#surrogacy regulations

[trendynewsnow]

The Complex Landscape of Commercial Surrogacy in Cambodia

The Global Landscape of Commercial Surrogacy Commercial surrogacy has emerged as a widely sought-after service across the globe. However, as nations implement stricter regulations to combat potential exploitation, the journey for prospective parents is becoming increasingly complex. In Western countries, the costs associated with surrogacy typically range from €50,000 to €200,000, prompting many…

[coochiequeens]

Men having kids through surrogacy to fulfill selfish wants without thinking of the impact on the kids would be reduced if surrogacy agencies has a screening process

Wife returns from work one day, sees strange woman at home holding infant

Husband hires surrogate to have longed-for child, furious wife threatens divorce

By Alice Yan in Shanghai Published: 9:00am, 29 Mar 2024

A woman in China has told how her husband resorted to secret surrogacy to acquire a baby because the couple’s 29-year-old daughter refused to give him a grandchild.

The 53-year-old woman, surnamed Guo, said when she returned from work one day in September 2022, she saw a strange woman in her home holding an infant, according to Henan Television.

The stranger told Guo the child belonged to her and her husband, and she had been hired as a maid.

A shocked Guo later learned that the baby was born via surrogacy after her husband paid an agency.

The child was carried by a university student, the report said.

Guo and her husband, who live in Yiyang, Hunan province in central China, have one daughter – their only child, who told them she does not want to marry or have children.

“My husband said, ‘Your choice means I will never be a grandfather. What’s the point of raising you? Not having a baby means you are not filial, according to Chinese traditional culture’,” Guo said.

The man, whose age was not included in the report, said because the infant girl was so cute and healthy, he might ask the surrogacy institute for a boy next time.

“I flared up into a fury. I am going to divorce him,” said Guo.

The husband stole his wife’s identity card to apply for the infant’s birth certificate which states that he is her father and Guo is her mother.

“I flared up into a fury. I am going to divorce him,” said Guo.

The husband stole his wife’s identity card to apply for the infant’s birth certificate which states that he is her father and Guo is her mother.

The news report told the story of another man, aged 62, from Henan province in central China who also hired a surrogacy company without telling his family, so he could have a baby boy.

The man’s daughter said her father had wanted a son for a long time.

“After the one-child policy was abandoned, my father asked my mother to have another child for him. But my mother was nearly 50 and she did not want to have another child,” said the daughter.

She said the surrogacy company charged her father 540,000 yuan (US$75,000) and guaranteed the baby would be a boy.

Surrogacy is illegal in China. In 2023, the authorities issued a directive to crack down on the activity.

The story caused a heated discussion on mainland social media.

“I support surrogacy being illegal. Otherwise, women will just be used for their wombs,” one online observer said on Douyin.

“Maybe in the future, dating couples will need to check their DNA to see if they are siblings,” wrote another.

[joinsideke]

I guess the question is, should people be allowed to rent out their bodies? I don't really know how I feel about it myself. Ideally people should just adopt if they can't have children of their own. Like I kinda get the desire of wanting a biological child, but blood isn't the be all and end of what makes a family. And in the case of gay couples, the kid's only going to be blood related to one of the parents anyway. And if it's still a struggle for gay couples to adopt, then that's an issue we need to fix rather than just looking for another solution.

I don't personally know anyone who's done surrogacy, but I'm reminded of the examples I've seen in media. Two did it out of compassion: Phoebe from Friends carried her brother's and sister-in-law's children since the SIL couldn't, and Francine from American Dad carried for her gay friends. No money was exchanged, and that's what I think the ideal version would be. (Though there's still likely to be issues in the real world, cos nothing's ever that cut and dry. I do remember in episode where Phoebe gave birth, she struggled a bit to give them up, so they at least touched on it.)

The other was Dee from It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia, who did it solely for the money. I only caught the tail end of that one, where Dee is lying about still having the baby to collect welfare checks from the government and gets audited. Is that also a concern? I don't know. But it was pretty funny.

[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.

[queen-esther]

When people have ethical debates on surrogacy they usually seem to focus on the mother, that’s she’s being exploited. But the children are of course just as much victims if not more so. Not only are they being bought and sold like merchandise and ripped away from their mother, but there is no regulations about child care or whether the buyers are competent parents. There have been several cases of paedophile men buying babies and planning to use them for sexual purposes. A fricking dog breeder will ask you how you’re going to take care of the animal before purchase.

Exactly. This is why we need to ban surrogacy entirely.

[secularprolifeconspectus]

Hello! Sorry if it’s too political, but how do you think reproductive rights will change for women as Trump became a president again? Is it THAT bad or you think it’s mostly propaganda from mainstream media?

And what will change about abortions? Will they be banned or maybe some reforms? Is it better for pro-life movement or not? I’d be glad to hear your thoughts!

Great questions! This is a very political blog, so no worries about that lol.

I doubt that the reproductive landscape will change much because of Trump directly. He and Melania have both made it fairly clear that they are pro-choice (Melania explicitly in her memoir; Trump through his support of the abortion pill, opposition to a federal abortion ban, support of embryo destruction in IVF, and distaste of first-trimester state bans. Oh, and also the *rapist misogynist* thing). Now, what our GOP-lead senate will do? That's a little more promising, and frightening.

I strongly doubt that Trump (or even Republicans) will try to ban birth control/contraception, or to regulate sterilization; and if they do, they likely won't do it successfully. Those simply aren't popular takes. He might take a whack at surrogacy though, and he'll probably keep expanding the coercive power of the domestic infant adoption industry. It's also doubtful that he will do anything to support birth justice, especially in POC communities; if anything, his healthcare policies will probably cause further reproductive care deserts. And his immigration policies will cause thousands of abortions among refugees. It would be nice if he actually helped tackle sex trafficking. Maybe he will help protect pregnancy resource centers.

Trump seems pretty disgusted by later abortion, so he may swing his weight to help push through some state-level limitations. I hope he puts his money where his mouth is and signs off on the Born Alive Abortions Survivors Act, which will give the Born Alive Infant Protection Act some enforcement power to mandate life-saving care for abortion survivors. And perhaps he'll be vocal about regulations to end the dissection of live micropremies for research. If he's really as disturbed by "after-birth abortions" as he says he is, he'll support these initiatives.

My biggest hope is that he'll follow through on his word and pardon the abortion rescuers in prison, and that he'll rally his people to repeal the FACE Act, and then that he'll make a fuss about a congressional hearing for the DC Five. Those would be game-changers. We could actually bring back Rescue and get Justice for the Five.

Overall, is Trump better for the pro-life movement than a different right-winger? No, I think he's done massive damage to the reputation of the movement that will take years to overcome. The public doesn't trust us because of him. We must cut ties with Trumpism if we ever want to see a nonpartisan, popular pro-life movement. (We write about this in our book, btw.)

But is Trump better for the movement than Kamala? I'd say so. Kamala exhibited, not the least through her treatment of David Daleiden, but also through her remarks, that she was more than willing to suppress freedom of speech, press, and religion to protect Big Abortion. As well as to take away conscience protections for medical providers, and to eliminate the Hyde Amendment, thus not only forcing people to commit human rights violations, but also to pay for them through their taxes. That all sounds like fascism to me.

So, I'm aggrieved to have an overt fascist like Trump as our incoming president. He's going to get people killed and to ruin lives, and be an incompetent embarrassment for four years, no doubt. He does put democracy in danger. But, perhaps his overt threat will be enough to incite the people to organize against his fascism. Had Kamala won, I believe the people would have settled into complacency and accepted her covert fascism with open arms. I was truly terrified of this election, no matter the results. America has chosen the familiar threat.

If there's any other facets of reproductive justice that I missed and you want to hear about, feel free to send another ask.

[cal-daisies-and-briars]

Hi!

🦮🦮🦮🦮🦮🦮🦮🦮🦮🦮, 🪞🪞🪞🪞🪞🪞🪞🪞🪞🪞, ⚡️⚡️⚡️⚡️⚡️⚡️⚡️⚡️⚡️⚡️

Hi :)

30 for 🦮:

---

 She rummages around until she finds what appears to be an old photograph print. Four by six. She slides it across the table to Buck. 

“This is him,” Maddie says. “Daniel.”

Daniel?

Hands shaking, Buck grabs the photo. He lifts it closer to his face. The child in the photo is a dead ringer for Buck at the same age. He’d almost ask her if she’s sure it’s not just him. Except it’s not their house he’s sitting on a bike out front of. And there’s no birthmark, when he looks closer. 

“He was two years younger than me,” Maddie says. “He died before your first birthday. That’s why you don’t remember him.”

Buck shakes his head. “I don’t understand.”

“He got sick,” Maddie says. “The doctors tried everything to save him, but… Well, it didn’t work.”

This isn’t real. This can’t be real. There are too many questions bouncing around his head. Like bullets ricocheting off the walls of his skull. There is so much noise, even though they’ve both fallen completely silent. 

“Uh…” He trails off. “I guess, first… I’m sorry, Maddie.”

Maddie looks at the surface of the table, avoiding his gaze. 

---

30 for 🪞:

---

Dove is quiet. 

That’s probably okay. It’s probably okay for her to be quiet and process. But Buck is too anxious and heartbroken to let the moment just sit. 

“It’s not your fault no one has said it before,” Buck tells her. “You are so special and loveable. And I’m going to tell you every single day, so you don’t forget it, okay?”

At this, Dove starts to cry. Buck worries he’s said the exact wrong thing. This is hard. 

“Sweetie, it’s okay,” he says, rubbing her shoulder. “It’s okay.”

“So you won’t send me back?” She blubbers.

“What?” Buck gapes. “Oh god. No, Dove. No, I am not going to send you back. This is your home now.”

She takes deep, gulping breaths like she can’t get enough air. Buck thinks he may need to get her puffer. But is this an asthma attack or a panic attack? And if it’s the latter, what the hell does he do?

“Can you breathe?” He asks her. “In through the nose, okay?”

He models breathing, and she follows along. She manages to regulate herself, much to Buck’s relief. 

“You’re okay,” he promises. “You’re gonna be okay.”

---

30 for ⚡️:

---

 Maybe that’s confirmation bias. Whatever. Eddie has given up trying to be more rational than his husband. When he became his husband. Easier to lean into it, it turns out. 

The point is, things keep lining out. Moving them in the right direction. And Eddie has to wonder… If there is a destiny or a fate or whatever, is life just easier when you surrender to it? Because things used to feel so hard. When he was fighting himself all the time. 

Take, for example, the whole baby thing. Which Eddie maybe could be stressing about a whole lot right now, considering how much extra work it will take for them to accomplish versus the last time he did. In which his initial work was very minimal. He could be panicking, but he’s not. Because things are just kind of… Going the way they’re meant to go? It’s novel, really. 

Buck had come to him with an idea. Name the baby after Bobby, assuming it’s a boy. Which Eddie thinks they will be - he will be - because that’s just what Eddie thinks. So Eddie had said yes, as long as Buck actually talked to Bobby. Which Buck did, and it went great for them. And just like that, the universe - if it’s a thing - seems to be taking care of them. Because not even a full month later, the LAFD changes its benefits policy. They are now covering a wide range of costs related to family planning and fertility. Including a decent chunk of the costs of IVF for surrogacy. 

Eddie doesn’t think this was meant to be a win for queer men, as much as it is one. Likely, a much more selfish motive passed that change. More female firefighters opting to go the surrogate route, and therefore not getting pregnant themselves. Better for business, in the eyes of the LAFD. 

[saintmeghanmarkle]

Because Its The Law - Data Protection Laws: Understanding the Royal Familys Silence on Surrogacy by u/Oakthrees

Because… It’s The Law - Data Protection Laws: Understanding the Royal Family’s Silence on Surrogacy The persistent speculation about why the Royal Family hasn't publicly disclosed whether Meghan used a surrogate is rooted in a fundamental misunderstanding of data protection laws. These laws, notably the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) in the EU and the UK's Data Protection Act 2018, serve as robust shields for personal and private information. They're especially stringent when it comes to sensitive personal data, which unequivocally includes health-related details.Applying this to the British royal family, suppose a family member chose surrogacy over natural childbirth. Such a choice is undeniably sensitive personal data. Disclosing it without explicit consent is not just a breach of etiquette; it's a blatant violation of these stringent data protection laws. These laws are built on pillars of lawfulness, fairness, and transparency in handling personal data, underscoring an individual's right to privacy and autonomy over their personal information.Turning to the media's role, their interest in the royals doesn't grant them a carte blanche to invade personal privacy. Any leak of such intimate details by a royal family member to the press would be a clear transgression of these legal frameworks.That's why you'll never hear this from the royal family, and why responsible news outlets wouldn't dare to publish it. This isn't just about respecting privacy; it's about adhering to laws that guard our most personal information. post link: https://ift.tt/ALVCfoa author: Oakthrees submitted: December 14, 2023 at 02:56AM via SaintMeghanMarkle on Reddit

[haggishlyhagging]

All technology is not automatically progress. Regulating a technology does not ensure that a technology will be used in a progressive way. Regulation does not address the international trafficking potential for fetal tissue or the casting of women in the role of human incubators. There can be no exploitation of fetuses or children without a prior exploitation of women, from whence fetuses and children come.

The situation of women and children is very much connected; this is a biological but, more significantly, a political fact. Both women and children share in the same kinds of sexual abuse, and increasingly both become commodities on the international reproductive market. Both are subject increasingly to medical experimentation. New reproductive arrangements, such as surrogacy, are increasing the traffic in women and children across national borders. Women are the breeders; children are the product bred. We have here the international harvesting of women and children.

Many U.S. Americans recognize the horrors of the child organ and illegal adoption trade. Yet they approve of legislation legalizing and/or regulating surrogate contracts, without seeing any connection between the former and the latter. Surrogacy is the acceptable face of reproductive trafficking, yet there is little distinction between a domestic and an intercountry market in women and children. What we call surrogacy in the West is a variant on baby selling abroad. One is soft-core exploitation, the other hard-core. One is glossy, the other graphic. The only distinction is that in surrogacy, the father buys his own genetic child and thereby confers legitimacy on surrogate arrangements because the child is recognized as "his."

The reproductive trafficking in women and children contains all the worst elements of human rights violations. It involves the purchase and sale of human beings, coercion, the uprooting of women and children frequently from their countries of origin and from their culture, sometimes the torture of both, often the medical violation of both, and, more often than we know, the death of both. The reproductive exploitation of women and children, along with their sexual exploitation, is an act of total denigration of human beings. Until we recognize such sexual, reproductive, and medical practices as violations of human rights and abolish the overall structure of this international trafficking in women and children, nothing will change.

-Janice G. Raymond, Women as Wombs

[coochiequeens]

I am sympathetic because they were both given a bad hand health wise, but they are both in their 40's with bad medical histories. Have they thought about what would happen if the do manage to purchase a baby and cancer comes back in one or even both parents?

By Kate Varley Multimedia Journalist

A couple who plan to have a baby through surrogacy hope that proposed new legislation will bring their dream of becoming parents one step closer.

The Assisted Human Reproduction Bill will reach Report Stage in the Dáil today and if passed, will allow for the licencing and regulation of domestic and international surrogacy.

The Government has said it will give legal status to parents who already have children through surrogacy and the bill will also cover future cases.

Prospective parents, such as Deirdre and her partner Edwin, believe surrogacy is their only avenue to having their own child.

Both of them were diagnosed with cancer in recent years and Deirdre has eggs stored from before her treatment for endometrial cancer.

However, they had to use donor sperm as Edwin was diagnosed with testicular cancer.

Because of this the couple believe there is currently no provision for them to gain parental rights post surrogacy.

"We have three embryos frozen that are made using donor sperm, but we have not been able to use them through surrogacy because of the current Irish legislation," Deirdre said.

"These changes would mean we have choice."

The gap in the legislation has left Deirdre and Edwin in a state of limbo, unable to move forward with their dream of having a family.

The couple hope the legislation is passed quickly.

"We don't have time on our side obviously. We've already done six years of IVF. I am currently 42, Edwin is 47 and we need this legislation to progress speedily if possible," Deirdre said.

Speaking on RTÉ's Morning Ireland, Irish Families Through Surrogacy spokesperson Cathy Wheatley said that new legislation will give families hope.

"The current rules around surrogacy in Ireland is that there's no laws in place, it's not regulated, it's not something that you can go into knowing that you are protected and that everybody is protected and so the hope with the bill is that it will provide protection for all parties involved," she said.

She added that "the families, the surrogates, the children all deserve to be protected and that's why it's so important that we're doing this".

Ms Wheatley said that "what's really important is to remember that behind all of these policies and everything that the Government talks about are real families".

"They're real children and we have to strive to make sure that that they are treated equally and we've been assured by the Minister [for Health] and the Government that there's another bill coming in September to be able to right the wrongs, to tie up any of the loose ends that this bill doesn't cover. And that's really important for us."

[supersoftly]

some non-religious people disagree with paid surrogacy as a whole because they believe it's always wrong to rent out a woman's reproductive or sexual organs.

some others don't actually disagree with all paid surrogacy on a baseline level like that, but they disagree with the current realities of the practice, for example, how it's often rich people from rich countries renting out the bodies of poor women from poor countries, how the parents buying the child will often abandon the process if the child has genetic disabilities, leaving the pregnant surrogate mother to pick up the pieces. many people also believe the mothers are not fairly compensated considering it's essentially a 24/7 job for 9 months straight, and on top of that, one that can result in serious injury or death (people often bring up the kardashian sister who paid $10k for a baby, because she frequently spends far more than that on a handbag or a pair of shoes)

Yeah, trust me, you don't have to remind me what is involved in pregnancy :p which is also why for the longest time I've shown 0 interest in surrogacy as it is an intimate and personal choice that shouldn't necessarily require the opinions or consent of uninvolved third parties.

That said, the major concerns that aren't rooted in broadbrush outrage appear to be focused on protecting the mother and child, and I can get behind that. What I have trouble with is using the instances of people who do take advantage of the current system, and people's suggested conclusion is quite literally throwing the baby out with the bathwater as opposed to improving the quality of surrogacy and allowing stronger regulation and transparency to avoid such instances as you mentioned above.

I hope we can agree that just because someone is incapable of having children doesn't mean they shouldn't be allowed to rear children, as regulated by the state. Yes, alternative options are available not necessarily through surrogacy, but that's a conversation to be had between the parties directly involved, not me or you or religious doctrines. Just as much as pregnancy is a process of both physical and mental commitment, so is rearing a child and it's not up to me who's not the parental guardian to decide what's appropriate or not, otherwise you open up the can of worms on who deserves to be parents or not as judged by the state, which in the USA Buck vs Bell is a very strong indicator that altruistic goodwill without scrutiny or checks/balances will often throw the people that it was meant to help under the bus.

There certainly is a strong gross factor related to the commercialization of surrogacy and I'm not against heavily regulating or investigating such agencies to be held accountable, but I hope there is some meaningful middle ground that protects the parents, the surrogate and the baby instead of doing away with it altogether.

Edit: was recommended a documentary from a mutual called Made in India (2010) that I am going to watch, but figured I should suggest it for anyone else also interested in the topic.

[just-antithings]

This is not relevant to anything, but has anyone seen around twitter terfs and radfems hating on surrogacy as a concept indiscriminately and making icky comments about gay men who use it to have children? What's up with that? i know that there are some real issues surrounding surrogacy, but i always go with - if it's informed consent and choice, then it's not my circus, not my monkeys. but what is it with terfs/radfems being in everyone's business?

So, I won’t pretend to be an expert by any means on the subject, but I do know that there are a lot of issues surrounding surrogacy and that it definitely needs to be more regulated in order to protect the people involved. But radfems and terfs, as per usual, just want to get rid of surrogacy completely instead of taking a more nuanced look at the issue and trying to find a better way to make it work

[surrogacyagencykenya]

HOW KENYA ATTRACTS INTENDED PARENTS FROM AROUND THE WORLD EVEN WITH NO SURROGACY LAWS?

Surrogacy has proved its prowess as a perfect godsend for many intended parents worldwide who are unable to become parents naturally. That way, it has come up as a ray of hope for all those gay couples and single parents who cannot conceive naturally. Although many nations already have well-defined surrogacy rules and regulations, surrogacy laws in Kenya are still an exception and lack any particular legislation. Still, Kenya is growing in popularity among intended parents despite the absence of a legal framework. In the following post, we will look through the same reasons in detail.

[gaykarstaagforever]

Get ready for the "pronatalists," coming to a political election near you in the next several years.

They're an unofficial Silicon Valley cult that is basically just good-old-fashioned eugenicists, including the thing where they say it isn't their fault SCIENCE and MATH say rich white people are the best humans.

They unironically think Elon Musk is the paragon of human existence, and like him, a big part of their thing is romanticizing autism...or what they CALL autism, but isn't autism, it's just them being selfish assholes and declaring themselves beyond criticism because it is a "condition." Which they openly think is also the next stage of human evolution, which is why they have to quickly breed their superior genes into the race that will "save the world" from too many poor brown people existing. Because them liking money a lot is going to help save us from climate change...? It immediately gets muddled, once they've declared their practical white supremacy.

But all this, OF COURSE, isn't racist. They're just "realists" about how bad the Earth will be when uneducated brown non-billionaires who don't even own companies get to make decisions! Because it's a paradise now, since it's being run by white billionaires.

Huh.

They think of themselves as left-wing, but the progressive left hates them for obvious reasons, so they are now affiliating with the far-right. For obvious reasons.

The only things that separate them from Fundamentalist Evangelicals is that they are atheists, pro-queer, hate Trump, and are pro-choice. But the pro-choice thing is really only about them wanting the right to discard "substandard" fertilized eggs, because they use AI to tell them which embryos will be "more intelligent" than the others.

...An odd thing to claim, considering IQ is not an actual measure of anything besides how well you do one time on a test, and you CERTAINLY can't predict it by looking at genes. But the US refuses to regulate this kind of gene selection, so of course eugenicists are going to take advantage of it.

The atheism thing seems noble and progressive until you realize it is just very rich people justifying why they don't have to follow the same ethical code as everyone else.

The pro-queer thing also barely counts, because they STILL expect superior white gays / asexuals to use IVF and surrogacy to gift their awesome genes to the future. They've cut out the need for sex to do eugenics. I guess that's kind of a new innovation on the ancient stupidity.

I for one don't trust anyone who looks at Sam Altman and says "this is the Ubermensch." Including Sam himself. Who is of course a fan of all this.

And they hate Trump because everyone with a brain hates Trump, because he's an awful person, all the time, to everyone. Other rich people have always hated Trump. He brags about it. Being rich and hating Trump doesn't make you a hero.

This wouldn't be worth talking about, because these freaks have been around for years, and obviously they have been unpopular with people on both sides of the spectrum. But now, oh boy!, they've realized they are rich and have big dreams for the Earth, so they are of course getting into politics. As Republicans, of course, because any rich person who demands the right to tell the rest of us how to live ends up over there. That's most of their thing.

The family The Guardian talked to lives in my home state of Pennsylvania, because we're purple enough to let you be weird, but red enough to help you be white. I can't wait for this movement to join the coalition of angry extremists that is already the state Republican party, and start pouring money into their master plan to re-Caucasian America. Because everything must be Texas. Because Elon LOVES Texas.

Also they abuse their children. At least, this couple does.

Posting this bothers me, because talking about them is exactly what these people want. So much so that I wonder how much of this is even true, or just them being ridiculous for attention.

But the dad hitting his 2 year old in public, in front of the reporter, like he doesn't even know that's at least bad optics, is the kind of terrible that genuinely comes from a person's black little heart.

[thelandswemadeofpaper]

Surrogacy still has too much issues and needs more regulation and proper laws.

I am trying to make a list of the more common problems:

The babies born 'imperfect' (wrong gender, twins, with a disability, premature...)

The topic of abortion in surrogacy in general

Wanting to touch the surrogate's belly, control her food/drinks, be on deliver room, decide if its natural or cesarian...

The 'use' of mental ill, brain dead or incapable in some way women as surrogates with or without her family's 'consent'.

Any warm done to the surrogate to 'save the baby', I just read about one that died during birth...it was a mess.

Demand of Child Support by either part (from the surrogate keeping the child to the parents wanting her to co-parent and pay them), I remember a case where the wife died and the dad keep trying to get the surrogate to step up as a mother together with him, its was creepy.

Women in a specific bad situation (poverty, familiar or friend pressure...) begin coerced to begin a surrogate.

Men's 'right' of fatherhood can be freaked up as the 'right' for sex.

Just the normal and typical women's issues with doctors and healthcare plus the ones from surrogacy.

Add more if you want

[mariacallous]

Greece’s parliament, despite strong reactions to the bill, legalized civil marriage and childbearing by same-sex couples at midnight on February 15. The bill passed with 176 votes in favour, 76 against and 31 abstained.

“I have received countless messages from the LGBTI+ community. Addressing its thousands of members, I want to say that I fully recognise what they have been through and what they are going through over the course of many generations… They were the children of an inferior God,” said Prime Minister Kyriakos Mitsotakis.

“Today is a day of joy because from tomorrow, another barrier between us will be removed to become a bridge of coexistence in a free state, with free citizens,” he added.

Under the bill, Greece recognises same-sex marriages, grants full parental rights to same-sex couples that already have children and allows same-sex couples to adopt. But it stops short of allowing same-sex couples to have children via surrogacy in future.

Surrogacy is currently allowed only for women, single or married, who are unable to have children on health grounds. Heterosexual couples and single men and women are allowed to adopt.

Around 130 MPs spoke in the two-day debate, including political leaders, rapporteurs, and parliamentary representatives.

Dimitris Koutsoumpas, leader of the Communist Party, KKE, expressed opposition, saying the new bill brings substantial changes in childbearing and will lead to commercialization.

“The bill is neither neutral nor trivial and does not simply resolve issues concerning the relationship of children who already exist with the partner of the biological or adoptive parent, problems that can largely be resolved with the existing legal frame. On the contrary, it brings substantial changes to what concerns childbearing and adoption in the direction of even more generalized commercialization,” he said.

Koutsoumpas added that the KKE condemned hostility to people of a same-sex sexual orientation, and also submitted specific proposals for the protection of every person from all kinds of discrimination.

The conservative New Democracy government proposed the bill.

The Greek Orthodox Church spoke against it, saying it was step towards the abolition of traditional perenting and the “disappearance” of gender roles.

“The initiators of the bill and those who agree with it are promoting the abolition of fatherhood and motherhood and their transformation into neutral parenthood, the disappearance of gender roles within the family, and the placing of the sexual choices of homosexual adults above the interests of future children,” the Holy Synod of the Church said on January 23.

The three far-right parties, Ellyniki Lysi, Spartans, and Niki, submitted objections to the bill, which were rejected.

Citizens opposed to the bill gathered at Athens’ Syntagma Square on February 15, holding crosses, icons, and placards with the slogan “Homeland – Religion – Family” written on them.

A BIRN analysis of the regulation of same-sex marriage in Greece heard from LGBT families who said that the bill was long-awaited but still leaves out many categories.