Author Archives: stopsurrogacynowuk

Words from a Midwife: Part Three – The Unspoken

There has been an interesting response to the Royal College of Midwives (RCM) webinar on Surrogacy. Perhaps it’s not surprising that those ‘with women’ wanted to offload their or share what they themselves have witnessed when supporting patients through pregnancy, birth ‘and beyond’.

Midwives got in touch with us to tell us of their shock at when they heard their union was considering hosting a webinar on surrogacy. We later heard from the women who attended that it was far from a the ‘neutral’ presentation they were promised.

Parts One and Two of this short blog series are direct accounts from RCM Members who attended and who remain anonymous and other midwives gave us permission to share their personal perceptions of surrogacy in their day-to-day jobs.

A Community Midwife noticed how the glossy images a surrogate mother posted online which promoted surrogacy as a wholly positive experience hid the very raw and real realities of her birth injuries.

Another midwife said something similar about a woman who had a baby for a family member. The commissioning mother was posting on social media about how amazing her ‘journey’ was, but this midwife knew the reality for the birth mother. It was filled with gestational diabetes (which can lead to higher risk of diabetes in future), obstetric cholestasis which is a liver condition (that can causes liver disease and other issues in the future) and high blood pressure. This risky pregnancy ended in a C section. The truth was this woman was devastated after the birth as she would never have another child of her own due to these complications. It put a strain on her own marriage as her husband, while initially supportive, didn’t realise the enormous negative affect this had on his wife’s health and the future of their own family. This desperately sad reality was not shared on social media.

Another midwife commented on the late maternal age of two surrogate mothers she cared for and she expressed concern that there are no upper age limits in proposed reform. Both of the surrogate mothers she supported were in their 50s. She felt that as the pool of women available for surrogacy was ‘slim pickings’, women with a complex obstetric histories may be considered by the commissioning parents as their options were limited. This was nothing to say of the risk to the baby.

And finally there was one patient that stayed in the mind of a midwife we spoke to by phone. She told us how she supported this woman through four surrogacy pregnancies. The midwife knew she had lost touch with all but one of the families she was pregnant and gave birth for. During these pregnancies the commissioning parents were her “best friends” but once the baby had been delivered, the surrogate mother was “ghosted” and she then grieved the loss of the lifelong friendship she was told she could rely on.

In sharing their experiences these midwives has a sense of release, as if they had to keep to the official line outwardly, but inwardly there was worry and anger building as they were unable to talk freely. In our conversations these women were able to air their concerns about the direction of travel of surrogacy in the UK. Several felt badly let down by their union as women and as midwives.

We were left with a distinct observation that midwives are on the ‘front line’ of surrogacy. Any legal disputes may end up in the court room but they begin on a maternity ward. It is the midwives and other healthcare professionals who will have to navigate the practicalities on the ground around consent, the removal of the newborn and ongoing mental and physical health problems as a result of surrogacy births.

Words from a Midwife: Part Two – Guest Post from Anonymous

Leave a reply

After we published Part One of this blog last week, a number of midwives got in touch with us to tell us more about Royal College of Midwives’ webinar on surrogacy. Part Two is a another written account from a Midwife who attended the webinar who also wishes to remain anonymous. If readers wish to get in touch with us, please use the contact form .

Prior to the webinar I sent the RCM a complaint regarding how inappropriate it is to platform an organisation that offers material incentives such as Ann Summers vouchers and apple watches to potential surrogates. Following my complaint and complaints from other midwives, the RCM sent out a standard response stating that the RCM is neither for or against surrogacy. They said they were neutral on the subject. The webinar panel was then amended to include other speakers such as Louisa Ghevaert, a family lawyer and Sarah Jones, surrogate mother and representative of Surrogacy UK, the largest surrogacy agency in the UK.

The webinar started with the host informing everyone that it would not be a debate on the pros or cons of surrogacy and it would be an educational ‘safe space’. It soon became apparent with the lawyer’s presentation that the webinar was heavily pro surrogacy. Louisa spoke at length about the law reforms proposed which included removing surrogates’ rights to be the legal parent at birth. This element was glossed over so I asked a question about whether this included surrogates who were genetically related to the baby and whether that means it completely removes the surrogate’s ability to change her mind following the birth. I also commented in the chat that this scenario would mean midwives would have to remove babies from birth mothers and hand them over to commissioning parents and asked how we could be expected to do this? Both my question and comment went unanswered. Louisa continued to focus on how wonderful law reform will be as it provides criminal history and safeguarding checks for all involved. She insinuated that although the government had stated it will not be taking up this reform that this was just a formality and it will be back on the table in a month’s time.

Sarah Jones was next to present and she spoke at length about her personal journey of being a surrogate and her motivations for surrogacy. Sarah did answer my question, she admitted that she had undertaken both types of surrogacy ‘host’ and ‘straight’, meaning she had given away her own genetic children. She stated that any commissioning parents involved with Surrogacy UK had to agree to having an on-going relationship with the surrogate after birth. Although, she failed to mention how this would be enforced. In my professional experience the surrogates I have cared for have both been ‘ghosted’ by the commissioning parents following the birth and have no on-going contact. (In those cases the surrogate born child was not genetically related to the surrogate mother.)

Sarah spoke about how she is ‘bonded’ with the children she was a surrogate for but no mention of how the children feel being born by surrogacy or how her other children feel knowing they have siblings out there who do not live with them.

Michael and Wes were next to speak. This was the most difficult part of the webinar for me as I find their whole organisation to be completely unethical. They offer membership ‘benefits’ which include Apple watches, Gousto vouchers, Merlin entertainment vouchers and Ann Summers gift cards. I asked them if they thought offering these benefits blurred the lines into commercial surrogacy. I was not expecting a reply to that particular question, however Michael did reply:

“All of the membership benefits were created from three years of research to the surrogacy community. Every membership benefit has a health, nutrition or support benefit to all our members.”

I struggle to understand what support benefit an Ann Summers or Lovehoney voucher brings to a pregnant woman. It highlights to me how loosely regulated the remuneration for surrogacy is. On the surface it may seem that the UK has an altruistic model of surrogacy but in reality we have a system of commercial surrogacy in disguise with unknown sums of ‘expenses’ being paid. I have also witnessed expensive gifts exchanging hands. I commented about how I felt it was unethical to set up a surrogacy agency in a developing country such as Mexico which has high levels of poverty. This comment went ignored.

What stood out to me the most throughout the whole webinar was the complete lack of discussion regarding the children born through surrogacy. The focus was on how midwives should support both surrogates and commissioning parents. There was also a complete lack of understanding from all presenters about the role of the midwife and who the midwife owes a duty of care to. I asked Louisa about what should midwives do following the breakdown of a relationship between the commissioning parents and surrogate. Instead of getting the correct answer that midwives only have a legal duty of care to the surrogate I got a very long spiel about being compassionate and kind to the commissioning parents!

It is difficult to understand how the RCM can claim to be neutral on surrogacy and then put on a webinar with only pro surrogacy speakers, there to give rose-tinted glasses spin on surrogacy and the law. It was biased and far from neutral.

Disappointingly, most of the attendees seemed to be in favour and left gushing comments about how wonderful it all is and how fabulous they think Michael and Wes are. It goes against everything we are taught as midwives regarding the mother and baby dyad, during pregnancy and following the birth. It seems the rights of anyone wanting a child for themselves supersedes all ethical and biological considerations.

We know the relationship between mother and child starts in the womb, we are monitored on our discussions with women by the ‘baby friendly initiative’. We must inform women that their babies can hear them in the womb, that they will recognise their voice and the bond starts before they are born.

Is this all forgotten when someone is commissioning a woman to have a baby for them?

Words from a Midwife: Part One – Guest Post from Anonymous

2 Replies

Following the Royal College of Midwives webinar on Surrogacy last week, a Midwife got in touch with us to share her experience and her concerns about what the promotion of surrogacy in midwifery means for her. To protect her identity we share the following without sharing her name.

As an RCM member for the past 28 years, I’ve always felt my union has had my best interests at heart. I’ve felt confident of their support and on the very few occasions I’ve needed their assistance, they haven’t let me down. But now I feel things may be starting to change, and I’m deeply concerned.

I attended their webinar last week which was advertised online as a discussion on surrogacy and how we, as midwives can support parents of babies born of surrogate mothers. The subject of surrogacy troubles me but the content shocked me.

Since I was a teenager at the start of my training, it is embedded into the heart of what it is to be a Midwife and that is to be ‘with mother’. Our role is to be her closest carer and her biggest advocate – yet here we were being told in this new way, she is not a mother, but a ‘carrier of a baby’. A baby who is to be given away at birth, and not only that, our care as midwives should be transferred over to these ‘intended parents’.

It was very clear as soon as the webinar started that this was not a discussion or a debate on surrogacy, but well thought-out propaganda on the wonders of surrogacy, with stories from a surrogate mother and two parents of children born through surrogacy.

There are no official stats on how many children are born through surrogacy in the UK. There is no disclosure on prospective parents and we know just by reading the news, that people from the UK are traveling abroad to buy babies. Although women in the UK are not paid for their ‘reproductive service’ there are incentives and ‘independant journeys’ (private arrangements) are being made online. If you’re lucky you get an Apple Watch and Ann Summers vouchers among other goodies from an agency. When someone in the chat questioned the ethics of this, they were told by the owners (two men) that it’s nice for the surrogate to have the Ann Summers vouchers to spice things up with her partner as she can’t have penetrative sex when pregnant. Oh how we laughed, does anyone want to tell them? Questions that criticised this controversial practice largely went unanswered.

The surrogate mother and CEO of another agency, Surrogacy UK, told her story of carrying 5 babies for other people, some her own eggs, some not and once during COVID. She was asked if she was concerned for her own health and well-being due to the risks of the amount of IVF pregnancies she’d put her body through. She said she made fully informed decisions by speaking to her obstetrician and was aware of the risks and happy to take them. It’s worth noting that the long term implications cannot be known but that multiple cycles of IVF have been shown to increase the risk of ovarian and uterine cancers. Not to mention the risk of vaginal/rectal/cervical prolapse in later years following so many pregnancies. Along with her other children this woman had a total of 8 pregnancies and births including 2 c sections.

The two men who were advocates for surrogacy having had two children by arranged births and egg donation and they have their own agency and have recently expanded into Mexico City. Promoting surrogacy and offering the incentives discussed, they talked about the horrendous experience they had of the surrogate being called the mother by a Midwife and that their name could not appear on the ID band of the baby in hospital. It’s worth noting that unless a couple have the same surname, the baby will always have the mother’s name on the ID band. This is not to offend or irritate but for the basic security and safeguarding of the baby in case of a mix up or kidnapping. They were quite proud to announce that the health board crumbled at their request and they got to put their names on the ID band. Who cares about safeguarding for babies anyway eh?

My biggest concern is the long term implications for the birth mother and the baby. A baby who has known nothing but their mother’s heartbeat, her voice, her body for 40 weeks, only to be taken away and placed with strangers. And for the mother, who needs her child close to her for both their wellbeing, to regulate temperature and heart rate, to stimulate feeding instincts, to contract the womb, minimise bleeding and to release oxytocin to reduce the risk of postnatal depression and complications.

I know there are instances where this is unavoidable, but we shouldn’t as midwives, be promoting this as the norm. I don’t provide postnatal care to adoptive parents or to foster parents, so why am I being asked to treat these ‘intended parents’ as if they are the ones who have given birth? That is not my role as a midwife.These people are not my patients.

I am heartened by the fact that the student midwives I’ve spoken to feel that surrogacy is a problem in modern society. This seems to be due to the boom in celebrity surrogacy where it is clear the rich and famous are exploiting poor and vulnerable women, using them as a ‘vessel’ to carry a baby to avoid putting their own bodies through the trauma of childbirth. And the grotesque fad of lying on a hospital bed, as through they have just given birth themselves, is doing nothing to convince our new recruits that this transaction is anything other than a horrendous experience for the mother who has just given birth, and for the baby who has been removed from his or her mother literally seconds after being born. Sickeningly, there are numerous photos of babies still attached to the umbilical cord with the placenta still inside the womb, as the smiling commissioning parents hold this newly delivered baby that is crying out for their mother.

I have been taught a research-based approach throughout my career and to apply critical thinking whenever there is discussion or debate. Yet there was no other side to this webinar and the questions examining the other side were ignored. No known long term implications to the child born of surrogacy were discussed, no evidence of a long term follow up for women who have given their bodies and their babies to others. And no matter if surrogacy is commercial or altruistic, arranged on facebook or through an agency, if the mother uses her own egg or if the embryo has been conceived with a donor’s eggs, the social and moral outcome is the same.

A baby has been taken from his or her mother at birth.

Battle of Ideas – The Morality of Surrogacy

1 Reply

Our last blog looked back at our activity in October but things have moved on quickly and since posting the government have confirmed that the reforms we have been fighting are not proceeding.

We are thrilled to hear this news but want to continue to debate the proposed reforms and raise awareness of what they would mean if passed into law. What better way than to share the footage of the debate called “The Morality of Surrogacy” from the Battle of Ideas and continue the conversation.

We invite readers to tell us what you think of the law reforms through the comments, our Twitter (@WombsNotForRent) or via the contact form. What do you think of surrogacy as a way to have baby, what do you think the law should or shouldn’t do?

For those who prefer to read rather than watch, we also share the speech by Co-founder, Lexi Ellingsworth below.

Text from Speech:

1. Good morning. Thank you so much to Baroness Fox and Battle of Ideas for inviting me here today.

2. My name is Lexi Ellingsworth, and I am the co-founder of Stop Surrogacy Now UK, a grassroots campaign group which formed four years ago in direct response to a public consultation by the Law Commission to relax surrogacy laws in this country; an issue I will talk more about in a moment.

3. Firstly a word on language. We use ‘mother’ as opposed to ‘surrogate’, as ‘mother’ is not only a social term – or even a moral term – but a legal term. The term ‘surrogate’ is dehumanising in our view, and erases what is actually happening in surrogate pregnancies. Under The Children Act (as recently tested by the case of Freddy McConnell) a woman who gives birth is a mother and this not only gives parental rights but also responsibilities for the child. In the MConnell judgment, and others from the Family Court, the term ‘commissioning parents’ is used in surrogacy cases, so we apply the same wording.

4. By its very nature, surrogacy – the act of having a child for someone else – directly affects women and children. Women’s bodies are ‘used’ for our reproductive capabilities and in every surrogacy arrangement a newborn is taken from his or her mother at birth.

5. We know about the mother/baby dyad and the 4th trimester, from decades of research and straightforward common sense. Babies know their mothers. They know their heartbeats, voices and even their smell from tasting amniotic fluid. A baby knows their mother and not the gametes that are conceived from. A surrogate born baby does not know they are born through a surrogacy.

6. For those who haven’t come across them, the Law Commission’s “new surrogacy pathway” proposals:

o give commissioning parents, parental rights at birth, removing the surrogate mother from the birth certificate

o cuts the time a surrogate mother has to change her mind to just six weeks (even then she will not have any automatic right to custody or access, even in cases where she has used her own egg)

o and would allow open advertising for surrogate mothers, meaning young women who may never previously have given thought to this will be drawn into it as demand grows.

7. The Law Commission further proposes:

o A minimum age of 18 for commissioning parents and just 21 for surrogate mothers.

o They do not require a mother to have previously given birth or completed her own family before embarking on a pregnancy for others.

o And they would allow for a woman to continue to use her own egg – meaning at the point of handover the child is literally being given away from his or her own genetic and birth mother.

8. The youngest surrogate mother in the UK that we know of, was a single mother aged 21. She became interested in surrogacy after watching a tv documentary and was matched with a couple through an agency. At first, she continued to have a relationship with the family and visited every birthday, but in a recent tv interview she explained that she had lost contact with the children whilst they were still very young. The ‘friendship model’ was not ongoing for her.

9. In a small UK study of children born by surrogacy, by age 10, only 60% were still in touch with the surrogate mother. That’s 40% having no contact by the time they reach puberty. We understand some claim the UK has a ‘friendship first’ model: but in our review of submissions to the Law Commission consultation, we found multiple examples of would-be commissioning parents saying this is not what they wanted, they didn’t want a ‘third parent’ and they did not want an ongoing relationship with the mother of their child.

10.One of the stated aims of reform is to dissuade UK commissioning parents from seeking surrogacy abroad, which the Commissions acknowledge “can bring a greater risk of exploitation of women and children”. Despite this, no changes are proposed for those bringing children into this country from international commercial surrogacy and children who are conceived and carried this way will likely never see their birth mothers again.

11. The proposals would continue to allow for gifts and ‘recuperative holidays’ for the surrogate mother and her family. One woman’s surrogacy pregnancy was inspired by her own mother and her childhood memories of holidays they had as a result of her mother’s multiple surrogacy pregnancies; so we are now starting to see surrogacy continue down the generations.

12.Benefits offered by one agency include Apple products, theme park passes and vouchers for an adult retailer.

13.But money is not the only reason for women to engage in surrogacy. Some surrogate mothers have said themselves that it is addictive. One surrogate mother said she had low self esteem and she wanted to ‘prove she was a nice person’. We believe women like this are at very real risk of coercion and exploitation. We know of women who have been pressured and groomed by friends and family.

14.A surrogate mother we have spoken to told us her motivations were to help as this is something she could do. She later recognised how the expectations of her were deeply rooted in her upbringing and being socialized as a young woman to Be Helpful and Be Kind. She referred to this as Toxic Femininity and now feels strongly that women, their eggs and their wombs are not a resource for others.

15.We hear from women who have surrogacy regret, who find themselves ejected from private online groups when expressing doubts or a change of heart. When they find themselves bonding with their unborn baby they are reminded they are just the ‘Oven’ for the ‘Bun’ or told they are an ‘Extreme Babysitter’ and not The Mother.

16.There is little study of surrogacy regret but we have written about one study from 1994 which is entitled “I wanted to be interesting. I wanted to be able to say I’ve done something interesting with my life” As the UK law had only been introduced less than a decade prior – and with the popularity of surrogacy at the time in no way reflecting the levels we have today – this can only serve as a snapshot in time but also as a stark warning for the future.

17.The issue of surrogacy goes to the heart of equality for women: seeing women as human beings and not body parts to be rented out, or treated like commodities; our reproductive capabilities are not to be capitalized on for the benefit of others.

18.It remains an inconvenient truth, that it is women who have babies and it is women who are mothers, and babies are not ‘blank canvases’, but human beings with rights of their own.

19.The Law Commission, pro-surrogacy lobbyists and surrogacy agencies, would have you believe these reforms modernize an outdated law that simply needs clarifying, and that they improve safeguarding of children…when in reality they enable and legitimize, through state sanction, separating mothers and babies – which is in opposition to all NHS guidance and best practice and against the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child.

20.Surrogacy remains a subject many have concerns about – the Law Commission stated in their report that the majority of responses “opposed most or all of our provisional proposals for reform, and advocated instead for surrogacy to be prohibited”. But they said that banning surrogacy is “outside the terms of reference”.

21.You will hear arguments today about ‘choice’ and rights to do with your own body what you want in a free society. Women can and should have rights over their own bodies but not what is done with someone else’s: in this case a newborn baby.

22.The last few years have reminded us that laws are made for ALL of us, they are not meant to prioritize or satisfy a small section of society. Laws are intended to protect everyone and to uphold the rights of the most vulnerable. Law-makers must balance the demands of a small number of adults with the rights of children, and what we find to be acceptable in wider society.

Thank You.

~ends~

October 2023 ~ Lexi Ellingsworth

Leave a reply

From Liverpool, to Glasgow and back to London. October was a busy month for me. I was honored to be asked to be a member of the panel at fringe event at the Labour conference for Labour Women’s Declaration, and to debate ‘The Morality of Surrogacy’ at the Battle of Ideas (footage on that soon). I had some fascinating conversations at both events and at FiLiA and I was greatly comforted by the volume of support we had at the march led by Glasgow Tactical Feminists.

The women of Scotland came in their numbers to support us against reform of surrogacy laws and the police did a fantastic job in facilitating our safe passage through the streets to the River Clyde as we gathered under La Pasionara.

It’s safe to say that our tiny, single issue campaign has swelled with support since it’s conception in 2019, in fact this year it has doubled in size with the launch of Surrogacy Concern! We proudly campaign together as we draw more and more interest and understanding of our position on law reform.

Throughout the month I spoke to many in person, via webinars, by phone and on email. My currently croaky, faded voice is testament to the number of conversations I had! I spoke to those who thought surrogacy was simply a way to have a family with assistance (they hadn’t heard about the proposals), others had heard a just a bit but hadn’t thought about them in any detail and what they mean for women and children.I spoke to gay men who reject surrogacy, young women who felt preyed upon by egg donor adverts and to women who have come across surrogacy through friendships or through their jobs, but hadn’t been able to put their finger on what it was that bothered them about it.

The gay men spoke about their desire to be fathers and their acceptance that it may not happen for them. One man spoke about his friends who have a surrogate born child and he noted the absence of a mother. A young woman told me of her shock that surrogacy has become so commonplace and her worries about what this means for women in the future. One young man I spoke to told me about sperm donation and the lack of support he had when he was rejected. I found all of these conversations insightful and painful at times, with the emotion these people shared with me and I felt lucky.

Every single engagement I had, long or short, left me with the concept of how complex and multi-layered surrogacy is. Having been elbow-deep for four years I confess I had lost some perspective. It was refreshing and invigorating, tracing my steps back to when I tumbled down this particular rabbit hole.

So what’s next? Well I’m back, there’s lots to do, lots more ground to cover and action to take. We have been inundated with emails and direct messages and myself, Liz and our small group of volunteers will be responding as soon as we can.

The pumpkins are disintegrating, the treats are all gone and soon it will be Christmas. But October was pivotal and we’re just getting started.

Regulating the international trade in babies

Leave a reply

In just a few short weeks we have noted surrogacy scandals in China, Greece, Vietnam and Georgia. These illegal operations are investigated by the police, often for long periods of time, arrests are made and those involved are punished.

You would think that this would be a deterrent, given the likely prison sentences, but still it continues and appears to be happening more and more frequently. I know this as I have been monitoring the media exposure of such crimes since 2019 when I came to the subject of surrogacy reform.

In the 4 years since then I have heard all the arguments for regulation. Many argue that banning surrogacy completely sends the process underground; they say it cannot be stopped as people want to have a baby and this is their only option. They argue that the best way is to build a legal framework so surrogacy can happen safely, even ethically.

Following the return of the the Irish Dail from summer recess, it is likely that the Assisted Human Reproduction Bill will be heard this Autumn. Currently at Stage 3 for amendments, the Bill looks at regulating “the provision of any treatment or procedure, including such treatment or procedure for the purposes of surrogacy within the State, that involves the handling of gametes or embryos, or both, for the purposes of establishing a pregnancy”.

The recommendations of the Special Joint Committee on International Surrogacy will probably be included and the Bill has a lot of support from both Senators who have personally benefited from surrogacy and from the general public who have been fed the media line that for infertile couples in Ireland, there are no other options.

The recommendations include that surrogate mothers overseas will be required to sign an affadavit and that surrogacy arrangements are “fairly and ethically compensated”. Whilst politicians in Ireland may be confident of this there is no way they can be certain. What surrogacy agencies and lawyers advise in say, Ukraine, is outside of their jurisdiction. What they can be sure of is that upon landing back on home soil, Irish citizens can secure parental rights through a legal framework: this is the goal, this is what this law will secure.

Historically the treatment of women and children in Ireland shows that motherhood and the rights of women have not always been respected. From the scandals of the Magdalen Laundries and the obstetric violence of Symphysiotomies, Ireland has a shameful history and the leigitimisation of buying babies from women in other countries fails to demonstrate a departure from these outdated ideas of women serving a purpose.

It is right that people committing crimes should be punished. It is not right to legalise the importation and trade in children by exploiting vulnerable women for their ‘reproductive services’.

If you are a resident in Ireland, please write to your TD, you can use our suggested points and resources here to help.

Template Letter to Irish TDs

What about the children? – Guest Post from Alan Neale

1 Reply

The Law Commissions’ investigation into UK surrogacy law reform came about in response to intense lobbying by surrogacy agencies and law firms. These organisations wanted reforms that would make the surrogacy process easier to navigate, and would encourage commissioning parents to use their services in preference to those of overseas agencies. The reform that the Law Commissions propose thankfully avoids the temptation to go for full commercialisation. It simplifies surrogacy arrangements for commissioning parents, but in doing so it sidelines surrogate mothers, and solidifies the fracturing of the mother/child bond that is inherent in all surrogacy arrangements.

The proposed reform centres on intended parents (as the surrogacy agencies want commissioning parents to be called) becoming the legal parents as soon as a child is born. These intended parents, not the actual mother who gives birth, would be recorded as the child’s parents on his or her birth certificate. Currently at least one of the intended parents would have provided gametes (eggs or sperm) for conception, but under reform this is no longer a requirement. So not only would the birth certificate erase the mother who bore the child for nine months and brought him or her into the world, it would pretend that there was a biological connection between the child and his or her ‘parents’ that didn’t necessarily exist.

Having a birth certificate that denies biological reality so to reinforce the legal status of commissioning parents does not avoid the problems that removing legal parenthood from mothers creates. Under the reform proposals, the surrogate mother will have had to consent, before conception, to give up her child at birth, even though she can’t have known what she will actually be feeling at this time. Some mothers, experiencing a connection with the child that is growing in their womb, will not be able to resist developing a natural bond, and will start to have second thoughts. To preserve the pretence of informed consent, a surrogate mother will be allowed to object, but in a time frame that is ridiculously small (within 5 weeks of birth for Scotland and 6 weeks for England and Wales). She will be intensely vulnerable at this time, and likely being pressured by the intended parents to seal the deal. These are not circumstances conducive to a considered decision, let alone to her long-term mental health. A surrogate mother may agree to forgo legal parenthood on the understanding that she will be able to maintain some contact with her child, but the written surrogacy agreement that she and the commissioning parents would have agreed before conception is unlikely to have mentioned this, and she would have no right to contact in any case.

If the proposed reform gives minimal recognition of the surrogate mother’s feelings, its consideration of the possible feelings of the child as it grows up is almost non-existent. The Law Commission consultation document repeatedly stressed that the welfare of the child must be paramount, but they just assumed that they knew what would be in the child’s best interests, and that these would correspond with those of the commissioning parents. They quoted research, based on a tiny sample of families created via surrogacy which found no adverse effects on children up to the age of 14, to deny that there might be any problems now or in the future. They accepted as a fact of life the likelihood that intended parents will severely limit, or possibly even bar, contact between the child and his or her mother. The proposed reform partially mitigates this by allowing children access to their birth records when they reach 18, which would enable them to learn the bare facts of the circumstances of their birth. The birth certificate would only show the names of the parents or parent who commissioned them, with no mention that the birth resulted from a surrogacy arrangement. But adult children would also be able to access an additional Register of Surrogacy Arrangements, if they knew to look there. This record would name the ‘surrogate’ (no mention of the word mother), the legal parents, and ‘any other gamete donors’ – a document that would reveal, perhaps for the first time, the parties to the agreements that commissioned their existence.

It is understandable that the Law Commissions could not provide direct evidence from the children of surrogate mothers as to what would be in their best interests. Surrogacy in the UK only really took off after 2008 (when the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act was passed) so as yet there are few adults whose mothers were surrogates. But, although the Law Commissions recognised similarities between surrogacy and adoption, they didn’t consider that the experience of adoptees might be relevant in assessing how children who are the product of a surrogacy agreement might be affected by the break with the mothers who gave birth to them. Nor did they consider the experience of donor-conceived children, and how they are affected by discovering how they were conceived.

The experience of adoptees

My late wife, Angela Hamblin, founded an organisation in 1975 that brought together first mothers like herself and adult adoptees. That organisation, Jigsaw, was instrumental in winning for adult adoptees, the right to see their original birth certificate, revealing for the first time who their first mother was. Jigsaw was also a forum where first mothers and adoptees could share their experiences. For the mothers, it was a chance to share with adoptees their pain at having to give up their children, and to explain the circumstances which had given them such little choice. For the adoptees, it was a chance to share the pain of not knowing their origins, and to express the feelings they had for the mothers they were taken from. For many adoptees, it had only been when they themselves became mothers or fathers that the full extent of the trauma of being separated from their mothers had really hit home. These feelings of loss, it was clear, occurred just as much when their adoptive family was a happy one as when it was less so.

Access to birth records at 18 eases the trauma of separation, but it does not take it away, even when the result is a successful reunion. This was demonstrated in the eloquent testimonies of adoptee witnesses to last year’s Inquiry into forced adoption by the UK Parliaments’ Human Rights Committee.

Angela drew on her experience in Jigsaw in her response to the Law Commissions’ consultation on surrogacy law reform. She referred to the unacknowledged pain, common in both adoption and surrogacy, that comes when you separate a mother and child. She concluded: “I wonder whether in our cavalier and superficial rush to reduce motherhood to merely a transaction between an egg, sperm, and a rented womb we have any idea what we are storing up in the future for those who will be the product of it.”

In 2022 the UK Parliament’s Joint Committee on Human Rights published its report into The violation of family life: adoption of children of unmarried women 1949-1976. Their report concluded that “The adoption practices we have heard about lacked humanity and had a profound impact on the family lives of all involved….The evidence from mothers and from adopted people vividly demonstrates the struggles that individuals continue to face every day in living with these brutal and cruel processes.“

Earlier this month, the UK government responded with less than a full apology, It did acknowledge, however, that “These adoption practices were wrong. We recognise the pain and distress that occurred as a result and are profoundly sorry that so many people have suffered due to these practices.”

Surrogacy Reform – Letter to MPs

Leave a reply

As a small, grassroots campaign we have no funding and no method of receiving any, so we kindly ask for support with your time, not money. As we await the report from the Law Commission which will form the basis for a draft Bill, please write to your MPs to share your concerns about potential reform of the 1985 Surrogacy Act.

To help we provide some suggested text but please tailor it to make it personal by mentioning the areas of reform you are most concerned about, we provide a list of ten to choose from below.

If you do send an email or letter to your MP we would appreciate being informed so we can track them. We would be very interested to hear from you if you receive a reply. Thank you!

Template Letter

[Your Name and Street Address]
[Your City and Your Postcode]

[Month, Day, Year]

Dear (insert MP’s name which you can find here),
I understand that the Law Commission are expected to release their report soon on proposals to reform the 1985 Surrogacy Act. There is a meeting on 14th March and I ask that you attend.

My concerns are as follow:

Parental rights at birth – this moves the UK towards a commercial model and erases the birth mother on the birth certificate. CAFCASS are the key body involved in supervising the welfare of children in a surrogacy arrangement. It is perverse to go against their advice as well as that of the UN Special Rapporteur.
No limits on age – no consideration has been given to the impact of this. A single woman of 18 will have little life experience on which to base a decision. Age restrictions should be similar to that of adoption on both women engaging as a surrogate mother and commissioning parents.
No limits on number of pregnancies – doctors may give advice but advice can be ignored. A woman should be prevented from entering into serial surrogacy arrangements for health reasons, both physical and mental. Surrogate mothers have spoken about the addictive nature of surrogacy and the obstetric risks and potential cost to the NHS should be explored.
Capacity assessment for 16 year mentioned in APPG sessions – the question of a capacity assessment for children to become surrogate mothers is sickening and it highlights the direction of travel for surrogacy in the UK. The UN Convention the Rights of the Child applies to children up to age 18. This move would exploit children. (See attached image below.)
Light touch background checks – again, as a form of state sanctioned parenthood there should be a similar framework to adoption, to suggest otherwise ignores safeguarding of children.
‘Out of pocket’ expenses – the Law Commission gives an average of £15,000 which is unusually high given the actual cost of pregnancy and our free-at-source medical provision in the UK. This will effectively bring commercial surrogacy in through the back door by claiming for ‘lost earnings’ or other items which are not strictly ‘pregnancy expenses’. This is an area where surrogacy reform could target those in dire financial situations, a serious concern given the cost-of-living crisis. (Commissioning parents can also be exploited through this method of payment.)
Advertising ban – poor women, single mothers etc could be targeted for the ‘womb rental’, again a serious concern given cost-of-living worries shared by millions.
Integrity of implications counselling – this needs further exploration as to the integrity of the counselling surrogate mothers receive. It is also not compulsory and surrogacy arrangements can be made online with no framework of support for the woman for this significant and potentially life-changing decision.
Influence of lobby groups on consultation and secretariat – Surrogacy UK lobbies hard for reform and have influenced the Law Commission, as have controversial lobby groups such as Stonewall. Surrogacy UK leads the Secretariat on the APPG for Surrogacy. This results in undue influence over the APPG.
Double donation – as the HFEA announces a consultation with a view to lift anonymity on donated gametes from birth, surrogacy reforms suggest that double-donor conceived children could be also be surrogate-born, therefore removing the current requirement to have at least one genetic relationship between the child and their legal parent. This ignores and exacerbates genealogical bewilderment, a well-known suffering of children which extends into adulthood. What is the difference between surrogacy of donor conceived children and trafficking in human beings which is a violation of fundamental rights? The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child states: “contained in this treaty is a profound idea: that children are not just objects who belong to their parents and for whom decisions are made, or adults in training.” The proposed changes place the child last, not first.

Please also refer to the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women, Human Rights (ENC 326/396 Official Journal of the European Union 26.10.2012) and the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child when considering surrogacy reform.

I have outlined several detailed problems with proposed changes which together show the fundamental problem with surrogacy. This practice has been banned in several countries including France, Germany, Spain, Portugal, Italy, Bulgaria and Poland. Indian banned commercial surrogacy on the basis that Indian women being exploited. The Ukrainian Children’s Ombudsman has called for a ban based on child safety.

The European Parliament – in its report on the impact of the war against Ukraine on women it officially condemns surrogacy. The report states that “sexual exploitation for surrogacy and reproduction is unacceptable and a violation of human dignity and human rights”.

Finally, I ask that you might consider becoming a member of the APPG on surrogacy or submitting a Parliamentary question on proposed reform.

Thank you for taking the time to read this email. I am very happy to talk to you about this in more detail and appreciate your support on this matter. I’d also be very happy to come and visit you at one of your surgeries to discuss this in more detail.

Kind regards

[insert your name]
[Insert your address – this is essential]
[Insert your contact details (phone and email) -optional]

Attachments: Screenshot from APPG Evidence session report

“Birthday Girl” – Guest Post from L.K Agnes

Leave a reply

Surrogacy in the Ukraine is not the focus of our campaign but the commodification of women, the buying and selling of babies and the tragic loss of life in Ukraine is impossible to ignore.

This is a short story piece intended to explore the desperately sad realities of surrogacy in Ukraine which has been in the news again since Russia invaded on 22nd February 2022. This is a fictional piece, based on what we understand to be the real-life situations women are facing.

We thank L K Agnes for sharing her creative skills with us.

Birthday Girl

The blanket Nataliya is lying on does nothing to mitigate the unforgiving marble floor, and the soft, sweeping curves of the metro station belie the cold, hard reality of her situation. She can’t get comfortable, she is sore, tender, ripped and stitched. There is no position that helps. She swallows another two painkillers, the one thing she made sure she had with her as she made her way underground, swept along on a dark tide of fear and determination. A woman touches her hand.

‘You’re bleeding, let me help.’

Nataliya sits up, wincing in pain as she does so, and sees her blanket soaked in blood. She doesn’t care she just wants to sleep. She tries to dismiss the woman with a weak wave of her hand as she lies down again. The woman calls out,

‘We need a doctor here, quickly!’

Another woman comes running over, puts a hand on her head, says she has a slight fever. They tell her she needs to sit up and stay awake as they prop her back against the wall. The second older woman points at her front.

‘Where is your baby?’

What can she say? Only a few days ago she was in the clinic, her baby still inside her. She wasn’t paying much attention to the news, just looking forward to getting all this over with. They would both have a good life, she would be able to afford to buy her own place, and baby would be sleeping in the beautiful nursery Mhairi had shown her in the photos on her phone.

‘We wanted to get away from all the pink and girly clichés, so we chose a soft dove grey. What do you think?’

Nataliya thinks grey a strange choice for a baby’s room but knows better than to say so. The wallpaper is an intricate design of flowers and birds, so she admires that and coos over the pretty white crib. This baby is one day over the due date but her contractions haven’t started so she is sitting up in bed, reading glossy magazines, waiting for her new life to begin. Mhairi and Donal are staying nearby, visiting three times a day. Mhairi keeps wanting photos of her, her hand on Nataliya’s bump, the two of them leaning in, a hand on each shoulder, Donal with his arm around Mhairi as she clasps Nataliya’s hands. Mhairi keeps saying how these will be precious memories to show her baby as she grows up. Nataliya wishes they would leave her alone. She pretends to sleep hoping they will take the hint and leave. She hears Mhairi whispering to the doctor as she dozes.

‘Can’t you induce her or do a membrane sweep or something? We need to get her out of here and we don’t know how much time we’ve got left.’

The doctor says he wants to give it one more day, give baby a chance to come of her own accord.

‘We might not have one more day,’ says Mhairi. Donal shushes her, says she’s over reacting, no-one seriously thinks they are in danger. For the first time Nataliya begins to feel uneasy, she checks the news on her phone when they’ve gone. It’s fine, nothing has changed.

That night she hears the explosions, far away in the distance but near enough for her to understand everything has changed and that the unthinkable has happened. Mhari and Donal arrive ashen faced, just after six o’clock in the morning. They have a smart looking Asian woman in tow, who they they introduce as their lawyer. She hears the lawyer woman arguing with the doctor outside her room, just before they come in to tell her she is going through for a caesarean. Her waters break as she is being prepped for theatre.

‘Tell them baby is making her own way here, after all,’ says the doctor.

Five hours later, after a rushed and brutal delivery, she produces a beautiful baby girl. Nineteen stitches, one for every year she has been alive. Aisling is not the name Nataliya would have chosen but it’s pretty nonetheless. As they wheel her back to the ward, she feels an unexpected surge of love for the child, overwhelming her with it’s force, and she starts to weep. She didn’t expect this. She’d felt nothing but relief after giving up her first baby for adoption two years ago. She was so ashamed, she just tried to ignore it and by the time Bushka finally saw what was going on, it was too late for her to have an abortion. She didn’t regret it, she knew she could never have loved a baby planted in her with such violence, it would have been a constant reminder of her defilement. She naively thought this would be the same, except this time she would be in control. She realised now what a terrible misconception that was.

Donal and Mhairi are sitting by the bedside, whispering about some Irish senator who has assured them she will get them all out. Nataliya feels lucky she has people to help her escape this, and no family to leave behind. She was brought up by her beloved Bushka, after her mother abandoned her, but Bushka died nearly a year ago now and Nataliya has been fending for herself as best she can since then. She’s not stupid, she knows what will happen., Bushka has been preparing her for this all her life. All her dreams are shattered and she’ll have to flee from this city and the only home she’s ever known but at least she’ll be safe and the money will help her make a new start. The lawyer woman asks her to sign some documents, a birth certificate stating Mhairi and Donal are Aisling’s parents. Nataliya shakes her head,

‘I can’t do it, not today. I need a little more time…’

‘There is no time and we need to get everyone out as soon as possible. Once you sign, you will be paid the final instalment. You don’t want to be left here with a baby to look after.’

She reluctantly signs, her tears dropping onto the document and making the ink run. At least they will be safe and together for a while. When the baby starts to cry, the nurse passes her to Nataliya without thinking, sensing that’s what the infant needs. When Aisling starts to nuzzle, she instinctively tries to put to her baby to her breast.

‘No!’ shouts Mhairi, grabbing the baby. ‘No! No, you must express, that was the agreement. You mustn’t bond with her.’ She runs to fetch the nurse who quickly attaches a pump to her left breast.

‘Can you do both together, ‘ asks Mhairi. ‘We need to get out as soon as possible.’ The nurse comes back and attaches another pump to her right breast. The machines continue their aggressive suction as Nataliya cries for her baby and her baby cries for her. Donal checks his phone as the nurse removes the pumps and hands the bottles over to him.

‘The transport will be here in a few minutes,’ he says. ‘Take this so we can feed her in the car and then we should have enough formula to last until we reach the border. We need to head downstairs to meet them now. There’s no time to spare.’

‘There is no worry. I can express milk on the journey,’ says Nataliya as she throws back the cover to try and stand. The nurse comes over and tells her to stay in bed.

‘But we are leaving, I must to get dressed.’

Mhairi looks at Donal, neither of them say anything. Nataliya feels her spine turn to ice when she finally understands the meaning of their silence. The lawyer rolls her eyes and places an envelope down on the hospital table, saying in a clipped tone,

‘Only Aisling will be leaving with us. That was the contract you signed. Here is the final payment. It’s in cash because there are problems with the banking system.’

‘But you said everyone need to get out?’

‘I meant Aisling and her parents.’

She hurls the envelope across the room. ‘She’s my baby, you can’t take her without me!’

‘Aisling is Mr and Mrs Donovan’s baby now. They have fulfilled their side of the contract We have people working 24/7 to get the babies out safely but there is no authorisation to take anyone else. You don’t have a visa and we need to go now. They’re expecting further shelling tonight.’

‘Then just take me with you to the border. Please, you can’t leave me here!’

The lawyer shakes her head. ‘I’m afraid that won’t be possible.’

Mhairi passes Aisling back to Nataliya as she picks up the baby bag, stuffed with the nappies, bottles, wipes and blankets and a cuddly koala bear with a joey in its pouch. Mhairi told her the bear is called Natty and will help Aisling understand what a surrogate is.

‘Here, you can kiss her goodbye – we’ll never be able to thank you enough for this, Nataliya. You’ve made all our dreams come true.’

She buries her face into her baby’s scalp, hugs her close and breathes her in for the last time. Donal reaches over to take her. Nataliya refuses to let her go but the nurses hold her arms as Donal prises Aisling from her grip and tucks her into the baby carrier. The three of them practically run out of the room without a backward glance, taking her beautiful daughter with them.

‘It’s for the best,’ says the nurse, injecting her with a sedative. ‘She’ll have a good life over there.’

They send her home before dark, the shelling is getting nearer and they don’t have a bomb shelter at the clinic. As she lets herself into the tiny apartment, she’s bombarded by a barrage of emotions, grief, anger, fear, shock, shame and numbness. Numb she can cope with. She needs to focus on staying alive and so decides to move her bed into the windowless bathroom, no glass to shatter in the blast and a bath full of water to put out any fires. Advice from her Bushka who had always feared this day might come. Nataliya is glad her grandmother is dead now, that she doesn’t have to endure the terror of this for a second time in her life. She feels a pull on her stitches as she drags the small single mattress from her bedroom. She sits on an ice pack, glued to her phone, weeping as she scrolls through footage of a town less than an hour away being shelled. Blocks like hers, shattered and derelict in the space of a few seconds. She checks her bag. Pads, painkillers, blanket, bottled water, cereal bars and a polaroid of Aisling. They wouldn’t let her have a picture of Aisling on her own, so it is Aisling and Mhairi, Mhairi holding the baby like a trophy. She told her many times that Aisling would be told from the beginning about her ‘tummy mummy.’

‘She’ll always know what a gift you gave us. We’ll make a book with photos of you and pictures of Kharkiv. She’ll see what a beautiful city she came from. We will always be grateful to you.’

Not grateful enough to take me with you, she thinks, as she takes the nail scissors from the bathroom cabinet and snips Mhairi out the picture. She wonders if Aisling will hate them when she finds out they left her birth mother in a war zone and tries not to hope she does. She doubles over as she recalls the gut punch of pure love she felt when she first saw her, the savage cruelty of her attachment to a child she’d already sold. In that moment she knew she could never let her go and knew she had no choice. Aisling’s screams combined with her own, as they tore her from her arms, are echoing inside her skull as the air raid siren sounds. She didn’t believe this level of pain was possible. The tear she suffered has left her in agony but the emotional pain of having her baby snatched away from her is worse, and she has only herself to blame. Now her country is being ripped apart too, the world she knew is ended. She considers taking all the painkillers washed down with vodka but she can’t bring herself to do it, what if they get turned back and her baby needs her. She grabs her things and stumbles out into the street, heading for the subway.

Now she is bleeding and terrified in an underground station, no longer knowing whether she has a home to go back to. The second older woman shakes her again.

‘Where is your baby?’

She looks down and sees the milk leaking through her clothes. She forgot to pack the tablets to dry it up. Her breasts are hard and agonising to touch, she wishes she had the pump with her it would be such a relief to be rid of the pain in at least one part of her body.

The old woman speaks again. ‘My name is Olga, what’s your name?’

‘Nataliya,’ she whispers.

‘OK Nataliya. I used to be a midwife. We’re going to help you but please tell us where is your baby?’

A week ago she was proud of what she was doing. She was told it was an empowering choice and the most lovely gift she could give to Donal and Mhairi. Now she feels a shame deeper than the tunnels they are sheltering in. She sold her baby and she doesn’t want this kind woman to think badly of her.

‘My baby is dead.’

‘Oh my darling, I’m so sorry.’ She moves to hug her but Nataliya flinches from her touch. ‘I do need to examine you.’ She calls for help and people gather round, holding up blankets to create a screen. ‘OK, we need a doctor, as soon as possible. She needs blood and maybe antibiotics. Does anyone have any they can spare until we can get her to hospital?’

As people rush off to see if they can get hold of drugs, Olga undoes Nataliya’s top and gently helps her to start expressing her milk, the pain starts to ease. The first woman rushes over.

‘There is a hungry baby here, his parents left this morning to try to get their family out of Moskovskyi district. They should have been back hours ago but no news, no contact. His Bushka is frantic. Can we?’

Nataliya nods as they pass her a baby, bigger than Aisling maybe a few months old. The baby resists latching on, he doesn’t recognise her, the unfamiliar smell of her skin, but then he finds her nipple and suckles hungrily. Nataliya feels nothing at first but then she sees the little boys face, his big blue eyes, how greedy and determined he is to feed and to live. It soothes them both. His Bushka is sobbing, a mix of grief and gratitude. Olga rubs Nataliya’s back and gives her a sip of water.

‘Well done, good girl.’

He settles after his feed and his grandmother rocks him to sleep as Nataliya bleeds out onto the cold, hard marble. Olga wipes away her own tears as she gently closes Nataliya’s eyes and covers her face with the blanket.

Egg Donation and Surrogacy – Guest Post from Kat Howard

2 Replies

After being a three-time egg donor through a British based egg clinic, and whilst preparing for my fourth round, I recently withdrew from the donor programme. Why? I had a few reasons – questionable treatment of my health by doctors, concerns over my own health, a changing attitude towards egg donation – but most of all, the support by egg donation clinics of surrogacy.

To provide some background, I became a first time egg donor at the age of 24. Whilst I admit freely my main motivation was money, I saw the decision as something positive, a choice I was making that would help another woman somewhere in the country. And I will acknowledge that the British egg donation process is far more transparent and far less exploitative than other countries. At all stages of the donation process, I had the probable risks explained to me, both long and short term. I was given genetic counselling, to make sure I fully understood the implications of egg donation should my eggs be used successfully. And whilst I know I donated for the money, egg donation in Britain carries a flat fee- £750. A good amount, yes, but nowhere near the exploitative amounts that egg donation can reach in countries such as America, where donations can be paid by amounts upwards of $7,500. Women are also limited in how many times they can donate- with 10 being the maximum. So yes, you can earn £7,500 in all, but this would be over a number of years, and few women donate this many times. I can honestly say I left my first egg donation cycle feeling happy with the process, and proud of what I had chosen to do, and I planned to donate the full 10 times (naïve, I know).

So why did I change my mind? I mentioned above a number of reasons, some of which have been spoken about by others. The long-term health risks for example are raised often by organisations, given that there have been links suggested between the egg donation process and increased risks of breast cancer due to the ovarian stimulants used in the process. Egg clinics and egg donation centres have attempted to argue against these, citing poor studies or external factors, but the potential for risk remains, given that there are few to no long term studies. In addition, my changing attitude towards egg donation has been one shared by many other feminists. I recognised it more as exploitative, especially in countries outside of the UK, where women can be coerced into the process either through external pressures, or financial means. These are often young women for whom the money may be a lifeline during a difficult time, and so feel they must donate despite the health risks. I noticed also how this was true even in the UK, with egg clinics targeting their adverts towards young women, some as young as university age.

On a more personal level, I felt increasingly uncomfortable with how my own physical health had been treated during the egg donation process. The average number of eggs usually taken per cycle is 12-16 I was told, yet during my first cycle I had 24 eggs taken. This left me so dehydrated that I had to be put on a drip, and the half-hour recovery time I had been scheduled for turned into 2 hours. The clinic needed no additional written permission to do this, I was simply deemed a ‘good donor’. During my second cycle, my heart rate dropped so much in the surgery that I had to be woken from the anaesthetic. This was only after however the surgeon debated putting me back under, so all the eggs available could be collected. This was decided against eventually, so I was sent home with only one ovary having had the eggs collected. The experience left me with a sense of guilt, as if I was responsible for this surgical failure. I remember breaking down in tears after they let me leave. Physically meanwhile, my body had to get rid of the other eggs in my next period, resulting in a far more painful and heavy experience than usual.

But the fundamental reason I am no longer an egg donor is the link between egg donation and surrogacy. In the UK, you cannot ask your donated eggs to be withheld from use in surrogacy. When you initially donate, you are told that you can ask for your eggs to not be used in any case, as long as it does not contravene the Equality Act 2010 protected characteristics. Yet, when I asked just before I planned to start my fourth cycle, if I could withhold usage from surrogacy, I was told no.

Well, not quite ‘no’ initially. I was actually initially told I could restrict the usage of my donated eggs. It was only when my partner (going through the process for the first time) asked and received a contradictory answer, that it became clear that there had been a ‘mix-up’ or ‘unintentional miscommunication’ in letting me know that I could restrict how my eggs are used, something that I suspect was an attempt to get me through a fourth cycle before letting me know.

Apparently, to withhold from surrogacy would be ‘indirect discrimination’ towards male homosexual couples, and single men. This is despite the fact that single men are not a protected characteristic, and it is not discrimination to be opposed to surrogacy. Being opposed to surrogacy is in no way a reflection of how I view gay parents (or single male parents, or heterosexual couples, all of which access surrogacy) but a moral stance against a practice that can have immense harm on women. I believe there is a huge difference between egg donation in the UK and surrogacy, the latter of which carries much greater risk to the woman carrying, emotionally, mentally and physically, and it should not be automatically assumed that all egg donors are supportive of such a harmful practice. The refusal to separate these two is incredibly alarming- women are ‘recruited’ into being egg donors through the promise of helping a fellow woman, and are at no point informed their eggs may be used for surrogacy unless they directly ask (as I chose to). Many women would feel less comfortable being egg donors knowing this means they would be supporting the practice of surrogacy, and this I believe is why this is not mentioned during discussions with egg donation clinics.

I would not complete an egg donation cycle again, and am in the process of having my eggs destroyed by the clinic so they cannot be used in future. It’s hard to say if I regret the process. I like to think I have helped women somewhere be able to have the child they want, and if so I wish them well. I would certainly not advocate for egg donation, or ever tell another woman to go through the process themselves however. It carries far too much risk, and actively supports the narrative that women’s bodies and their reproductive capabilities are consumerist products, and that is not a narrative that can exist in a world of sex equality.