Ukraine is considering legislation that would dramatically reshape one of the world’s largest international surrogacy markets but – and this is where it gets interesting – there is not one but two Bills before parliament.
Neither Bill would see Ukraine’s baby market completely shut down as both Bills take a different path; one would see their markets ‘regulated’, embedding this harmful practice into social norms through state-sanctioned processes. This Bill would eliminate smaller enterprises through expensive licensing with annual renewals and effectively cement the industry as a large-corporation led enterprise.
The other would end access for foreign commissioning parents, who currently make up an estimated 95% of Ukraine’s surrogacy sector, by introducing the requirement for one of the commissioning parents to be a Ukrainian resident. This would, in effect, shut down international commercial surrogacy, replacing the current model with an ‘altruistic-only’ framework.
Now, we know ‘altruistic’ surrogacy is just a label – money still changes hands and harms are still felt under a ‘reasonable expenses’ only approach – but both Bills mark the most significant attempt yet, to restrict cross-border surrogacy in Ukraine since the Russian invasion.
The Detail
The Government backed Bill would shut down surrogacy to foreigners. Submitted by the Cabinet of Ministers through First Vice Prime Minister Yuliia Svyrydenko and prepared by the Ministry of Health, Deputy Health Minister Yevhenii Honchar is the main public spokesperson and defender of the bill. Under the proposals:
- At least one commissioning parent would need to be a Ukrainian citizen
- If only one spouse is Ukrainian, the couple must have been married for at least 3 years
- Foreign couples with no Ukrainian citizenship would be excluded entirely
- Advertising would be banned and the export of reproductive material would be prohibited during martial law (plus 3 years).
The ‘alternative’ Bill would sanction surrogacy as a legalised practice, to operate under ‘regulation’. Submitted by MP and former journalist Oleksandr Danutsa who founded Prime-Time TOV Media Group. He sits on the Committee on Law Enforcement Activities, (not the health committee).
This Bill would require clinics to obtain a licence with annual fees so smaller agencies would struggle. In some ways this reflects the UK’s own proposals as regulatory body for fertility clinics, the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA) have been put forward as a national regulator to monitor agencies. The HFEA could feasibly be responsible for overseeing operations, granting licenses and managing regular inspections. Ukraine’s proposed Bill aims to weed out the smaller agencies and allow the large enterprises to continue to operate – an argument that has been applied in the UK, as small agencies cite possible licensing requirements in their decision to close.
Both bills impose limits, but one generates income whilst the other restricts the practice, limiting access to Ukraine’s own citizens. Neither goes far enough but both are a response to what is undeniable; the Ukrainian surrogacy market is out of control and something needs to be done.
Language and the Law
A more pressing concern is the new Civil Code currently being pushed through Parliament which contains a number of troubling provisions, among them are clauses which explicitly normalise and legalise surrogacy through assisted reproductive technologies. The proposed language does not merely regulate existing practices; it formally embeds surrogacy into the legal framework governing parenthood and family identity. The draft legislation ‘assigns parenthood’ regardless of which woman is pregnant with the child. Article 1524 states that when an embryo is created through assisted reproductive technologies and transferred into the body of another woman, the married couple who paid for the embryo to be created are recognised as the legal parents.
Article 1527 states that single individuals have the right to motherhood or fatherhood through assisted reproductive technologies, including arrangements involving another woman carrying the child. Legal parenthood is granted based on who provided the gametes, or to who purchased that DNA in order to conceive.
These provisions effectively separate biological gestation from legal motherhood and establish surrogacy as an accepted and protected institution under civil law. By doing so, the Code redefines parental relationships primarily through contractual and technological arrangements rather than through pregnancy and childbirth. Critics argue that these provisions normalise the outsourcing of pregnancy while reducing motherhood to a contractual or biological function. Supporters, meanwhile, frame the reforms as expanding reproductive rights and modernising family law.
This Debate is not new
Ukraine has wrestled with surrogacy before. In April 2023 an attempt was made, under martial law (plus 3 years), to ban foreign commissioning parents, with criminal penalties for violations. That Bill was withdrawn as parliament prioritised wartime legislation and emergency governance. But the issue never went away.
At the time, Ukraine was one of world’s leading destinations for international commercial surrogacy, often described as second only to the United States. CNN’s report in March 2022, less than three weeks after Russia invaded, showed newborns being cared for in ‘baby dens’. Footage from a basement flat saw women caring for the children in desperate conditions but what it revealed was perhaps even more shocking. The babies were not all ‘brand new’, some were shown holding their heads up and had been letting to languish due to a post-Covid travel ban. These were not newborns.
Similarly, BioTexCom proudly showed the basement floor of a Kyiv Hotel, with row upon row of newborn babies. The numbers of children quickly grew from 50 to approx 1,000 as surrogate mothers gave birth and commissioning parents who could not (or would not) collect their ‘orders’.
Former Children’s Commissioner Mykola Kuleba described the country’s surrogacy industry as “an international online store for babies”, arguing that commercial surrogacy had turned children into commodities and exploited economically vulnerable women.
“Commercialisation and permission to receive such a ‘service’ in Ukraine promotes the uncontrolled sale of Ukrainian children abroad” he said in May 2020. He reiterated his position in October 2025:
“Ukraine is in the abyss of becoming the country in which to buy babies at a discount price and in which women have to sell themselves so as not to go hungry.” ~ Catalunyaplural
And Mykola Kuleba is not alone. Former Minister of Culture and Tourism Oksana Bilozir, when interviewed by ABC News said “We can’t be shown as an incubator for foreigners.”
Reproductive Exploitation: Relocated
Ukraine’s agencies and fertility clinics argue that the proposed legislation goes far beyond regulation. Ihor Pechenoha, medical director of BioTexCom, dismisses proposals as “nonsense” and appears unperturbed – this may because despite the war, the industry has proven to be remarkably resilient. Denis Herman from BioTexCom explains that this is because surrogate mothers are poor. (War will not be making women richer or safer.)
Sofia Bettiza BBC Health Correspondent shared her experience discussing the proposals with agencies, in a recent documentary, agencies spoke on the proposals:
“Interestingly they weren’t too worried. They say the demand for surrogacy is huge and growing so they feel as long as there is demand they will find a way to operate and survive…they will just relocate to a different country.”
And this is a fair assumption. Russia’s invasion disrupted international surrogacy markets almost immediately but recovery was swift and barely left a dent, the numbers of babies being born through surrogacy are now at pre-war levels.
What Happens Next
Ukraine’s parliament has postponed a vote on new legislation, but the Ministry of Health has already introduced tighter regulation. Age limits for surrogate mothers and lifestyle requirements were introduced in 2024 along with additional maternity hospital procedures but restrictions did not impinge upon foreign purchasing power.
Whether Ukraine will close the door to international surrogacy entirely remains uncertain. But after years of functioning as one of the world’s largest commercial hubs, the country now appears to be moving towards a decision; will they protect women and children to some degree or will politicians vote to sacrifice them for profit and growth?
