Tag Archives: law commission

Please share your thoughts with parliament – Deadline 5th October!

The Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology (POST) is an independent service that provides impartial research, analysis, and expertise on complex science and social science issues. They share their findings with Parliament to inform policy debates and decisions. Last month POST announced a new consultation on surrogacy law reform. This follows a public consultation in 2019 from the Law Commission of England and Wales and the Scottish Law Commission, which in total has already cost £945,000.

Any individual can contribute but POST encourages submissions from researchers and experts. Whether you are in a research position, have personal experience of surrogacy or have a view on surrogacy you’d like to share, we encourage you to submit using the form and our suggested guidance. The deadline is 23.55 on 5 October 2025.

Please use this form for your submission:

After reading the Data Privacy Data Notice you will be asked for:

Your name
Your job title
Your email address
Your institution if relevant
If you are submitting as an individual or as a group – please select individual
If you are a researcher the form will ask for a link to your profile

Next, the form will show this text:

Approved work: Surrogacy: current practice and proposed reforms

What reforms have been proposed to surrogacy law, and what are the ethical, social and medical considerations?

Many stakeholders consider UK surrogacy law (Surrogacy Arrangements Act 1985) to be outdated. In 2023, the Law Commission of England and Wales/ Scottish Law Commission published a report outlining proposed reforms to surrogacy law, including a new regulatory pathway for domestic surrogacy arrangements, and new rules on payments that intended parents may make to the surrogate.

This POSTnote will describe current surrogacy practice in the UK, and suggestions for reform. It will consider research evidence and stakeholder views on surrogacy practice in the UK and internationally. It will discuss ethical, social and medical considerations, such as access to surrogacy, and the rights of surrogates, intended parents, and children.  

We welcome information on issues relevant to the project. To contribute to this research, please follow our guidance for contributors.   

Work will commence in September 2025, with publication expected in January 2026. The form for stakeholder contributions will close at 23.55 on 5 October 2025. We are trialing using an online form to make it easier for contributors to submit information to POST. If this form is not working, please send your submission to POST@parliament.uk  

For the guidance for contributors please click here:

https://post.parliament.uk/contributing-to-post-research-as-an-expert/#heading-2

You will then be asked a short series of further questions:

8. Please briefly explain how your research expertise is relevant to the POSTnote topic.

E.g. if you teach a course, or if you’ve published a paper linked to the topic.

Your answer for this cannot exceed 500 characters. (If you are not a researcher you may want to state your interest in this topic.)

9. What are the key issues relevant to the POSTnote that you would like to make us aware of?

Your answer for this cannot exceed 1,500 characters.

Here you can share your concerns about surrogacy. You may want to mention a few points from the following list but please keep the word count in mind:

The UN Report from the Special Rapporteur for Violence Against Women and Girls on surrogacy, published in August. You can read the report in English and refer to the 19 recommendations. You can get a breakdown of this here.
Human trafficking scandals – for more on this you can refer to this blog: https://stopsurrogacynowuk.org/2025/07/30/exploitation-of-women-through-surrogacy/
The number of Parental Orders for surrogate-born babies has more than quadrupled in the last 12 years and commissioning parent/s living in the UK are still allowed to undertake commercial surrogacy arrangements abroad, even though commercial surrogacy is banned domestically: risking financial exploitation of women in developing countries abroad and financial exploitation of working class and lower middle class women here in the UK too,
Surrogacy agencies in the UK must be ‘not for profit’, although several employ large numbers of staff; one is attached to a law firm, and another has opened a commercial branch in Mexico City, where surrogate mothers are paid under £12,000 per pregnancy. (Incentives used by one British agency to encourage women to become surrogate mothers include meal box vouchers, trips to theme parks for the surrogate mother’s existing children and Apple watches.)
It is not a legal requirement that a woman has had her own child/ren before undertaking a surrogate pregnancy and surrogate mothers are permitted to use their own eggs in surrogacy,
There is no enforceable requirement that ensures a child has an ongoing relationship with their birth mother,
Surrogacy does not recognise the fact that babies bond in utero with their mothers, wanting her at birth, regardless of who’s egg used in the pregnancy. Surrogacy treats women as interchangeable incubators, exploiting their poverty and putting women at risk in higher-risk pregnancies. It is profoundly unethical as a way to treat a child, who recognises their mother and wants her at birth: nobody else,
The UK is an outlier in allowing any form of surrogacy to take place at all: surrogacy is much more strictly limited or completely banned in countries such as France, Germany, China, Italy, Spain, Portugal, Austria, Poland, Finland and Switzerland. Commercial surrogacy is illegal across the EU where it is defined as child trafficking. President Macron of France condemned the practice of surrogacy in May 2024, and the UN Special Rapporteur on Violence Against Women and Girls has called for UN member states to move to ban the practice entirely.

You may share our concerns regarding law reform proposals already suggested by the Law Commission here. You may want to mention some of the following points:

The draft Bill published in March 2023 tips the balance of power away from the surrogate mother towards the commissioning parent/s: the “certainty” lawyers and commissioning parents say they want/need only benefits them at a huge cost to working and lower middle class surrogate mothers,
The current Government have said they do not intend to make time to take forward changes to British surrogacy law in this parliament: why are POST spending public money on exploring this topic when that statement was made relatively recently?
The draft Bill reduces the time limit the surrogate mother has to change her mind to just six weeks after birth: even if she does change her mind, she is not guaranteed custody of her child but would need to apply for a parental order for her own baby, even if she has used her own egg,
The draft Bill proposes to make the commissioning couple legal parents of the child at birth, meaning the birth mother would never be recognised in law or listed on the birth certificate. This is according to the Law Commission’s preferred model,
The draft Bill proposes a minimum age of 21 for surrogate mothers, and just 18 for commissioning parents. There are no upper limits suggested for commissioning parents or surrogate mothers,
The draft Bill does not require a surrogate mother to have previously been pregnant, given birth or completed her own family. If she has not previously been pregnant or given birth, she cannot give informed consent,
‘Expenses’ would continue to be uncapped for British surrogate mothers. These potentially total thousands and this provides a real financial incentive to many women from lower socio-economic backgrounds, and disproves the myth that the UK surrogacy is genuinely ‘altruistic’. There is a categorisation proposed under reform but no upper limits. We believe the average ‘expenses’ in a British surrogacy arrangement may now significantly exceed £20,000 per pregnancy: exploiting women’s poverty in a cost of living crisis,
The draft Bill continues to allow people to bring babies to the UK who have been conceived and carried through commercial surrogacy abroad, despite significant, well-known problems of exploitation and coercion in the global commercial surrogacy market (see link below for the market value),
The draft Bill allows for open advertising to attract and recruit surrogate mothers in the UK, likely leading to an explosion in the numbers of women from lower socio-economic backgrounds agreeing to undertake the practice out of financial necessity, rather than genuine desire,
The draft Bill enables surrogacy agencies to become Regulated Surrogacy Organisations (RSOs) with power to determine which commissioning couple or individual can enter a so-called Surrogacy Pathway (with power to grant legal parentage without oversight of the Family Court or CAFCASS, as is the case now): this is a conflict of interest and gives power to organisations who have financial incentives and an ideological commitment to surrogacy and who are not experienced in meeting the ongoing burden of regulatory obligations. RSOs would be overseen by the HFEA, a role the HFEA have made clear they do not welcome and do not have necessary skills or expertise in to adequately supervise,
The Law Commission’s plans take social workers and CAFCASS out of arrangements on the new Surrogacy Pathway. The proposals remove the current practice of CAFCASS assessment for arrangements on the new Pathway, putting surrogacy on the Pathway completely at odds with UK adoption legislation and practice.

This question also asks for relevant policy documents, or statistics that relate to the topic.

These are the links to the studies you may want to share:

A 2024 study that confirms that surrogacy 3x increased risk for severe pregnancy complications – Severe Maternal and Neonatal Morbidity Among Gestational Carriers: A Cohort Study https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/10.7326/M24-0417
A study published in July revealed an increased risk in new onset mental illness in surrogate mothers – New-Onset Mental Illness Among Gestational Carriers https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2836835
Mater Semper Certa Est? Human Rights Violations in Surrogacy Arrangements https://ojs.academicon.pl/tkppan/article/view/9178

10. Where possible, please provide links to sources for any statements you make.

You can link to:

The 2024 European Parliament’s directive on preventing and combating trafficking in human beings, including surrogacy: https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/press/press-releases/2024/05/27/fight-against-human-trafficking-council-strengthens-rules/#:~:text=Resources-,Council%20of%20the%20EU,in%20case%20of%20aggravated%20offences.

Surrogacy breaches the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child and many of the issues within surrogacy can be addressed by centring children and their human rights. https://www.unicef.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/unicef-convention-rights-child-uncrc.pdf

Surrogacy is a global trade estimated to be worth approx. $201bn by 2034 https://www.gminsights.com/industry-analysis/surrogacy-market?gad_source=1&gad_campaignid=20434039883&gbraid=0AAAAACuPGhVpE62Z3S7ihCgE5Cmo9mnXe&gclid=Cj0KCQjwh5vFBhCyARIsAHBx2wxibmyT1w8HO8bFvSgXZ8Im6jRhtQGVR5dWjcjERbh97u9FoL5IFqQaAt1MEALw_wcB

11. Are there other individuals or organisations you think would be interested in contributing to this POSTnote? Please only share publicly available information.

Your answer for this cannot exceed 300 characters

If you wish, you can name:

Stop Surrogacy Now UK, Surrogacy Concern, Nordic Model Now and Object Now. International organisations include the International Coalition Against Surrogate Motherhood and Casablanca Declaration.

12. Please select which stakeholder group best represents you (or the organisation you are representing).

Please select No affiliation if submitting as an individual.

Finally:

13. Where did you find out about this opportunity to contribute to POST’s research?

Please answer how you found out about this consultation, we expect this to be via the X/Twitter accounts of Stop Surrogacy Now UK and Surrogacy Concern.

When all fields are completed within the character limit you can submit. Once submitted you can print your answers. Please let us know when you have submitted your response by emailing stopsurrogacynowuk@gmail.com.

If you would like to contact the POST team directly, their general enquiries email is: post@parliament.uk

Thank you!

Law reform will not proceed!

1 Reply

The Times confirmed today that this government will not proceed with law reform of the 1985 Surrogacy Act, as is proposed. We are thrilled to hear this news!

Reform proposals were first jointly shared in the 2019 public consultation from the Law Commission of England and Wales, and the Scottish Law Commission. It is why this campaign formed as we stand against surrogacy because of the harm it brings to women and children.

The legal model for surrogacy in the UK is meant to be based on ‘altruistic’ surrogacy only, but ‘reasonable expenses’ are paid like a monthly salary and the total fee averages between £16,000-20,000. These are numbers from the surrogacy agencies themselves. UK agency, Brilliant Beginnings states “In the UK, which is often described as having an ‘altruistic’ surrogacy framework, surrogates typically receive £12,000 to £35,000 as expenses (which is less than in the USA, where surrogacy is commercialised and surrogates typically receive compensation of $40,000 to $90,000).”

The number of people commissioning a child in England and Wales has quadrupled. A study from Dr Kirsty Horsey, Law Professor at Loughborough University (previously a Senior research Associate at London Women’s Clinic) and My Surrogacy Journey shows that Parental Orders – where a mother transfers her parental rights to the commissioning parents or parent – rose from 117 in 2011 to 413 in 2020.

Now, approximately 500 applications for parental order go through the courts each year, and roughly half of these PO applications are for babies born abroad.

Commissioning couples or individuals living in the UK are allowed to undertake commercial surrogacy arrangements abroad and bring a child back to this country, despite commercial surrogacy being illegal here. UK Adoption laws prevent international adoption from countries due to safeguarding and exploitation risks, such as Nigeria, Cambodia, Guatemala, Nepal, Haiti, and Ethiopia – but there is no such list for surrogacy. Minimal safeguards are applied and we are aware of several examples where a convicted child sex offender obtains a child through a commercial surrogacy arrangement abroad and others who planned to obtain a child through surrogacy for the purposes of abuse.

Whilst the Law Commissions jointly acknowledge that international surrogacy “can bring a greater risk of exploitation of women and children” there were no proposed changes to the ‘old pathway’ which would continue to allow babies to be removed from their mothers abroad and brought into this country. It is worth remembering that children who are conceived and carried this way will likely never see their mothers again.

In fact, there is a section in reform that argues or Parental Orders to remain and operate alongside the ‘new pathway’ as “some surrogacy teams may still choose to make agreements outside of the new pathway. Closing off the parental order process to them would mean that a decision by the court about the legal parental status …would be unavailable.”

As a reminder, the ‘new pathway’ under reform would see:

The introduction of pre birth orders – so commissioning parents would secure parental rights a birth, as practiced in countries that apply the commercial model.

Lower age limits of 18 years for commissioning parents and just 21 years old for surrogate mothers – there were no proposed limits for the upper age for either of the adult parties and there were no limits for the number of pregnancies a woman could have for others.

There is no requirement for a woman to have previously given birth or completed her own family before embarking on a pregnancy for others and proposals would to continue to use surrogate mothers to have a baby for others, conceiving with her own egg – meaning at the point of handover the child is removed from their genetic mother who is also their birth mother.

(For more on what the proposals mean, read this blog or watch the video.)

So what next for us, with this news today? We are hugely grateful to the Government for this step and, with Surrogacy Concern Nordic Model Now, Object Now and our co-campaigners in Scotland, Ireland, America and internationally (Casablanca Declaration and the International Coalition Against Surrogate Motherhood), will continue to fight for a ban on this controversial, harmful practice here and around the world.

Finally, we would like to thank everyone who sent a letter to their MP using the template from Surrogacy Concern, we truly appreciate your support. Every single email sent, every conversation, every tweet or post counts. We could not do this without your support.

Surrogacy is an inherently risky and exploitative practice which needs to end.

So let’s begin.

Mother’s Day

Leave a reply

On Mother’s Day we celebrate our own mothers and our children celebrate us. It is a day to acknowledge the sheer hard work of raising children, how we come to have them and family units in different sizes and forms, but the focus is on mothers.

Only women can be mothers. Only women can become pregnant, give birth and breastfeed and ‘mother’ is both a social term and a legal one. The legal definition was in response to scientific developments in IVF, where egg donor conceived pregnancies created the question of what a mother is. Subsequently, two sub-categories or ‘gestational’ and ‘traditional’ surrogacy were also created. Prior to this there was no confusion about the meaning of the word ‘mother’.

The 1990 Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act (Section 27) defines ‘mother’ as

“the woman who is carrying or has carried a child as a result of the placing in her of an embryo or of sperm and eggs, and no other woman, is to be treated as the mother of the child”.

In other words, the woman who gives birth has legal rights and responsibilities and the woman who provides the egg for that embryo does not. Before this law, the word mother had one meaning which everyone understood. The only deviation and subsequent sub-subcategory was when legal rights and responsibilities were transferred from a birth mother to an adopting mother. IVF of this nature created an additional sub-category; genetic mother.

The definition of the noun ‘surrogate’ is:

a substitute, especially a person deputising for another in a specific role or office

For me, in surrogacy, the person deputising or standing in for the mother is the commissioning parent; an adult – male or female – who not only commissioned the child into being but is the social parent caring for and raising the child, as a result of an arranged pregnancy, with or without a contract. This person – as single people can obtain a child through surrogacy in the UK – or couple, later become the legal parent/s when a parental order is granted by the family court. A parental order cannot be applied for, under the current law, before the newborn reaches 6 weeks old. So these people are not the legal parents from birth and there is always (as with adoption) a birth mother, regardless of how invisible they might want her to be.

Proposed law reform would see a seismic shift with the introduction of a ‘new pathway’. This would allow for parental rights for the commissioning couple to be transferred during the pregnancy, with a pre-birth order (like that seen in commercial surrogacy arrangements, a model we are told is rejected by the Law Commission and pro-surrogacy lobbyists). That’s right, whilst the woman is still pregnant, the baby inside her doesn’t belong to her and in fact someone else has legal parental rights to the child she has not yet given birth to.

The idea that a child you have within your body belongs to someone else has lead to what I consider to be dangerous and deceptive discourse around surrogacy. Euphemistic language begins with ‘surrogate’, where the word mother doesn’t feature at all, (or worse ‘gestational carrier’) and ends with the claim that the mother is ‘giving the baby back’. Back to where, where the original order was made? The baby is not returning to the place they began. With IVF that would mean taking the child to a lab where they were conceived. No, this claim refers to handing the baby over to the strangers they may or may not be related to. (Under current UK law and reform proposals, the requirement for one commissioning parent to be genetically related to the child remains.)

The dominating theory here is that the genetics are equal to ownership and that pregnancy and birth are minor details. This denies the reality of how babies are made, with or without a Petri dish. It dismisses the mother baby bond, something agencies and proponents of surrogacy, denies exist. Academics will downplay the sharing of cells in the womb as “a mere fantasy of romanticism”.

Some supporters of surrogacy prefer to dehumanise the woman, reducing her to an electrical appliance, calling women ‘ovens’ and the baby a ‘bun’. Or they consider having a baby for others to be ‘extreme babysitting’ – like Ultra Marathons or Free Solo climbing. Something that is impressive in the danger and fraught with risk. (I’m not convinced that the medical risks are fully explained to surrogacy candidates prior to conception or implantation.) Saying a pregnant woman is simply ‘babysitting’ is an insult to motherhood and it seeks to separate the mother and baby and reduce pregnancy to a bodily function or a paid role. There may be more truth in this than was intended.

In surrogate motherhood, a genetic is unimportant, whilst the genetic link between the baby and the commissioning parent/s is paramount. In surrogacy, the natural maternal bond is dismissed as emotional and romantic and known science of maternal-foetal microchimerism is waved away, but the legal definition remains – even if a woman becomes pregnant with an embryo made from another woman’s egg, she, “and no other woman”, is the mother.

We wish every mother, whether she wants to be thought as one or not, a Happy Mother’s Day.

Buying Babies from Abroad

1 Reply

Last month several cases in the high court came to light and we explore them here as each presents different areas of concern with international surrogacy – faceless mothers, simultaneous surrogacy and human trafficking.

Invisible Woman – a surrogate mother is faceless and nameless

A UK couple, with connections to Nigeria went there to obtain a baby. The baby was conceived with the egg of the surrogate mother and the sperm of the commissioning father but the couple never met the woman who they impregnated. Arrangements were made between their chosen clinic and agency and she remained anonymous throughout the process as this was their preference. Her face was covered during scans and appointments which were conducted remotely and only her initials were recorded in the paperwork.

When the baby was brought into the UK and a parental order was process though the court the commissioning couple’s intentions were laid bare.

“At that point we are satisfied that opting for an anonymous surrogacy will be our best option since we will not meet the surrogate mother and she will not know us. We thought this will remove all the problems people face when they do surrogacy and the stigma that surrounds it. We want safety, protection, security, and peace of mind. We didn’t want unnecessary involvement and attachment; we just want to sign the contract without owing anybody obligation. We understand someone to do this is really giving us something special we don’t want to carry this for the rest of our lives identifying the person will make us think we owe them gratitude for the rest of our life.”

This couple deliberately sought out a woman in Nigeria so they would not be required to build or maintain an ongoing relationship with the mother of their child. The burden of gratitude was too much for them and they do not know her name or what she looks like and neither will her child. The baby girl will also not know her maternal family or any other siblings she may have.

Every day we see, in private chats and on public groups, agents and brokers in Nigeria seeking women to donate their eggs and to rent their wombs. We consistently see posts from women who are clearly desperate for money and this makes them vulnerable to exploitation. Nigeria remains on the list of countries where you cannot adopt from if based in the UK, the basis for this is the risk and concerns over exploitation but this does not apply to surrogacy.

Consent was dispensed with. The full judgment is here.

Two for one – not the first case of simultaneous surrogacy for a UK couple

A UK same sex couple in their 60s and 70s paid £120,000 for two babies born to two different Ukrainian women in Northern Cyprus, though they believed the clinic to operate out of Southern Cyprus. The children were conceived from from the same woman’s eggs and the same man’s sperm so were related to each other but were not related to either of the two women, so the Parental Order was denied. Consent from the Ukrainian mothers was dispensed with. The judge for this case, Sir Andrew McFarlane, president of the family division of the High Court said:

“as nobody knew anything more than the first names of the two surrogate mothers. In addition, the clinic had been doggedly resistant to giving any information. The surrogates had been resident at the clinic four years earlier but had almost certainly returned to Ukraine after giving birth. I was fully satisfied that they could not be found and I, therefore, dispensed with consent on that ground.“

The adoption of these children took 4 years and in the ruling the judge noted the women were “exploited for commercial gain’.

Consent was dispensed with. The full judgment is here.

Global baby – multiple international locations

This case involved a single man who paid a surrogacy agency in Israel and a fertility clinic in Northern Cyprus to implant an embryos into the womb of a surrogate mother who came from Kyrgyzstan. The mother travelled to Northern Cyprus for an embryo transfer, before returning home and later gave birth in Moldova.

The full judgement is here.

The man paid Fullsuccess Medical Consulting almost £26,000 and he told the court that he believed the surrogate mother was paid £12,250. In the granting of the Parental Order, Mrs Justice Theis DBE said “what took place in this surrogacy arrangement, with the seemingly reckless disregard of the cross-jurisdiction implications of the arrangement,overseen by two essentially commercial organisations, causes the court enormous concern”.

The UK surrogacy model is meant to be altruistic and based on ‘friendship first’ but Parental Orders for international surrogacy arrangements continue to be granted by the UK courts and they appear to be on the rise.

A 2022 study shows how UK residents prefer the commercial mode as it secures parental rights and control over the surrogate mother (see our analysis) . Women are being exploited for their reproductive capability and there are no friendships being formed prior to pregancy and no ongoing relationships once the child is born. There is no basis for the child to know where they come from, they may not even be told they are born from an arranged pregnancy. Courts can dispense with ‘free, fully informed and unconditional consent’ and the mother simply disappears, returning to her home country in a puff of smoke.

These are far from the only recent cases, this month two teachers from London obtained twins from a Kazakhstani woman who gave birth in Northern Cyprus, this has resulted (at the time of writing) in an ongoing police investigation.

The Law Commission of England and Wales and the Scottish Law Commission argue that the Parental Order system that transfers parental rights should continue and work alongside the ‘new pathway’, under their reform proposals. This would continue to allow arrangements like the ones we share here, to continue.

If you have concerns over the proposals, you can write to your MP using this template from Surrogacy Concern.

Take Action: Send a letter to your MP on surrogacy and Law Commission proposals

Celebrity Surrogacy: Buying babies is in fashion – Guest Post from Susan Calvin

Leave a reply

In recent years the trend of celebrities buying babies has grown exponentially. We now regularly hear stories of well-known figures becoming parents ‘through surrogacy’ and see announcements on social media of their newborn’s arrival, usually accompanied with a stylized photo of the babies’ feet. Headlines like “Celebrity becomes parent” is commonplace with Paris Hilton, Amber Heard, Cameron Diaz, Rebel Wilson, adding to the trending list on Twitter. The birth mother rarely gets a mention and perhaps this is to protect her identity, but we are told by these same news stories what a wonderful thing it is to be a ‘surrogate’ so why not fully celebrate the wonderful, altruistic act a surrogate mother has done for someone less fortunate?

Most of these articles normalise surrogacy, presenting as it no different from buying a mansion or signing a business contract. We may see claims of ‘fertility issues’ as a reason to justify the practice of commercial surrogacy or – as with Priyanka Chopra and Nick Jonas – a ‘busy schedule’ is to blame for the lack of natural conception. How that same busy schedule allows time for raising a child is best left to our imaginations.

There is no room to bring ethical issues to the forefront, the glossy magazines will tell us it was the surrogate mother’s choice, so it is justified. Under the auspices of body autonomy and ‘choice feminism’ we must respect that a woman selling her child for money is to be respected and never questioned. ‘Her Body Her Choice’, a slogan once used to fight for legal abortion and further access to safe terminations has been rebranded, but this time disingenuously. If we were more honest it would be Her Body My Choice.

Choice Feminism

When a woman engages in surrogacy, we may hear talk about “free choice”, it is something a woman chooses to do. Ok, but when most surrogate mothers engage with surrogacy due to financial need, must we accept this without question? Did we ever see a celebrity renting her womb to “help” other women fulfil their desire to become mothers?

No financial need is a free choice; it is a necessity, survival. When there is a need, there is no room for free choice. There may be 100 different types of cereal on the shelves, but you can only afford the cheapest one for your children. Is that choice? If you rely upon benefits or welfare, can you use that money to buy a designer handbag if that is what you choose? We can only make free choices after our basic needs are covered. Most women engaging as surrogate mothers do not have their basic needs covered; they usually have children, a family to support – can any of these news articles tell us how a wealthy, famous woman has rented their womb out to “help” another women less fertile than herself become mother?

Celebrity Culture

This has long been held up as aspirational, for their wealth, popularity, appearance and glamourous lifestyles. Teenagers may become infatuated with a particular singer, looking to emulate them or heartbroken when their favourite band splits up. Those who once influenced fashion trends now flood the market with their own brands, from clothing and make-up brands to a shape underwear, all with a ‘name’ on them. When a Birkin bag is seen on the arm of a Oscar Winning actress, coffee cup in her other hand, the item will not only fly off the shelves but there will be a long waiting list for the next batch of bags to be delivered. The counterfeit markets are booming from cheap fakes just so those on a medium income can mimic a celebrity and, as it is with surrogacy, is not the factory workers making the big bucks.

When the of surrogacy cost is reduced and access made possible we can all have what a wealthy celebrity has, a fake designer bag can be very convincing. Kim Kardashian once paid more for a handbag than she did for a surrogate-born child. (The average cost of a surrogacy pregnancy is $90,000, depending on the US State, it is far cheaper in Ukraine, Mexico, Columbia, etc where poor women can be exploited for their eggs and womb rental.) But contrary to jokes from an Oscar Wilde play or BBC Correspondent’s tweet, babies are not handbags and not should they be carried around in one.

The comments sections of news article on this topic may see people promoting the idea that everyone as a “right to be parents”, though no human rights law even mildly suggest this. Others argue that “adoption” is not easy for gay couples in some countries, so surrogate mothers should be provided for them to realise their dreams of a biological family. This is done in place of fighting for better adoption conditions.

Infertility and Social or Situational ‘Infertility’

Fertility issues and advancing years mean it is difficult for many women to conceive and deliver a healthy baby, but neither are a reason to use women as a ‘proxy’ to deputise and carry the risks of pregnancy and labour to produce a child. Human beings have health problems, something inherent to the human condition. Some maybe lose their vision, a leg, an arm, teeth, or feet. Are these people entitled to a new human part to supplant their health problems? Many will agree that it is not reasonable and that organ trafficking is horrific. Nevertheless, when it comes to renting a womb it is a solution to ‘infertility’. Why did that speech change? Why is buying a healthy liver from a poor, vulnerable person abhorrent, but renting a woman’s womb and paying for a newborn is acceptable? Could it be that society normalized using women as commodities and that renting one is just not that bad?

Homosexual celebs couples with ‘situational infertility’ are well-known for renting wombs to fulfil their desire to make a family, and in cases like Nacho Palau and Miguel Bosse, who, after breaking up, separated their children, taking each one their biological boys according to the paternity. This decision left no room for sibling bonding between the four boys. In other cases, like Jeff Lewis and Gage Edwards, who’s acrimonious split after the birth of their surrogate-born daughter, now co-parent and arguments over remaining frozen embryos were tame in comparison to the law-suit from the birth mother of Monroe. Ricky Martin and his partner, Jwan Yosef, received backlash when these two men said they were “pregnant”…how many women were involved to produce their family of four? Though surrogacy scandals are not limited to homosexual couples. Actress Jamie Chung has the ‘social’ type of ‘infertility’ and claimed pregnancy would hurt her career so she outsourced it. Zheung Shaung hoped to cancel the baby order she placed with two women when she split from her boyfriend. The babies she had commissioned became inconvenient and she wanted these women, each seven months pregnant at the time, to get abortions.

Parenthood as a Human Right

From ‘fertility privilege’ of heterosexual couples and women without fertility struggles, to the claims of gay equality rights to IVF, there is a move towards a ‘right to parenthood‘. In country law and human rights in general, there is no right to become a father or a mother, it falls in the wish or dream category. To be a mother or father is a hope, a desire, not a human right.

Commodities, not humans

The discussion about surrogacy ignores a vital element—the children. Nobody addresses what biological, psychological, or developmental consequences impact these luxury babies. There is not enough research and no interest in figuring it out. However, specific facts prove that children are not the priority since, in many cases,” like in many cases in Ukraine and Thailand. In these cases, the law and contract policies with the agencies did not consider the fundamental right of the children to be protected as human beings but instead treated them as mere ‘things’. No parent in any country is entitled or has the right to abandon their children if they are born with a disability since this is a crime but babies bought as a ‘faulty product’ are rejected and abandoned for not being perfect.

As adults, knowing they were the product of surrogacy may be a traumatic discovery. Jessica Kern, a ‘product’ of commercial surrogacy asks why her mother gave her away but kept other children, she too asks why her commissioning and legal parents bought her and of decision makers, why this is permitted. Is Jessica the only surrogate-born child, who in her adulthood is asking this question? No.

Children in the surrogacy trade are not considered human beings but commodities, a social media tool, and now this celebrity ‘luxury item’ is available to the general public via the law-makers affording access and with the media usefully promoting it. There are more and more justifications for surrogacy in the media, but only a few truly explore even the most basic questions. The fact that it is already allowed demonstrates the direction we are going in. A society where money and power can buy anything, where a adult wish, realised through cold hard cash, has more weight than the rights of babies. Children are now the new Birkin. Through the popularisation of this questionable practice facilitates the increase the trade of children and the exploitation of women.

Normalising the buying and selling of babies and women as a tool to solve ‘infertility’ is not acceptable.

Motherless doesn’t exist

Leave a reply

I was pleased to see coverage of a recent surrogacy dispute in the mainstream media last week. Pro-surrogacy lobbyists say these cases are rare but we cannot be sure of this. The family court is closed to the public and it is only with the judges’ permission that details of a case be released to the press. It was Julie Bindel who sought permission to write on the case of Z (the child) and her article was published in The Critic in June, with the mainstream press picking it up in The Times, The Telegraph and the Daily last week, so it it feels like a good time to revisit this particular case.

I am limited in what I can share for obvious reasons, but I can say that I am honoured to know and support the surrogate mother from when we met 3 years ago to today. She is the picture of dignity and strength in incredibly challenging circumstances.

When such disputes happen there are lifelong consequences for all involved. Perhaps what pro-surrogacy lobbyists mean is that it rare for judges in the family court to rule in favour of the surrogate mother. Such as this case where the commissioning parents were not entirely honest about a condition one of them suffered from and the surrogate mother wanted to withdraw her consent as she considered them to be unsuitable parents. The child was placed in foster care.

Or the case of a surrogate mother who, as she already had a large family and with no genetic connection to the child, the judge decided that the commissioning couple should retain custody. The surrogate mother is allowed to visit the child 6 times a year. (Significantly, in this case, the court notes state that a parental order “tells one nothing about what the best welfare arrangements for the child will be after birth.”)

We know of UK cases where there is significant pressure on a surrogate mother to agree to the parental order and situations when her consent is not forthcoming it can be ‘dispensed with’. Marie Anne wrote of her experience and told us that counsel for commissioning parents argued that because a UK surrogate mother had tragically died and was therefore unable to give her consent, so should she, a very much alive surrogate mother, have her consent dispensed with. (It’s likely that the wider public wouldn’t believe this unless they read about it in the papers or heard it on the news, but coverage of Marie Anne’s case was wholly positive at the time.)

These cases are complex and I am not a lawyer, but my reading of the case of Z it is that the commissioning parents had the early intention to remove the mother from their lives once they got what they wanted; the child. It was never their intention to have her as an extended family member, despite what they promised. The court proceedings made it clear that commissioning couple didn’t want a mother in Z’s life, there was “no vacancy to fill” and G, the surrogate mother was referred to as “just an egg donor”.

By applying this reductive, dehumanising language and failing to acknowledge reality and her role as mother, their aim to sever the connection with her child was made starkly clear.

Some say that G could have changed her mind and kept her son but once ‘signed up’ to surrogacy, it is very difficult to back out. It’s not a matter of simply changing your mind. You are pregnant with child you are told is not yours.

Whilst within the legal limits, a surrogate mother can access an abortion in the UK, but an article from New Zealand, where the laws are similar to ours, a woman terminated her surrogacy pregnancy and a politician (with now two surrogate born babies) put forward a private members Bill. The wording of which alludes to access for abortion in a surrogacy pregnancy possibly coming under threat.

“Labour MP Tāmati Coffey, who, with his partner Tim Smith, welcomed their son Tūtānekai by surrogate in 2019, currently has a members’ bill in ballot calling for modern laws for modern families. It includes reform of birth certificates, providing a way to enforce surrogacy arrangements and creating a register of potential surrogates.”

Outrageously, accusations of homophobia were made of G. In my view this (along with a legal argument of human rights) this was done to garner sympathy, claim victimhood and tarnish G as bigoted. If a woman was homophobic would she seek to engage in having a baby for a same-sex couple? No.

Whilst social services were in support of the two men the clinical psychologist in the case said “The fathers…claimed that they are a ‘motherless’ family” and it is from here we get the title of this blog: “Motherless’ doesn’t exist.”

Ultimately the judge ruled in the best interests of the child and that was for the child to know his mother and have an ongoing relationship. It is an unprecedented decision where “free and unconditional consent that is required by section 54(6) of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 2008” was central to the ruling.

Had all parties stuck to the original agreement then the situation would undoubtedly be entirely different for the adults and more importantly, very different for the child. But the State cannot legislate to force a friendships in any form and this case demonstrates how the ‘friendship’ was temporary, one sided and transactional. It was not based on the natural-founded and enduring friendships we are led to believe is common in surrogacy.

Readers should be reminded that reform proposals seek to introduce a model of commercial surrogacy where a pre-birth order transfers the parental rights at birth. The mother gives her consent to transfer her parental rights before the birth but she is not required to confirm her consent afterwards. The Law Commissions of England and Wales and Scotland found this to ‘disrespect’ her autonomy:

“A requirement for further consent after birth also suggests that the surrogate’s consent before conception is not adequate, which does not respect her autonomy.” ~ Law Commission’s Core Report, Page 37.

But as we know from this case, a lot can change between conception and birth.

With the ‘cooling-off period‘ (which I use deliberately as a contractual term) much reduced from 6 months to just 6 weeks after the birth, a surrogate mother has much less time to raise the alarm, decide to try to reclaim her parental rights or instruct lawyers. Under the Law Commission’s preferred model her name has already been removed from the birth certificate. Her name, rights and role in the child’s identity documents, knowledge of their relatives and experience of their family has been erased from the outset.

Thankfully, this is not the case for Z who will know his mother but it would have been very different had reform been in place at the time.

We would like to thank the legal team who supported G and we invite anyone who is or knows a surrogate mother with regret to contact us.

“I made the biggest mistake of my life, all to help someone”– Guest Post from Marie Anne Isabelle

3 Replies

Ten years ago I was a gestational surrogate for a family member on the understanding that I would have ongoing contact with the child that I would give birth to. Naively, I did not realise that this would not be a guaranteed in our arrangement. Had I known that it would not be guaranteed I would never have agreed to be a surrogate. I believe I was lied to, manipulated and exploited because somebody needed my uterus.

Surrogacy – being pregnant and having drugs injected into you daily for three months – is not an easy or pleasant experience at all. It inflicts enormous physical demands onto the body and the psychological damage is irreparable. My experience is testament to that. From the moment I was pregnant I was made to feel as though my body was no longer mine and I had no control over it. I was told what to eat and the freedoms around some of my daily routines were completely destroyed. But the worse was yet to come.

As soon as the child was born, I was abandoned by the very people I had helped and was made to feel utterly irrelevant to the child I had given birth to. This whole process had a devastating impact on my mental health to the point I was admitted into psychiatric care.

Anybody would have thought it would have been at this point that support and help would have been given to me, but no, instead the laws allowed for my mental health to be used against me, I was silenced and my consent disregarded so that parental order could be granted.

Unfortunately for those that tried to undermine me, a psychiatrist was employed to ascertain as to whether I had the capability to consent. My ability to consent was established but by this time, after all the abuse I had sustained, it was now difficult for me to give my free and unconditional consent.

I asked for a contact order but was told I would not be granted one as this would have deemed this as a condition. But the condition was central to the original understanding. It didn’t matter. I was then threatened with paying Child Maintenance by CAFCASS if I did not consent to the parental order. (I do not believe CAFCASS should ever be involved in surrogacy cases.) After being threatened, bullied and given endless false promises I relented, as my mental and physical health could take no more. I gave my consent and my parental rights were transferred to her and her husband. To this day I have never seen the child I gave birth to.

This continues to have a devastating impact on my life, I am not sure how I can live without giving birth to a child I will never see. It is not a situation I had ever envisaged I would be in as I would never had agreed to be her surrogate if this was the arrangement. I do not agree with surrogacy, I believe it should be banned completely as there is no pathway for it to ever be safe. It destroys lives and the cost not only to myself, but to many others, has been too great.

The amount of money spent on this by the tax payer should not be ignored either. I have not been able to work, I have been under the care of the NHS for ten years. All of that expense has never been directed to the commissioning parents. It has come from you, the very people who are reading this. That is completely unacceptable.

The Law Commission recent recommendations make no reassurances that what happened to me could not happen to someone else. Instead, they make it more likely. Surrogacy needs to be banned around the world, before more people are exploited and it needs to happen now.

Surrogacy – a new job opportunity?

Leave a reply

Pro surrogacy lobbyists will say that surrogacy isn’t a job but when it is compared to forms of labour it is always to the riskier jobs. Comparisons are made to say, being a firefighter or police officer, but comparisons are never made to other service providers such as being a dentist or a cleaner. We know those roles are low-risk, so it’s subtle but we recognise there is an inherent risk in engaging in pregnancy for others.

With risky employment comes training, health and safety equipment and sometimes a significant risk allowance. If surrogacy was to be thought of as a job then there would be some health and safety guidelines, checks and an uptick in salary. And being pregnant is 24/7 with no breaks and jobs with long hours, like truck divers, rest breaks are scheduled for health and safety. Also, the riskiest jobs in the world have an element of knowingly putting yourself in harm’s way and this becomes part of the deal, and perhaps part of the draw.

With limited research in this area we rely mostly on anecdotal evidence and we have observed some common trends. Surrogate mothers will often have former careers in childcare, teaching, midwifery or nursing, and it seems to be fairly common for surrogate mothers to go on to become deeply involved in surrogacy ‘community’ and subsequently switch careers.

A small 2022 study * from a pro-surrogacy Academic, Dr Kirsty Horsey confirms that most surrogacy ‘teams’ meet through an agency as strangers and though only 47 surrogate mothers completed the survey their careers included midwifery, teaching and nursing:

“Regarding occupation, 12 surrogates identified as being in nursing, midwifery, or health care, seven were in teaching or childcare professions, and 11 in business administration, management, or accounts. Three were solicitors. Other roles included civil servant, police staff, a registrar, a hotelier, a retail role, two students, and two ‘stay-at-home moms’.”

The survey summarises that “Most responses (85%) indicated household incomes below £70,000. Four surrogates said their household incomes were above £80,000.” But it’s worth pointing out that 44 respondents answered that question and a quarter (25%) said they were on a joint income of less than £29k and another 30% said there were on a joint income of between £29k-40k. So that’s over half (55%) who are on significantly less than 70k. The footnotes for this suggests is was badly worded.

And there is a disclaimer: “Given the different professions identified, it is unclear if all respondents gave an answer reflecting personal or household incomes, suggesting that both should have been asked for in the survey. Because of this, it is unclear what weight can be given to these answers.” (Footnote 31.)

These trends bear out in real life further, these example shows that surrogate-mother-to-agency-employee pipeline is real. Take Gina Kinson for example. Having worked in nursing, Gina, a two-time surrogate mother, later became a Co-ordinator for My Surrogacy Journey. Or Sarah Jones, now CEO of Surrogacy UK, Sarah is an Early Years Educator and has had 5 babies for others. Another is Dawn Allen, a surrogate applications and agreement Co-ordinator for Surrogacy UK. Initially inspired to have babies for others after watching a documentary, Dawn came out of ‘retirement’ to have a baby for a couple at the age of 49 whilst working at Surrogacy UK.

So it appears common that a surrogate mother’s career will centre, at least for some, around care-giving and providing a service and having had a baby for others can result in becoming more deeply involved in the industry.

If surrogacy is a vocation where you provide a service in exchange for money, it’s a regular job like any other and one you can retire from. It’s not just ‘favour’ you do for a friend or family member, not least because women are having babies for strangers they are matched with. Surrogacy is no longer what we thought it was when it began back in the 80s. (You may have seen #changingthelandscape used on pro-surrogacy posts and they are not wrong, the landscape has indeed changed.)

In risky jobs we assess and name the risks using clear language in the job description so applicants know what the role entails. (Prostitution isn’t a job, but we have seen it be more commonly referred to as ‘sex work’, as a way to normalise and rationalise the act of using a woman’s body for paid rape as job she chooses to do or a ‘vocation’.) Now there are subtle shifts in language in surrogacy too. Agencies now refer to ‘compensation’ rather than the legal term of ‘reasonable expenses’.

Pregnancy and labour is unpredictable and carries risk. We don’t currently consider surrogacy as a form of employment in the UK, as ‘contracts’ are not enforceable (though that’s a whole different blog), but monetising women’s bodies is a slippery slope.

If you have concerns about surrogacy becoming more widespread, the impact on women and children and what proposed reform in the UK would lead us, please get in contact.

** With 47 respondents to this 2022 survey, this could be roughly just 10% of parental orders as 449 Parental Orders were granted in 2022.

Words from a Midwife: Part Three – The Unspoken

Leave a reply

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?