Carrier refuses to terminate, Gestational Carrier will have materially breached this Agreement and Intended Parents’ obligations under this Agreement shall cease immediately”.

Natalia Gamble, a director at Brilliant Beginnings, says the agency made an active decision “to only facilitate people going to places that we felt were ethical, secure, and safe”.

Although Ms Gamble is adamant that her approach is ethical, she helps clients go to Nigeria, Cyprus, and Ukraine, where commercial surrogacy flourishes.

“We made the active decision at Brilliant Beginnings to only facilitate people going to places that we felt were ethical, secure, and safe – we have very much focused on the US, but through our law firm (NGA Law) we have helped people go into places like Nigeria, Cyprus, and Ukraine because our role is much more not to help them do it in the first place but to help them bring their children home and resolve all the legalities afterwards,” she said.

Northern Cyprus even allows sex selection, with several clinics there advertising the service on their websites.

“The cases that are happening in Nigeria or Cyprus where it’s very unregulated and there’s no legal framework are a very, very small percentage of the overall international surrogacy landscape,” she said.

“We do need to be very alert to the risks of exploitation and those risks are greatest in places where there is no legal framework regulating how surrogacy is run [...] but, it’s about not overinflating those risks when the majority of people are going to what you might call ‘good surrogacy destinations’.”

Ms Gamble is pushing for a change to UK law that would grant commissioning parent(s) legal rights to the child (embryo) at the point of conception.

“It’s in the best interest of the child,” she says. “If you speak to any surrogate mother they will say ‘Look, I am not the mother of this child, I’m always very clear that it’s someone else’s child that I’m carrying’ – no one wants the surrogate mother on the birth certificate, including her.”

But is that really true – are surrogate mothers really so detached?

I spoke to Liane, who said her own experience of surrogacy caused “a huge amount of grief and hurt”.

She described the market as being infected with a sort of “toxic positivity”.

She added: “It’s painted as a wonderful thing to do, a beautiful selfless act which can only bring joy when for me, I felt used, manipulated, and devastated”.

Ms Gibson of Surrogacy Concern says cases involving “coercion and regret” are not uncommon, even within the UK’s surrogacy model.

“Surrogacy prioritises the wants of the adults ahead of the needs of the child, and creates a societal sense of entitlement towards women’s bodies,” she said.

The practices of single men buying children abroad, white couples using black surrogate mothers, and the growing trend towards using cut price surrogacy destinations such as Mexico, Colombia, Kenya and Ghana are all on Surrogacy Concern’s radar.

Physical harms to surrogate mothers are real. Carrying a baby always involves serious risk but, for surrogates, those risks are often greatly magnified.

Linda Khan, an epidemiologist based in the departments of Paediatrics and Population Health at NYU, says surrogates run an “increased risks of all kinds of pregnancy complications, which lead to adverse outcomes for women and children”.

One factor, she says, is that the embryo is not biologically related to the woman and implanted via IVF. Another is that “many women are carrying multiples because it’s so expensive. They want two for the price of one”.

“Twinning is not safe, even when it occurs naturally. It is a huge burden on women’s bodies, it gets all the risks of complications sky-rocketing.”

Whilst it would be difficult (though not impossible) to ban or abolish surrogacy entirely – changing laws to ban the ‘womb traffickers’ as many campaigners refer to the brokers, should be a priority.

The marketing of surrogacy should also be made subject to tougher regulation, say some experts, although many others favour a blanket ban.

“Surrogacy is a trade that makes commodities of children, of embryos and of eggs, and reduces women to being seen as machines,” said Ms Gibson. “It should not masquerade as a progressive solution to the problem of infertility.”

Further, any legal protections introduced in the UK should be for the benefit of the surrogate mothers giving birth and the babies, rather than for the commissioning parents or agents, adds Ms Gibson. A commissioning parent should never have a legal right to remove a baby if a woman has changed her mind.

In March last year, experts from 75 countries signed the Casablanca Declaration, which calls for a global ban on all forms of surrogacy. And in April this year, an international conference was held in Rome with an aim to provide all States with a legal instrument banning the practice of surrogate motherhood.

Implicit within it is a rejection of the fanciful and dangerous notion that anyone, anywhere has an inalienable right to a child.

“The regulations of each country are not enough to stop human trafficking globally,” said Bernard Garcia Larrain, the Executive Director of the Casablanca Declaration for the Universal Abolition of Surrogacy.

“We need an international treaty to prohibit surrogacy because this is a global market that moves a lot of money and knows no borders,” he added.

[celticcrossanon]

BRF Reading - 15th of February, 2024

This is speculation only

Cards drawn on the 15th of February, 2024

Question: What is the best way for the BRF to deal with Harry and Meghan?

Interpretation: Tell the truth.

Note: I don't know if this is the universe or the collective speaking through the cards, but the message is something that we having been saying for a very long time

Card One: The Nine of Cups.

This is the card of emotional contentment, wishes coming true, satisfaction, success and recognition. No doubt marrying into the BRF brought Meghan all those things. The picture on the card is of the reunion of Eros and Psyche, a celebration of their togetherness before their marriage on Mount Olympus.

The energy of this card is to look into the engagement of Harry and Meghan. Look at Meghan's life before she met Harry, look at how she positioned herself during her relationship with Harry, and look at why the engagement was allowed and announced. There are clues hiding there in plain sight that we don't know about, but the BRF does. The energy of the card is to take another look at everything and examine what happened that led to the couple being engaged.

The clarifier for this card is the Page of Pentacles in reverse. Pages are children, and the Page of Pentacles is an earth sign child, like Archie. It is also my card for the UK. The energy of children is coming through here. Did Meghan say she was pregnant? What happened to that pregnancy? What was the proof? What do the people in her past say about her becoming pregnant? Is there anything in her past the suggests this is impossible? The Page of Pentacles is in reverse, so this is the negation of a child - the child never happened or the child is not hers.

The other energy relates to the UK and the status/money meaning of Pentacles. When Meghan married Harry, both of them gained status and money because of the marriage. The Page of Pentacles in reverse says to strip both Harry and Meghan of that status. Remove the titles. If they are still receiving money from their father, cut off that money. Return both of them to the position and finances that they held before the wedding.

Card Two: The Three of Pentacles in reverse.

The Three of Pentacles is about teamwork, people working together to achieve a goal. In the reverse, there is no teamwork, the person is not a team player, if there is a team it is divided and not cohesive or loyal. The energy of this card is of investigating the 'team' around Meghan - her friends, her mother, her PR agency/s. What can they tell you? What can you uncover from their behaviour and stories? The suit is Pentacles, so money is important - follow the money trail. Where does it go? To whom does it go? Who can be paid to talk about what they know about Meghan's past actions?

The clarifiers here are the Wheel of Fortune and the Ten of Swords. There were people who helped Meghan on her way up that she has now discarded, and they are willing to betray her in return. Find them talk to them, and see what they have to say about her actions and motivations.

Given the underlying energy, this could also be a surrogacy card (three to make a baby - mother, father, and surrogate - pentacles is about the body and material things, such as making a baby). If so, then the energy from the cards is the same - investigate and talk to those who were involved. They are ready to talk now, whereas before they may have held their tongue.

Card Three: The Two of Swords in reverse.

This card has the meaning of not making a decision, having a decision made for you, not being able to decide, the lesser of two evils, and the truth being revealed. The last meaning is not one that I often find with this card, but today it is the one that has the energy. The cards are saying to reveal the truth. There is no right way out of this, You are at a stalemate, and there is no solution that will please everyone. The card acknowledges that both outcomes will be less than ideal, but the push of the energy is to revealing the truth, not covering it up. As the saying goes, speak the truth and shame the devil.

The clarifier for this card is the Seven of Swords, the thief card, the card of wrongdoing. There has been deception and trickery going on. We all know this. It is time to come clean and reveal what lies and deceptions were told. Let the Harkles face the full consequences of their actions.

Underlying Energy: The Empress.

This card is appearing in its meaning of the mother. The energy is of pregnancy and children or pregnancy and a child. This energy is underlying all the cards above - the engagement, the rumoured surrogacy, and the trickery that has resulted in choosing between two bad outcomes. They are all connected by the idea of pregnancy and being a mother.

The clarifier for this card is The Tower. Knowing the truth about the children will create a Tower moment that will successfully stop the Harkles's current behaviour and render them unable to damage the institution of the BRF.

Conclusion.

The cards say that the best way to deal with the Harkles is to make a decision that has no right answer and/or has two equally bad outcomes, and to tell the truth. Gather information of what Harry and Meghan have done, especially in regards to the pregnancies and children, and release it to the world. Look into Meghan's past life, look at why the engagement was allowed, look into the team that supported her and talk to them. They may have held their tongues in the past, but now they are ready to talk.

Once you have gathered all the information you need, bite the bullet and release the truth. Reveal all the deceptions that were practised and the lies that were told. This may make you look stupid or foolish, and you may have been complicit in some of the deceptions by your past silence (the choice between two bad outcomes). Release them anyway. Then strip the pair of the titles and status that they gained upon their marriage (I say strip them of everything, but the cards refer to the engagement and subsequent wedding). This will be a Tower moment for the Harkles were what is left of their reputation and credibility crumbles to dust around them, and they will not be able to rebuild it. They will be rendered toothless when it comes to damaging the BRF.

[a-room-of-my-own]

Anonymous surrogate mother

I was an altruistic surrogate a few years ago and was abandoned by the intended parents (IPs). We were really close before and I allowed them to get close to my children. My UK surrogacy agency instilled in me that I had to be close friends with the IPs to reduce the risk of the arrangement breaking down. I regret this now, I only hope my children aren’t feeling too much of a loss from being used by the IPs.

Anonymous midwife

During my 13-year career as a midwife I witnessed many negative consequences of surrogacy for women.

The first time I encountered a surrogate mother was when I was caring for her when she was unwell in the high dependency unit. She had been commissioned by two gay men to carry a baby for them. It was her egg. There was a vast age gap between the two men and one of them died during the pregnancy. The younger one no longer wanted the baby. This young mother was then left to bring up the baby by herself. She was vulnerable, poor, and had previously been a victim of domestic abuse.

I have also been involved in the care of a young woman who was carrying a baby for a heterosexual couple who divorced. It was their egg and sperm. They no longer wanted the child. She was bullied into a termination at 22 weeks gestation.

Another horrifying story was of a mother of three children in her 30s who discovered she had a terminal condition and had to terminate the pregnancy at 20 weeks. She later died leaving three children. The surrogacy did not cause the condition but it hastened her death.

There are many other stories of trauma which I cannot share due to them being identifiable.

In my experience it is only poor and vulnerable women who choose to become surrogates. Wealthy, educated women never choose to become surrogates. If it’s only poor women, how can it truly be a choice? It is exploitation.

In the UK we are not meant to have commercial surrogacy but it is evident that we do. Women are given vast sums of money as “expenses”. When they are using their own eggs, it can only be described as human trafficking.

I have also cared for women after “successful” surrogacies. These women feel immense loss and sadness after giving birth and handing over the child. Even if it’s not their genetics the mother-foetal dyad is still powerful. Women are not microwaves. We tell pregnant women to bond with their babies in utero and to talk to them to help brain development. The babies bond with the mother as they grow. Then they are ripped away at birth. Some never see them again after the first day. It is barbaric.

Share your story

We believe that there are many women who are suffering in silence after having an unhappy, damaging or traumatic experience of ‘donating’ their eggs or being a ‘surrogate’ mother for the benefit of others. If this has happened to you and you’d like to share your story anonymously, please see our Share your surrogacy or eggsploitation story page.

[saintmeghanmarkle]

Allegedly and Pure Speculation from Benjamin Smallbook on Quora Tonight - Its Time We Turned Up The Heat in the Markle Kitchen. Is this plausible? Is our Saint angering British Media to the Brink? by u/daisybeach23

Allegedly and Pure Speculation from Benjamin Smallbook on Quora Tonight - “It’s Time We Turned Up The Heat in the Markle Kitchen.” Is this plausible? Is our Saint angering British Media to the Brink? From Quora:Journalists at one of the UK’s top news agencies are getting together with colleagues at France’s biggest agency, Agence France Press, to put pressure on Markle and her husband, to come clean about the kids that nobody can mention. I believe, but have no firm evidence of this, other than whispers, that the Anglo-French media operation is being supported by the Palace.Clearly the Palace feels that enough is enough. Maybe they think that now is the time to regroup, and introduce Eugenia and Beatrice as A-lister working Royals. The recent health scares in the Family seems to have focused the minds of the ‘men in grey suits’ at the Palace.The awful news is soon to be released that the Princess of Wales has been suffering from an undisclosed form of cancer. The new direction, with a new start, doesn’t need any distraction from the duplicitous actress and her husband.Press-releases have flown from Montecito, and they have angered those who have been gagged.One press-release told, “The Duchess of Sussex has instructed Jake Rosenberg, a New York-based photographer, to take pictures of Prince Archie and his sister Princess Lilibet. The photoshoot will coincide with the launch of the Duchess’s lifestyle and cookery brand, American Riviera Orchard.”But what angered people was the sentence, “The photos of the children will be for our own family, and not distributed for general use.”What game is this woman playing? And what stupidity is the public displaying by going along with this idiotic charade?No births have ever been officially medically verified, and her pregnancies were suspect, to say the least. Remember, Markle and her dipsy husband lied to us about the birth of the ‘Archie Doll’. Their announcement stated The Actress was in labour, when in reality, the ‘child’ had already been born! And when Harry was filmed holding a baby which was supposedly only two hours old, he said, “It’s surprising how babies change in the first two weeks.” What the hell was that all about?The late Queen would have been informed by her own security services, long before the immaculate birth took place! It would be naïve to think otherwise. At the same time, the media would have been issued with a gagging order. From that day on, none of the UK national publications mentioned ‘surrogacy, Markle and fake pregnancy’ in the same sentence. In fact, they couldn’t even announce that a gagging order was in place.Even the birth certificates were suspect, as was the non-naming of the Godparents. The paparazzi were out in force, but not one picture emerged of any cars leaving or driving back to Frogmore Cottage. This is one big scam that hopefully will be busted very soon.Rumours as to why the Royal Family is going along with this, are rife. Blackmail and ‘playing the race card’ are top of the list. The Royal Family is as white as white can be, and the despicable woman knows it. She also knows what she’s doing. post link: https://ift.tt/jBsziPG author: daisybeach23 submitted: March 23, 2024 at 06:09AM via SaintMeghanMarkle on Reddit disclaimer: all views + opinions expressed by the author of this post, as well as any comments and reblogs, are solely the author's own; they do not necessarily reflect the views of the administrator of this Tumblr blog. For entertainment only.

[surrogacyagencykenya]

Why Surrogate mother cost in Kenya is lower than other countries?

Surrogacy in Kenya is quite popular among all the intended parents looking for an affordable surrogacy program. While cost is always lower than many other countries like USA and UK, the quality of care is on par with the best in the world. 

On the other side, the surrogate mother cost in Kenya is way lower than other nations and this is that one thing that always comes surprising for many. In the coming parts of this article, we will discuss regarding the key points in the same regard.  While doing that, we will also talk about various elements that come crucial in deciding the surrogacy cost in Kenya. 

1. Humble family backgrounds

Most of the surrogate mother in Kenya comes from humble family backgrounds. Moreover, they will not have huge demands from their role of the surrogate mother in Kenya. Also, they won’t prefer living in surrogate accommodation offered by the surrogacy agency. At the same time, these surrogates would come with a greater character and compassion towards the intended parents. Hence as an intended parent, you can always expect a noble person for your service rather than someone simply looking to earn some money.

2. Financial Components

The cost of living in Kenya is way lower than most of the western nations. This implies that in general costs, including medical care, are for the most part less costly. Also, for surrogate moms, this interprets to lower charges for their services related to surrogacy in Kenya. In nations with higher living costs, surrogate moms regularly charge more to cover their own living costs.

3. Healthcare Costs

On the other hand, the cost to healthcare in Kenya is altogether lower than in numerous Western nations. This incorporates the medical strategies included in surrogacy in Kenya, such as in vitro fertilization (IVF) and pre-birth care. In nations just like the United States, these strategies can be exceptionally costly, which increments the in general surrogacy cost in Kenya.

3. Lack of legal regulations 

Kenya has a lack of surrogacy related regulations compared to numerous Western nations. In places with strict surrogacy laws, there are extra legal costs. These can incorporate legal expenses for drafting contracts, parental rights agreements, and other procedures. In Kenya, where there are no surrogacy laws, this can potentially lower the surrogate mother cost in Kenya.

4. Bigger supply than the demand 

In Kenya, you will find numerous women willing to become surrogate mothers. This can be due to financial reasons, where they see surrogacy as a way to earn some good money to improve their financial situation. When there's a huge supply of surrogate moms, the cost tends to be lower. In differentiate; in nations where less women are willing to be surrogates, the overall cost is higher due to restricted availability.

5. No Insurance coverage 

In numerous Western nations, insurance companies don't cover the costs of surrogacy. This implies expecting guardians must pay all costs out of their pocket, which can include to the overall cost structure. In Kenya, where surrogacy is less directed and not ordinarily secured by insurances, the costs are more specifically related to the genuine medical and living costs of the surrogate mother in Kenya

6. Financial motivation 

For numerous Kenyan women, becoming a surrogate can be a way to earn money that they won’t get from something else. This financial inspiration can lead to more ladies advertising surrogacy services at competitive costs. In wealthier nations, where citizens have more earning options, women may not be as persuaded by the money related aspect of surrogacy.

7. Rising international demand 

Kenya has ended up a hotspot for international surrogacy. That said, individuals from nations with higher surrogacy costs look to Kenya as a more reasonable choice. Also, this worldwide request has created a situation where surrogacy services are advertised at competitive costs.

8. Overall lower cost of surrogacy services 

The amount charged by experts such as specialists, legal counselors, and agencies included within the surrogacy process are for the most part lower in Kenya. In nations with higher wage levels, experts regularly charge more for their services, which includes to the by and large cost of surrogacy.

9. Healthy and simplified lifestyle 

The lifestyle of surrogate mother in Kenya may be less complex compared to surrogate moms in wealthier nations. This implies their living costs amid pregnancy, which are regularly secured by the expecting parents, are lower.

10. Cultural aspects

In some Kenyan communities, there's a social eagerness to assist others, including through surrogacy in Kenya . This social angle can impact the choice to turn up as a surrogate without requesting higher fees

Final words

Hence, we can say that the lower surrogate mother cost in Kenya is due to a combination of economic, legal, and social variables. Whereas it offers a more reasonable choice for many intended parents trying to find surrogacy services, it's imperative to consider the moral suggestions and guarantee that surrogate mothers are treated decently and with regard. As surrogacy gets to be more global, understanding the distinctive components that impact its cost in different nations is pivotal for those considering this path to parenthood.

[homosexuhauls]

Sonia Sodha

Sun 2 April 2023

Infertility can be deeply painful. There is a lot a compassionate society can – and should – do to make fertility treatment available to those who can be assisted to have a child with medical intervention. Few would disagree though that there are ethical boundaries to this, shaped by children’s interests, not just adult desires.

Last week, the Law Commission drove a coach and horses through that moral frontier – which it framed as an overdue modernisation of the law – by publishing draft proposals to reform the UK’s surrogacy framework. Implicit in them is the, I suspect controversial, assumption that a single man seeking to have a child alone through surrogacy, because he doesn’t want or can’t maintain a committed relationship, presents no greater moral quandary than a couple seeking IVF. How controversial is anyone’s guess: the Law Commission hasn’t canvassed public attitudes.

Surrogacy is the practice of a woman conceiving, gestating and giving birth to a baby – using her own or donor eggs – for another couple or individual who can’t do so themselves. The UK is one of few countries in which it is lawful. There are important safeguards intended to guard against exploitation: surrogates can only be compensated for reasonable expenses, to try to ensure their motivations are altruistic, not financial. The surrogate is legally the child’s mother until the intended parents are granted a parenting order by the family courts, if and only if they deem it is in the child’s best interests.

Surrogacy remains small-scale in the UK: just 300-400 orders are granted a year, limited by the number of women who want to become surrogates. But in countries like the US and Georgia, where commercial surrogacy is legal – where economically vulnerable women can be paid to carry a baby and surrogacy is governed by legally enforceable contracts that the UN special rapporteur on child exploitation says constitute the sale of children – it is bigger business. In contrast, the UK legal framework tolerates surrogacy but does not actively encourage it.

The Law Commission has recommended wholesale reform that makes the surrogacy process more akin to IVF. It proposes a new “pre-conception” pathway, governed by a surrogacy agreement, in which the intended parents automatically become the legal parents of the child at birth unless the surrogate withdraws consent before birth. The family courts will no longer oversee these arrangements unless the surrogate applies for a parental order in the first six weeks after birth. Instead, surrogacy will be pre-approved by surrogacy agencies, in the same way fertility clinics sign off on IVF. The commission makes sweeping – but unevidenced – claims that this is in the best interests of children and that because it reduces uncertainty, it will increase the amount of surrogacy that happens in the UK by discouraging people from making use of more exploitative regimes abroad.

There are some positive aspects to the proposals: tighter regulation of expense payments to avoid surrogacy being commercialised through the back door; everyone involved would have to undergo counselling. Children would have the right to access information about their surrogate in the same way as those conceived using donor sperm or eggs.

But in adopting a starting point that surrogacy is just another form of assisted conception, the Law Commission has gone beyond its remit. It reduces pregnancy to a process, a transactional exchange of body fluid between a woman and a foetus rather than a relationship between a mother and the life she is nurturing physically and emotionally, that there are ethical considerations involved in breaking at birth, regardless of the desires of the individual adults involved. It is for us as a society to decide whether we want the law to actively encourage rather than tolerate this, not for the Law Commission to make recommendations without even exploring public attitudes.

The Law Commission report is peppered with imagined case studies that invoke sympathy: straight couples where a woman can’t carry a pregnancy and gay male couples who see surrogacy as their only way to have a biological child. But a better ethical test is the men who openly say they want to become fathers through surrogacy because they would rather be single parents. There would be few barriers to them doing so.

This encapsulates the extent to which the Law Commission proposals are catering to the desires of adults with a vested interest in surrogacy – however valid their reasons – over and above child welfare. It proposes a light-touch welfare check as part of the pre-conception pathway, but this would rely in the main on potential parents self-declaring issues of concern and would be carried out by surrogacy agencies that though not-for-profit would still have an interest in making surrogacy happen; the Law Commission itself suggests that private fertility clinics can set up not-for-profit “arms” to act as surrogacy agencies. It explicitly declines to say that the person legally responsible for these checks should have knowledge or experience of child safeguarding. These surrogacy agencies would supposedly be regulated by the Human Embryo and Fertilisation Authority, which has no expertise in child welfare. It is all jaw-droppingly naive.

The counter is that there are only light checks for women and couples conceiving through IVF and nothing for people who become parents naturally. But surrogacy is the only route through which a single man as a sole parent can create a biological child.

Gestation is a natural if not fail-safe form of safeguarding in a world where a minority of men are responsible for almost all physical and sexual violence and men on average pose a different risk to children than women. This isn’t to say some single men who want to go it alone might not make good fathers – single men can and do adopt successfully after robust welfare checks – but that it should be harder than getting signed off for IVF.

It is reasonable to think a man saying he wants to be a single father because he doesn’t want a relationship should prompt some investigation by someone expert in child welfare about his emotional capability to parent alone.

At the heart of the Law Commission proposals is the assumption that surrogacy should be made cleaner to the benefit of the adults involved. But surrogacy is inherently messy, uncertain and ethically complex, because no one has a claim to a baby they haven’t given birth to purely on the basis of genetics and pregnancy cannot be reduced to a transaction.

The Law Commission loftily calls for the government to “endorse these essential reforms”. But on an ethical issue such as this it is vital that politicians consult the public rather than taking direction from a legal body that has grossly overstepped its remit.

Do you have an opinion on the issues raised in this article? If you would like to submit a letter of up to 250 words to be considered for publication, email it to us at observer.letters@observer.co.uk

[toomuchracket]

Okay wait genuinely wondering what that anon meant in regards to surrogacy being human trafficking? Maybe it’s a cultural difference because I’m from the US but I’ve heard plenty of people say that exact opposite (in the sense that they view adoption as human trafficking and surrogacy as the more morally correct option, especially if it’s altruistic surrogacy). You absolutely don’t have to answer this if you don’t want to start a dialogue about this stuff on your blog btw I’m just curious

no there's defo cultural difference in attitudes and norms. i mean, i think there's some ethical concerns around surrogacy in that it might be used to exploit vulnerable women desperate for money, and also the potential that surrogates' health and wellbeing might be neglected by parents who only really care about the baby they get at the end of it. in the uk, i believe the surrogate mother is also considered the legal mother until she signs away parental rights or some such to the biological parents, which has its own set of issues in terms of what happens should she decide she wants to keep the baby she's just grown and birthed or whatever. the human trafficking statement is probably to do with the fact that it's someone's body being used for another's biological gain, and that consent around this could be very dubious - again, more vulnerable women are likely to be put at risk from this. i know that in the u.s. you have companies specifically designed to match surrogates and would-be parents, like it's a whole paid process, whereas it's not a thing to that extent in europe - i think there's a lot less security and more risk involved with surrogacy, so a lot of people are rightfully wary. also, in the uk, the nhs don't have anything to do with surrogacy, so it would mean going private for healthcare and a lot of people aren't prepared to do that - obviously in the u.s. there's no real alternative to paid treatments.

but that's not to say that there aren't issues with foster care and adoption either - children of colour are more likely to be disadvantaged by the systems, which are overwhelmed. in the uk, unlike the u.s., third-party and private agency adoptions are illegal - you have to go through the social care system to adopt legally - and there's statistically less international adoption (i looked it up) in the uk than there is in the u.s.; as such, there's less potential for adoptions to be instances of human trafficking. that said, though, there's definitely a lot of fear of child abuse regarding kids in the care system here.

i don't mind keeping the dialogue open, but i'd ask we keep it all respectful if we do, please <3

[surrogacyconsultancy]

For intended parents who are unable to conceive or carry a child due to infertility, surrogacy can provide the opportunity to have a biological child. We provide the best surrogacy services at affordable cost, The Surrogacy cost in UK between £50,000 to £60,000 depending upon the surrogate mother and the type of medical facility you want.

[becomeparentsurrogacy]

Surrogacy Agency in UK

Become Parents Group are the best surrogacy agency in UK to make you deal with the right fertility clinic as we have tie-ups with some of the best IVF clinics in UK. For more information you can visit here: https://becomeparents.com

[emmashouldbewriting]

The thing with surrogacy though is that it’s illegal in several countries and it’s illegal for a reason. I’m not saying it’s inherently bad because it can be helpful for people dealing with infertility issues, but until the human trafficking connotations is removed 🤷‍♀️

I understand that, but in the UK it's perfectly legal, and they'd likely go through a reputable agency to ensure the surrogate was very well compensated and cared for.

[coochiequeens]

The surrogate is a drug addict. But sure let surrogacy just be run like a regular business. Future consequences to the kids being created be damned. As long as adults who pay for a baby get what they want.

A 63-YEAR-OLD woman who is having a baby with her 26-year-old husband has revealed that the couple's surrogate is in jail.

Cheryl, who has 18 grandchildren, met husband Quran Mccain, when he was just 15 years old.

She insisted that nothing happened between them at the time, and eight years later, the couple met again and fell in live.

The husband and wife have had three failed surrogacy attempts but are now expecting a baby girl, which is due on December 27th.

Cheryl and Quran often share details of their unconventional relationship online, and in a recent TikTok video, shared a shocking statement about their surrogate.

"Our surrogate is incarcerated and now our baby has a second chance at life", Cheryl said.

In a second video, the couple shared a more detailed explanation.

The couple explained that their surrogate has a drug addiction, something that they were not aware of before they asked her to carry their baby.

Quran said: "It's not good that our baby is in this situation, because we weren't prepared for the circumstances that came with the surrogate we chose.

"We take accountability for that".

However, he added that the couple are glad that their surrogate is now in jail, as she won't be able to access any drugs that could harm the baby.

Quran said that he had no idea how bad the surrogate's drug problem was before she went to prison, or which drugs she had been taking.

Despite this shocking setback, the couple are optimistic about their baby's future.

Quran said: "I feel like God's going to cover us, and he's going to give us a healthy baby.

"We did get a surrogate who's going through tough times, but you know, we can't judge."

Addressing their followers he added: "Keep us in your prayers, because it's a crazy journey".

The video, which was posted under Cheryl's account @olivier6060, has likely left many people in shock, as it has racked up 1.5 million views on the video sharing platform.

TiKTok users raced the video's comments section to share their thoughts.

One person said: "Sorry to break it to you, but that baby isn't going to be healthy even if they look healthy.

"Take it from one drug baby to another."

A second person said: "This can’t be a legal surrogate. They wouldn’t qualify."

A third person added: "Who the hell did you get to be your surrogate?'

Previously discussing how excited she was to have another baby,  Cheryl, from Georgia, USA, told SNWS: "It was an amazing feeling to find out we were going to have a baby.

"We get to start our own family.

"I am the happiest now than I have ever been before."

Quran added: "I cried with tears of joy when I found out

"This will be my very first child.

"I have never felt love like this apart from the time I got married to Cheryl."

They were unaware that the woman the asked was a drug addict yet they must have picked up on she must have been struggling.

[gaiafertility]

How UK’s Surrogacy Laws Are Changing: What Future Parents Should Know?

Everyone knows that surrogacy is a perfect ways to start your family given you are unable to pursue parenthood via naturally. Yet, this highly popular practice further comes along with certain legalities that need some attention.

UK’s existing surrogacy legislation

One should know the existing state of the surrogacy laws in UK before diving into the changes. Though there are strict regulations in place, surrogacy is legal in the UK. One of the main components is that commercial surrogacy—where the surrogate is paid for more than just reasonable costs—is not allowed. Rather, only altruistic surrogacy is allowed, thus surrogates can be reimbursed for things like travel, maternity clothing, and loss of income but not paid a hefty fee. Though the process involves legal procedures to transfer parental rights, surrogacy for gay couples in the UK is completely legal as is single parent surrogacy in the UK. For instance, intended parents have to apply for a parental order to become the legal guardians even while the surrogate is regarded as the legal mother at birth.

The Campaign for Legal Transformation

The UK’s surrogacy laws are under review mostly because they haven’t been revised in more than thirty years, despite significant changes in society’s view of family and fertility treatments. Reviewing surrogacy laws, the Scottish Law Commission and the English and Welsh Law Commission started to bring them more in line with modern reality. The legal rights of all parties, openness about expenses, and the parental order process—many of which parents and surrogates find laborious and emotionally taxing—are among the several issues this review is meant to cover. One main goal is to simplify the procedure so that intended parents—from birth—are legally acknowledged instead of having to wait for a court order to pass parental rights from the surrogate. This would provide intended parents with a more safe and direct path to bring their child home free from needless delays.

IVF and Egg Donation’s Role in Surrogacy

Many families find that the surrogacy process depends critically on IVF treatment available in the UK. Either using the intended parents’ genetic material or donor eggs/sperm, IVF (in vitro fertilization) is the first stage in the medical road map used to produce an embryo. That said, intended parents can work with an IVF clinic in the UK to guarantee a better experience as more fertility clinics offer modern technology and support. Particularly for women who cannot produce healthy eggs or same-sex male couples who require donor eggs to generate an embryo, egg donation in the UK is also becoming more important in surrogacy here. The surrogacy laws also guarantee that egg donors remain anonymous; although they have no legal rights over the child, the intended parents have to seek for a parental order once the child is born.

Surrogacy Clinics: Their Purpose

Although surrogacy is legal in the UK, what clinics and agencies are allowed to do is highly regulated. To help them negotiate the complexity of the surrogacy process—including matching with a surrogate and offering medical assistance—intended parents frequently rely on a surrogacy clinic in UK. Ensuring that the intended parents and the surrogate know their rights and obligations depends much on these clinics. On the other side, one of the complaints about the present system, though, is the absence of clear laws about surrogacy clinics. Many feel that more thorough control could help to increase openness on medical treatments and expenses, so providing intended parents and surrogates more peace of mind.

Situation with Surrogacy for Same-Sex Couples

Particularly as more same-sex couples look towards this route to parenthood, surrogacy for gay couples in the UK is growing increasingly common. Though there has been a strong push to make it simpler for same-sex couples to access fertility treatments and surrogacy services, the legal process is the same for all intended parents. Fascinatingly, the legal review also addresses how best to assist same-sex couples in surrogacy—in terms of legal recognition as well as in working with clinics and surrogates that are LGBTQ-friendly. Certain couples even choose international surrogacy in countries like Colombia or Albania, where laws and expenses could vary. International Concerns Although surrogacy is legal in the UK, some intended parents decide to investigate overseas possibilities. For UK couples, for instance, Gay surrogacy in Colombia has grown in popularity since Colombia provides a less expensive surrogacy procedure with less rigid rules. Likewise, for those looking for more flexible surrogacy agreements, surrogacy for gay couples in Albania and Cyprus has drawn interest. International surrogacy does, however, present unique difficulties including navigating national legal systems and making sure that parental rights are rightly established upon return to the UK.

How Future seems like?

The continuous evaluation of surrogacy laws in the UK promises to provide much-needed changes reflecting contemporary family dynamics. This means a simpler legal process, more help from IVF clinic in UK and agencies, and more clarity on expenses and parental rights for intended parents. If you are thinking about surrogacy in the UK, stay informed about the most recent developments and deal with a reputable surrogacy clinic in UK to help you through the process. Knowing how the law is changing will enable you to make the best decisions for your family whether you are looking for single parent surrogacy in the UK or IVF treatment there.

Source: https://gaiafertility.wordpress.com/2024/10/24/how-uks-surrogacy-laws-are-changing-what-future-parents-should-know/