Tag Archives: women

Regulation is not the answer

Supporters of surrogacy often argue that the answer to the myriad of ethical concerns regarding surrogacy is better regulation. Supporters claim that regulation protects and safeguards women and children from exploitation and abuse. They are wrong. Increasingly, we see countries apply regulatory models that still fail women and children.

America’s commercial model remains the preferred option for British commissioning parents as the USA has taken the number one spot for surrogacy for over a decade. Asian Businessmen are a popular cohort within the USA’s commissioning parents group.

One study in the United States found that of the 40,000+ embryo transfers to a surrogate mother performed between 2014 to 2020, 32% were for international commissioning parents. These foreign nationals were more likely to be male, older than 42 years, and ‘identify as Asian’. The father of Olympic medalist, Alyssa Lui, Arthur (Junguo) Liu, is an attorney and former political activist. Having always wanted a large family he obtained has five children (Alysa, a younger sister, and triplets), all born via surrogacy and anonymous egg donors.

Another Chinese commissioning parent, billionaire video-game executive Xu Bo, claimed in 2025 that he has “a little over 100” children born via surrogacy in the U.S – though his ex-girlfriend, Tang Jing, claims the number is closer to 300 children worldwide – to obtain ‘high quality sons’ as for him, boys are “superior” to girls for leadership roles.

Now, take the extraordinary case of American businessman Greg Lindberg. This former billionaire built what has been described as a “baby project” involving dozens of egg donors, surrogate mother mothers, fertility clinics, lawyers and staff. Through a network involving at least 25 women, he fathered numerous children using ‘donor’ eggs and surrogate mothers, all whilst facing criminal investigations, imprisonment and financial collapse.

Although Lindberg was based in North Carolina where surrogacy is permitted and enforced through contract law, many of the surrogacy pregnancies occurred in other states. This type of interstate arrangement is common in the United States, as commissioning parents often pursue surrogacy in jurisdictions with more favorable legal frameworks. State laws generally do not prevent residents from entering surrogacy arrangements elsewhere and then returning home with the child. A similar dynamic exists in the UK; residents may engage in commercial surrogacy overseas and return to the UK with the child, even though commercial surrogacy is illegal.

The states where Lindberg’s surrogacy pregnancies occurred each had their own legal frameworks for gestational surrogacy. For example, in Illinois the surrogate mother must be at least 21 years old, have given birth to at least one child, pass medical/mental health screening and at least one commissioning parent must be genetically related to the child. Lindberg met this criteria.

In Florida, enforceable gestational surrogacy contracts are generally limited to married couples when a physician determines that the commissioning mother cannot safely carry a pregnancy. As an unmarried man, Lindberg would not meet those statutory requirements but Florida law provides alternative parentage pathways, including preplanned adoption agreements.

New York is often cited as having the strongest surrogacy protections in the United States. The law requires surrogate mothers to be at least 21 years old and guarantees their right to make all medical decisions during pregnancy and mandates that commissioning parents pay for independent legal representation, comprehensive health insurance, and life insurance. The state also requires either the surrogate mother or at least one commissioning parent to have been a New York resident for six months. Together, these protections are frequently described as the gold standard but you’ll notice that no such checks or investigations apply to the commissioners. Regulation is designed to put the woman under the magnifying glass, not the person or people who walk away with a newborn.

Clinics, agencies, lawyers and professional bodies were all involved in obtaining children for Greg Lindberg, yet despite these layers of oversight, numerous women reported experiences of manipulation, deception and coercion. Several women who ‘donated’ their eggs described being recruited through romantic relationships. Some were promised marriage, a family life and substantial financial rewards. Others believed they were helping an infertile couple. Some women said they were unaware that multiple other ‘donors’ and surrogate mothers were being recruited simultaneously.

The existence of safeguards, legal contracts, life insurance, or psychological screening did not prevent this deception. In fact, many of the women signed legal agreements relinquishing rights to their eggs and any resulting children.

Greg Lindberg’s girlfriend has been given the pseudonym ‘Anya’. Anya has reportedly not seen her son Oliver in nearly four years as allegedly Lindberg used legal contracts signed by Anya during the IVF process to claim she was merely an “egg donor” and to cut her out of her son’s life. Regulation may have ensured paperwork was complete, but consent was not freely given as his intentions were kept hidden.

One problem with regulation is that it is not court-ordered, “tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth”. It is a flimsy form of red tape, built by stakeholders, none of which can force someone to be honest about their plans. For Lindberg, the truth came out when he was prosecuted – not for lies and deception in surrogacy and IVF fraud, but for a multibillion-dollar insurance fraud and a high-level public corruption plot. The money paid to buy children is neither here nor there. The purchase and sale of human beings is not a crime in surrogacy, it is the central purpose and not an illegal act under ‘regulation’.

The truth is there is a fundamental weakness in the regulatory approach to surrogacy. Those who manage it are the ones who benefit. Can we trust those who are so invested in the industry to say no when it is needed and work in the best interests of the woman, or even the child? Many agencies are run by commissioning parents or surrogate mothers.

Regulation tends to focus on procedures: contracts must be signed, medical tests completed and counselling offered. Boxes can and will be ticked, but exploitation often occurs in the human relationships surrounding the process. A woman may technically consent while being emotionally pressured, financially induced or misled about the circumstances. No amount of paperwork can fully eliminate risks of exploitation or the medical risks involved in surrogacy.

The role of fertility clinics here is troubling. According to the investigation, just one clinic declined to work with Lindberg. Others reportedly continued accepting ‘donated’ eggs and surrogate mothers despite concerns raised by staff. Some women ‘donating’ their eggs alleged that warning signs were ignored. Former employees reportedly questioned whether women were being rushed through screening processes.

Whether every allegation can be substantiated is ultimately a matter for the police and judiciary. There are no public reports on the location of the children and who is caring for them now that Lindberg is back behind bars. Perhaps this is for the best so the children can maintain their anonymity and grow up without the spectre of the Baby Project looming over their childhood.

However, the broader point remains: regulation did not stop the system from functioning in this way. The professional guidelines that were supposed to provide safeguards did not prevent the Lindberg Baby Project.

Shamefully, this case is not an isolated example. In 2025 the Arcadia Surrogacy scandal revealed how dozens of women across multiple U.S. states were misled by a Californian surrogacy agency operated by commissioning parents. Silvia Zhang and Guojun Xuan had more than twenty-one children born through surrogacy arrangements across the United States. The case came to light after a two-month-old infant in their care was hospitalised with serious injuries, prompting police and child protection authorities to investigate. Officials later discovered all the very young children living in their mansion.

Multiple surrogate mothers came forward claiming they had been misled or not told that other surrogacy pregnancies were occurring simultaneously. All of the children were placed into protective custody whilst their welfare and long-term arrangements were assessed. (A further six children were born after investigations began.)

Most surrogacy regulation focus heavily on getting a live child and establishing legal parental rights. Far less scrutiny is applied to their long-term welfare. These cases highlight how regulatory systems fail at the point of consent – as clinical protocols do not prevent deception or unequal power dynamics – and again similar shortcomings occur after the children are born. This second level failure happens when surrogacy arrangements produce multiple children under legal frameworks, but there is limited safeguarding for the child.

Some children were born while Lindberg was in prison despite staff reportedly expressing concern about future childcare considering the ongoing financial difficulties, yet embryos continued to be created and implanted.

It’s clear that wealth can overwhelm safeguards. Lindberg reportedly spent over $15.4 million in direct payments to women and another $12 million on “reproductive services”. He also paid for rent, child care and cosmetic dentistry for some of the women involved.

Wealthy commissioning parents can hire lawyers, consultants, recruiters and clinics to facilitate their plans, significant sums of money are involved. Financial incentives compete with ethical concerns. Clinics charge fees. Agencies earn commissions. Lawyers are paid for their services. In such circumstances, the best interests of women and children are not the primary consideration.

Advocates of surrogacy frequently argue that problems arise because regulation is insufficient. Yet the Lindberg case suggests a deeper issue. The problem was not an absence of rules. It is the assumption that a market involving reproduction, money and unequal power can be made fully safe and the expectation, or naive belief, that regulation will be applied as the law says it will be.

Women may still be pressured. Children are the result of adult desires rather than individuals with independent interests. Industry professionals have financial incentives and determined individuals will find ways to manipulate the system.

Regulation, however extensive, does not seek to protect women from exploitation or children from being commodified. If a network of clinics and lawyers cannot prevent exploitation from taking place, policymakers should be cautious about claims that surrogacy can simply be made safe through better regulation.

Before expanding markets in reproduction, governments should ask a more fundamental question: are some risks inherent to the practice itself, and therefore beyond the reach of regulation?

This blog was written by Kallie Fell, Executive Director of the Center for Bioethics and Culture Network and Lexi Ellingsworth, Founder of Stop Surrogacy Now UK.

Ukraine considers closing its borders to Foreign Baby Buyers

Leave a reply

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?

Please write to your MP…again!

What does ‘Mother’ mean?

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 how family units are created 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 “What is a Mother?” 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 parental 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.

in surrogacy, the definition of the noun ‘surrogate’ is:

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

For me, 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 – 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 courts. 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 belonging 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 but the UK’s largest agency, Surrogacy UK, campaigns for ‘double donation’ so no genetic link would be required.

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 downplay the sharing of cells in the womb as “a mere fantasy of romanticism”.

Some supporters of surrogacy prefer to dehumanise the woman further, reducing her to an electrical appliance, calling women ‘ovens’ and the baby a ‘bun’. This goes beyond a lighthearted joke when 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 prior to conception or implantation but that’s a different blog…

Saying that a pregnant woman is simply ‘babysitting’ is an insult to the magic of motherhood and it seeks to separate the mother and baby by reducing pregnancy to a bodily function or a paid role. There may be more truth shared in this than was intended.

In surrogate motherhood, a genetic link 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 surrogacy doesn’t remove the reality of how babies are made, however inconvenient it may be. Everyone has a mother, whether she wants to be thought as one or not.

Behind the Screens: Dialogue from Surrogate Mothers

Leave a reply

So many of us live our lives online. Communities connect across long distances, and short, and we find comfort in that common ground online, particularly if what we are going through is unusual, a situation that perhaps few of those close to us can understand.

This applies to the online surrogacy world, with a statistically small but growing group of women gathering from around the world to share stories, experience and advice. But it’s not necessarily friendship that guides them. Facebook appears to be the primary place for potential parents to be ‘matched’ with candidates for surrogacy. Women may advertise their availability, detailing their age, previous pregnancies, health status and location or the commissioners can search for a woman they often describe as kind and generous, someone who will help them overcome their childlessness and be the way they start or expand their family.

Inevitably the commissioners may have spent a lot of money on IVF treatment by this point and are looking for cut-price, budget-friendly deal. The women must be fair and not charge too much for ‘expenses’ or ‘compensation’. In their search, commissioning parents will list the application criteria by age, location and BMI. If they want to use her eggs in the process as well her physical characteristics become more important. They will look for women who look like them, so the child may grow to resemble their commissioner.

Whilst these groups are dangerously close to being illegal, as currently advertising for surrogacy from either approach, is banned in the UK, but they almost pose a greater risk when you enter the echo chamber as a surrogate mother.

A recent post on X/Twitter inspired me to review all the screenshots from Facebook groups that have been shared by volunteers over the past 6 months or so. It was suggested that women in these self-help groups are healthy and largely unaffected by their involvement with surrogacy. We would argue the opposite, but, as a Facebook relationship status used to say, it’s complicated.

When surrogate mothers gather they discuss all kinds of topics within surrogacy. From the beginning there are gentle, curious enquiries which are swiftly followed by contract negotiations as they are keen to establish their worth. There is the weight of guilt from failed tests, failed embryo transfers and miscarriage, as if their bodies are not good enough, are not up to the task and may not be able to fulfil the promise they have made.

Women discuss body autonomy, on everything from vaccines and c-sections to abortion and whether they are entitled to receive medical advice, scans or updates without the commissioning parents in the room. Their privacy is compromised further when they discuss whether they can engage in sexual activity with their partners.

Being able to decide for themselves is a recurring theme as contracts can restrict their diet (commissioners can insist on a vegan or vegetarian diet) or travel. One surrogate mother tells her confidants that she has missed the passing of a loved one as she was not allowed – according to her contract – to cross state lines. While contracts are not enforceable in the UK, pressure can still be applied. Once you are pregnant as a surrogate mother, with a baby you tell yourself is not yours but in fact ‘belongs’ to someone else, all bets are off. (British commissioners often engage in surrogacy overseas through agencies and later travel to collect the child. When they return the courts will award them parental rights once some forms have been filled in.)

In this social space these women speak of being rejected by agencies due to their high BMI or issues with a previous pregnancy and will ask whether anyone there knows of a clinic who might take on an older woman, a woman on anti-depressants or one with a pre-existing condition. One woman recently asked if anyone could point her to a clinic who will take her on; with her 4 previous miscarriages and the 5 children she has kept and she is planning another surrogacy pregnancy after her 3rd surrogate born baby who is due in a few months. Group members are quick to share advice and there is an element of ‘clinic shopping’ to side-step the usual limits.

They talk about the painful IVF injections and weight gain, the impact on their emotional wellbeing and even the strain it has on their families, as they aim to help someone else grow theirs, but perhaps the most significant issue discussed is the coercive nature of their commissioners.

Women compare notes, asking if they are being unreasonable as they are encouraged to give over their bodies to surrogacy. Shockingly, the reaction is often one of victim blaming. The “put your big pants on” or “you know what you were getting yourself into” responses are frequent, all shared within a supposed sisterhood for a very special pocket of the internet, one that outsiders couldn’t possibly understand.

Every woman is at some point faced with the biological reality of pregnancy, like any other woman, from the limiting daily morning sickness to life threatening preeclampsia. These situations lead to discussions about disability and life insurance and how much are their lives worth, including to those they might leave behind. With the increase of risk of twins or triplets come higher rates of pay…some might call it danger money.

Agency list their going rates for a hysterectomy, others hide these details in contracts. If a woman who relies on her uterus to make a living, arguably this permanent removal of this reproductive organ affects her career prospects, so what is this worth in monetary value? The prices vary…

Post birth we have seen women speak about their periods getting heavier, their bodies changing beyond recognition as the pregnancy and labour was so much harder than their previous experience of childbirth. There are practical discussions about expressing colostrum and breastmilk, how best should this precious fluid might be shipped and shared.

I have myself noticed commissioning parents returning to these groups to ask women how they might obtain breastmilk for the babies they took from their mothers at birth, could these random mothers on the internet root around “at the back of the freezer” to see if any is going spare? (Breastmilk banks rigorously tested for bacteria, heated to eliminated viruses and is stored in temperature monitored freezers. )

Surrogate mothers who speak about their worries and regrets are quickly shut down and can even be ejected from the group. These women may be entering a frightening new legal experience with subsequent court cases or an abandoned baby but no one will be there to support them as the shiny seal has been broken and tarnished. This is not the type of surrogacy the groups are usually interested in, though we have seen one woman who are allowed to stick around share how her ‘journey’ ended in her losing her job and divorcing her husband.

What is perhaps the most shocking is how when women do have regrets and suffer the mother child separation (which they were told they would not experience as it is not their baby) their new friends rally round to reassure them that this is simply their hormones reacting and this is not something they should worry about. They are told to straighten their spines as if they are facing a tricky work problem or relationship situation and not the desperate loss of a baby who hasn’t died, a child they know in their bones they will never see him or her (or them) again.

The message is clear, sweep this under the carpet as it’s not real, you are not the mother, this natural maternal bond is an illusion. Surrogate mothers are not allowed to feel what is real.

Some women who have a bad experience will praise the benefits of going another round. The aim appears to be to wipe away the bad memories with a new happy ones. It was just a ‘bad match’, she was unlucky, she knew she should have listened to her instincts and she will next time. If the new relationship break downs, or her health deteriorates again, there’s always a third time lucky 🤞.

There is a sense of toxic encouragement rather than genuine interest and reviewing the post and responses reminded me of what you might have once seen on a pro-ana site. (Try Googling to find out what I’m talking about and you’ll find those sites have been shut down, for good reason.)

One small silver lining is the direct messages a woman might receive when she has been shown the door. We have also seen the messages of careful support and camaraderie, away from the main stage where only ‘baby dust’, crossed fingers and positive vibes are permitted.

Ending Digital Violence in Surrogacy

Leave a reply

In the digital age, social media platforms have become a sprawling landscape for connection and community but for every well-meaning and helpful group there is a flip-side. Online groups occupy the dark corners of the internet where bad actors take advantage of the vulnerable. As the annual 16 days for the Elimination of Violence Against Women and Girls (EVAG) draws to a close, we turn our attention to social media surrogacy groups as this year UN Women calls for an “End to digital violence against all women and girls”.

The alarming escalation of violence against women found online extends to surrogacy as this harmful practice is a form of violence against women, as clarified by the UN Special Rapporteur for VAWG in her report this year. Here, I examine the risk posed by online groups, primarily on Facebook.

These groups are dangerous for several reasons. They perpetuate the illusion of empowerment through bodily autonomy with subtle language which encourages women to help others and create ‘positive change’ in the world. Women are told they can (and should) share their fertility, spread the joy of family and ‘give a gift’ of a baby to someone, somewhere who cannot, for whatever reason, have a baby themselves.

For many women considering surrogacy, the prospect of helping others whilst providing a solution to financial difficulty is a no-brainer. The promise of financial ‘compensation’, coupled with the chance to help a family achieve their dream of parenthood, presents surrogacy as a noble act of altruism, the ultimate kindness. But these groups are predatory and deceptive as they hide the deeper exploitative practices. Clinics and agencies entice women in and then make direct approaches, often switching to Direct Messages to dictate the terms and conditions. One woman who got caught up in these groups told us that she wanted to offer herself to a couple abroad as she trusted legal systems in other countries, more than those in her own.

This single mother was offered money for a positive pregnancy test, more than double that for the heartbeat, more money again for accommodation, transport, a ‘feeding allowance’ and lastly, vastly increased sums for a twin or triplet pregnancy. At no point were the known risks discussed.

“I really wanted to do it all for my child to have a better life…after helping a family I’d come back to run my business” recognising her narrow escape in a country fraught with exploitation she told us, “I may have been used for a human trafficking scam”.

Advertising for surrogacy in the UK is illegal but these online groups present a loophole. Where would this illegal action be prosecuted, the UK where the post was viewed or in the country where the platform is registered? How and where should these groups be reported? I have personally reported several predatory groups to Facebook and no action has been taken. A journalist in Nigeria has had better luck. Simbiat Bakare’s investigation resulted in closures of several surrogacy Facebook groups (and we encourage readers to report any concerning posts, particularly those that offer a payment plan, by reporting under the category of ‘sexual and human exploitation’ and then selecting ‘exploitation of people under 18’).

Both couples and single people can post about their desire to be parents and invite potential candidates to message them directly. Professional ‘matchmakers’ have private groups and we often see vulnerable women who are already navigating financial challenges, leap at the chance of being able to earn money this way. By making an arrangement with strangers online a woman can go through a pregnancy, birth and give up parental rights for her newborn in order to support the children she already has.

We understand why this is attractive and have seen countless replies to adverts, mostly from women in Ghana, Nigeria and South Africa, who intend to travel abroad to earn large sums that are simply not available to them at home. The possession of a passport and willingness to travel is mentioned in their replies.

In surrogacy, women are reduced to mere vessels that meet the desires of wealthier individuals or couples, this power imbalance is plain to see from the thousands of screenshots I have seen personally and it exposes a troubling reality. Here are just a handful of examples.

Screenshot from Facebook Group titled Surrogate Mother's Needed

The allure of money overshadows the real emotional and physical risks involved in carrying a child for someone else. Playing on their vulnerabilities, agencies and brokers will dress this up as making someone’s dreams come true. How wonderful it must be, to be making wishes a reality for a hopeful couple who badly need your help. You have something they don’t and they are willing to pay for something that comes relatively easily to you. And by doing this lovely, selfless act, you can support your family and even work your way out of poverty.

It’s a harmless win-win for all! But the agencies brokering deals never mention the risks.

I was reminded recently of how it took decades for warnings to be attached to cigarette packets and tobacco companies were marking their own homework as they provided the ‘research‘. (The predictable outcome of these ‘studies’ resulted in more sales and profit for Big Tobacco as the risks were hidden so smokers thought they were safe to carry on.)

Facebook groups also foster personal narratives that create a false sense of sisterhood (more on this soon) that also downplay the real dangers. The idealised version of surrogacy minimises the significant risks and the transactional nature of these arrangements reinforces this power dynamic and rather than challenging them, these online communities allow surrogacy to fester and grow, unchecked.

We must remain vigilant against those that seek to commodify women’s bodies for profit and challenge the predatory nature of these exploitative groups. Instead of arguing for surrogacy as a reproductive right, that it is an act of generosity made possible with bodily autonomy, we should say no to it all, so vulnerable women do not take risks with her own lives, their own fertility and their own wellbeing for true empowerment without the biased influence.

Handmaid’s Tale, Chanel 4 – Season 6
(The irony of this image is not lost on me.)

Words from a Surrogate Mother – Part 4: Clara*

Leave a reply

My name is Clara* and I am from Argentina. I have two daughters who are studying at a university in Argentina. Since 2023, I have been fighting to regain my place in my son’s life, with the help of my solicitor. This is my story.

In 2022, a very close friend of mine, whom I will call ‘G’, whom I met in 2007 when I was studying English, called me. He works in Europe and lives with his partner. They are both very wealthy.

At the time, I had recently separated, lost a child a few years earlier, and was not feeling well. During our conversation, G asked me to become the mother of his child. He said that the three of us would form a family. I was happy to help them become parents, and to become a mother again myself. I accepted this wonderful project. He mentioned the possibility of marrying me to make it easier for them to obtain papers in France. We would be a family of three in Europe. I would live on one floor of their large house and they would live on the other; we would raise the child together.

I know it may sound strange, but it felt strange to me at first too. I won’t lie — I didn’t want to upset him. I thought to myself, ‘Well, the world is changing so much that I’m going to become a mother this way.’ They brought me to France on a tourist visa. As I was in the early stages of menopause, they arranged for in vitro fertilisation in Spain using my friend’s partner’s sperm and donor eggs. The doctor suggested a donor with dark skin, like mine. However, ‘G’ insisted on a donor with fair skin and blue eyes. I refused.

It was a high-risk pregnancy: I was 41 years old at the time and had been diagnosed with high blood pressure and hypothyroidism. During the pregnancy, I had to go to hospital four times.

From the outset of my pregnancy, I found it extremely challenging to coexist with them. They argued a lot and started behaving very coldly towards me, as if it were a job. Gradually, the idea of a happy family life together disappeared. They decided that I should live in the neighbouring town and that I would only see the baby at weekends after he was born. G took my passport, but fortunately returned it to me four months later. I no longer recognised him; he had become a completely different person.

However, I thought I had to carry on since, after all, they were the parents and I was the mother, and we were going to start a family. I told myself that I had to put up with things, which unfortunately only got worse.

The delivery was difficult and a caesarean section had to be performed. When the child was born, G presented himself to the hospital staff as my partner. They prevented me from holding my son, saying that I was tired. They told the nursing staff that I couldn’t breastfeed him because I was going back to work. That wasn’t true. They forced me to express milk. I agreed because I thought that if the baby became too dependent on me, it would cause him distress later on. There was also the €300 they sent every month for my daughters. I had no job and no connections. I didn’t speak French yet either. I had no money. They paid all my expenses, but my visa had expired, so I couldn’t go out without being very discreet. I couldn’t ask for help, and I had to keep my word.

When I dared to protest, the tension between us increased. They made me write a curriculum vitae and told me that they could no longer support me. I had not yet recovered from my caesarean section, so I asked them for a little more time as I was still finding it very difficult to walk. However, without consulting me, they organised my departure to Spain, where I knew nobody except a vague Facebook contact in Murcia. It took five car changes via BlaBlaCar and a bus journey to get there — a distance of 1,500 km. ‘G’ accompanied me to the bus in Barcelona to Murcia, then flew back immediately.

The person I stayed with helped me and put me in touch with a solicitor. By leaving my son like that, I risked being accused of child abandonment. I called ‘G’, begging him to let me return to France. I naively told him that I risked being prosecuted for child abandonment. I then learned that they had immediately filed a complaint against me for child abandonment.

While in Spain, I was put in touch with solicitors Ambroselli and Montesinos. They organised my repatriation to France and have supported me in all my efforts, including with paperwork, work and legal action to regain custody of my son.

Thanks to their efforts, I can now see my son for two hours every fortnight under social services supervision. However, for me, this is only a first step: I hope to be reunited with my son, who is now two years old, one day.

This speech was read by Clara* at FiLiA in Brighton on 11th October 2025. Clara* has used a pseudonym due to ongoing legal action.

Words from a Surrogate Mother – Part 3: Julie*

Leave a reply

By 2019, I had been dreaming of having a child for a long time. This desire was deep and long-standing, but I lacked the financial means to raise a child alone. It was essential to me that the future child should know their origins and never be cut off from me. As an LGBTI+ activist who cares deeply about the cause of the oppressed, I also wanted this project to align with my political beliefs. Ethical, altruistic or humanitarian surrogacy, as it is presented and ‘sold’ today, seemed to me to be the perfect solution: it would fulfil my desire for motherhood, allow a male couple to become parents, and right an injustice. At the time, I believed that the ban on surrogacy (and assisted reproductive technology) in France was unjust.

In my search for ‘intended parents’ — in other words, commissioning parents — I was contacted by people from all countries and of all sexual orientations. I systematically refused all offers of remuneration, including those from abroad and from heterosexual couples. I would never have accepted the child having any mother other than me. We envisaged ‘traditional’ and ‘artisanal’ surrogacy without the involvement of clinics, agencies or excessive costs, apart from the initial medical tests. We agreed on homemade artificial insemination, and I insisted on registering the child with the civil authorities. I refused to give birth anonymously, as I did not want my baby to have a start in life marked by abandonment. The agreement was clear: they would raise the child in their home, and I would remain close to them. The child was always to know me and consider me a member of his family. It was an underground surrogacy arrangement which, at the time, I considered to be a ‘solidarity project’ operating on the fringes of the law. There was no written contract, only a verbal agreement, a ‘contract of trust’.

The pregnancy was much more difficult than I had imagined. I went through it all alone, with no support from the couple, my family or my friends. During the last month, they began to put pressure on me by imposing their concerns and medical choices. On the day of the birth, I realised that, in their eyes, I had never had any human dignity or maternal role. I was nothing more than a body responsible for ‘delivering’ the baby. They wanted to watch the birth from the front, despite the fact that I had no intimate relationship with any of them. The biological father preferred a caesarean section to the use of a vacuum extractor. Fortunately, the obstetrician did not listen to him. He insisted that the baby be placed in the nursery for the first night and that my stay in the maternity ward be shortened, despite my repeated objections. In the delivery room, a paediatric nurse, unaware of our surrogacy plans, said, “Don’t try to separate the mother and child.” She understood better than I did what was at stake. My stay was so difficult that the staff thought I was a battered woman. They sent me a psychologist and promised me postnatal care, but ultimately, nothing was done.

I had given my word, and when I left the maternity ward, I entrusted my baby to them. I couldn’t afford to raise him, and I believed that they would keep their promise just as I had kept mine. I never asked for any money; in fact, I gave them the social security benefits I received so that the child would have everything he needed.

Very quickly, however, the initial promises evaporated. They organised a birth party without telling or inviting me. To their relatives, they maintained the pretence that they had conceived the baby alone. The regular visits they had promised me during the first year became rare and sporadic. News and photos were slow in coming. Then, in 2022, I discovered that they were planning to move to the other side of France. Whenever the local social services intervened, they moved again. The stability that I had hoped the child would have – and which had motivated my choice of them – was not forthcoming. They also hid information about the child’s health from me. I learned from a doctor that my son had been diagnosed with autism six months earlier and that they had portrayed me as absent and unstable.

Finally, they settled in the Gard region, where social services stopped investigating. Three months later, the biological father died of aggressive cancer at the age of 37. Legally, I remained the sole holder of parental authority and was entitled to regain custody of my son, as the second commissioning couple had no biological or legal connection to him. I had resisted the pressure they had put on me to give up my rights or agree to adoption.

Naively, and in the interests of the child, I suggested to the stepfather that we arrange shared custody. However, he told me that he wanted to return to the Paris region, so I moved back there and rented a one-bedroom flat for my son. Meanwhile, he was initiating several legal proceedings against me, including temporary and long-term placement, total and exclusive transfer of my parental rights and custody, and even child maintenance. The judges granted all his requests.

The second commissioning person, who is legally nothing to my son, refused to return the family record book to me, with the approval of the magistrates. The public prosecutor in Nîmes described me as nothing more than a ‘procreator’. Social services were extremely accommodating, refusing to treat me as a parent for a year and explaining that they were there to ‘support the gentleman in his parenting’. The Departmental Child Welfare Services (ASE) even asked the Children’s Judge to remove my visiting and accommodation rights, which were already extremely limited, and this was ordered. Whenever this man prevented a meeting, phone call or video call between me and my son, social services covered for him.

To top it all off, the stepfather remarried another man, becoming my son’s ‘second stepfather’. This man obtained parental rights. Now, social services and magistrates are asking me to recognise this second stepfather as my child’s ‘father’. Both my son’s genetic father and my own family have been removed from his life.

Although the judge ordered visitation rights, I was unable to see my child from 31 July 2023 to 11 May 2024 – almost ten months in total. I received no updates and was reprimanded when I dared to ask for any. Social services cited being overloaded or the fact that I no longer had parental rights. Even the juvenile court judge acknowledged off the record that this should not have happened.

A complaint for incitement to child abandonment was filed against them in the Alpes de Haute Provence. All parties recognised the surrogacy, including social services and the surviving stepfather. In court, he openly admitted to this illegal surrogacy, knowing that he would not be punished, but rather that it would allow him to obtain exclusive rights and full custody of the child. The penalty in France is derisory: a €7,500 fine. If the sponsors knew this, none of them would pay for surrogacy abroad. Women’s bodies are being sold in France. Despite the evidence and confessions, the public prosecutor in Digne-les-Bains dismissed the child abandonment complaint. No judge wanted to investigate or simply apply the law. I appealed to the Attorney General in Aix-en-Provence, but he dismissed the case too.

I have now been fighting social services and judges for two years, and I am due to appear in court again on 9 October. I am fighting to be recognised as a mother and for my son to recognise me and be reunited with his maternal family. After eight months with no visiting rights, followed by supervised and semi-supervised visits where we had to ‘meet’ like strangers under the watchful eye of social services, I finally regained my visiting and accommodation rights. However, I still haven’t regained my parental rights or any prospect of custody. Social services keep telling me that their role is to ensure that the child has his father, as if the father were the child in need of protection.

For each visit and hearing, I travel 1,500 km. It requires a huge time, energy and financial commitment. Currently, I have custody of my son for half of the school holidays at my home and one and a half days per month during the school year, but I have to spend these periods in the Gard region. Needless to say, the stepfather has never moved to be closer, which makes shared custody impossible.

I had hoped this story would be one of friendship, solidarity and justice. Instead, it has become a tragedy; the biggest mistake and source of shame in my life. The state has stolen my son, as well as my dignity as a woman and a mother. Even today, I am not recognised as a parent. At school, at the doctor’s, with insurance companies or solicitors, I am nobody. I am fighting so that one day my son will truly be part of his maternal family, and so that he can forgive me — perhaps even love me. I am fighting so that no other woman will be treated as I was, and so that no other child will be torn away from their mother and maternal family. No one should have to go through what I am going through.

This speech was read by Julie* at FiLiA in Brighton on 11th October 2025. Julie* has used a pseudonym due to ongoing legal action.

Words from a Surrogate Mother – Part 1: Marie Anne

Leave a reply

My name is Marie-Anne Isabelle and the surrogacy experience that I endured here in this country nearly killed me. My mission now is to ensure that nobody goes through what I did. I have made it my cause to expose this barbaric practice for what it is and to enact change. I am not looking for glory or sympathy I just want change.

People hear about how wonderful surrogacy is, how it’s a beautiful gift and a positive experience. Then, you hear about the “terrible” surrogate who dares to ask for her child back. It’s an all-too-common depiction in our modern fairy tale world.

I believed that fairy tale when I agreed to help a family member by carrying her child. At the time, I was happy to help because I loved her and did not want or need to be paid. However, I made it clear that the child would be conceived using her egg and that I must be allowed to see and have contact with the child I would give birth to. That was the condition I would only do this under, if I could have regular contact with the child, as I could not live without seeing a child I would give birth to.

I agreed to become a surrogate mother for my cousin. She was more like a sister to me. She had been a significant presence in my life. We were a vital part of each other’s lives. I knew about her cancer. In 2009 she told me that she had created embryos and that she was researching surrogacy.

One day, she came to my house with her sister, who is also my cousin and asked if I could help her. I told her that I would only help if she let me see the child. She looked me in the eye and said, “Absolutely. There’s trust.” We’re family, you know? Not for a minute did I think I’d actually need to get a lawyer and write a contract.

I think when she asked me, she knew I had no choice but to say yes. I think she exploited our relationship. As further information came out afterwards, it appeared that they couldn’t go ahead with a surrogacy abroad as it was deemed too expensive, so they were looking for a cheaper alternative. They kind of saw me as “Oh, she’ll do it for free.” A free and cheap option.

I was told there is trust. “You will be the child’s godmother.” Those words would later come back to haunt me. I don’t believe she knows what trust means. She made all sorts of promises to brainwash and coerce me into helping her.

It was a gestational surrogacy. They used IVF with their own biological material. I remember lots of injections and visits to the clinic for very obtrusive physical examinations. It was a very procedural process, and it was quite challenging, both emotionally and physically, to go through. I’d had two normal, non-assisted pregnancies of my own and this pregnancy was nothing like those. This overmedication was purely to help these two people.

The experience was bad enough. Having somebody else try to dictate what medical procedures you should endure, how you should give birth, and what you should eat was awful. The list goes on. This affected me from the beginning of my pregnancy, yet there is still no specialized support for women going through surrogate pregnancies here in the UK.

In 2014, at the time of delivery, I made it clear that the commissioning father wouldn’t be present; it would just be her, me, and my partner. Everything went smoothly, and I felt in control. The hospital saw me as the mother. So, my wishes were taken into account; in how I wanted to do things. However, they wanted me to have an elective C-section. I refused, and my midwife backed me up by stating that C sections were not good practice. If someone doesn’t need one, they shouldn’t have one. They tried to force me and put pressure on me, saying, “Oh, it’d be better for you.”

I remember there being some confusion at the hospital. Even though the hospital had been told that it was a surrogacy, social services became involved. I thought, “This is awful. I’m trying to have a baby, and now I’ve got suspicious social services interviewing me.

The father came in after the birth because he wanted to have skin to skin contact. They had the baby. They were happy. They didn’t need me anymore so they told me to go home. However, the hospital staff did not agree. They wanted to see me walk out with the baby, carrying it according to their policy. I remember having to carry the car seat with the baby in it through the hospital in full view of the medical staff. Then, we had to do this strange exchange where I handed over the child in the hospital car park because, legally, the hospital was no longer responsible for the child once it was outside.

After the birth, I was presented with all sorts of legal documents that I was forced to sign. The timing was awful, too, right when I was trying to recover from the birth. Imagine training your body and mind for nine months to believe that you are not the mother of the child you are giving birth to. Every surrogate woman has to do that. Then, after doing that, you are presented with a document stating that you are the mother, and you are forced to sign it. I was also threatened with financial and legal consequences if I didn’t sign it. This is the dark side of surrogacy in the UK that nobody hears about because most women are given gag orders to prevent them from talking about it.

No payment was made. I was only compensated for time off work. I remember them buying me maternity clothes and reimbursing me for transportation to the clinic. They wanted to pay for food, but I politely declined. I didn’t want to feel controlled by having someone tell me what to eat. I remember my dear cousin saying, “We’d like to pay for a kitchen for you,” and I said, “No, this is me helping you I am not doing this to get anything back in return. For me to receive gifts would feel like I was being paid for a service.” I said no.

The court case started in 2014 and lasted two years. I didn’t start the court case. It was initiated by the commissioning parents because they wanted a parental order. A parental order legally transfers parental responsibility from the surrogate to the intended parents and ends the surrogate’s rights.

I had no idea about any of this. I didn’t even know there was going to be a court case. I just thought I would hand the child over and be done with it. None of this was made clear to me beforehand. Nobody told me. I gave birth, and suddenly, all of this legal process was forced upon me. I refused to sign because they reneged on their promise of allowing me contact and everything went downhill from there.

They attempted to obtain my consent against my will at the court, exploiting my mental health, which was irreparably damaged as a result of my experience. They tried to prove that I was incapable of giving consent. However, through grit and determination—including psychiatric assessments proving I was capable of giving consent—I was permitted to remain involved in the court case and my consent was needed much to their dismay. Still, they continually tried to shut me out. Children’s Services even tried to use the case of a deceased surrogate mother. They said, “We can just use that case where someone died and pretend that’s happened here.” It was just appalling. It was made clear to me that the only way I had the best chance of having any contact was to agree to the parental order so in the end, I signed it to try and have contact with the child I gave birth to as I was promised. I have never seen the child to this day.

She was born in 2014. I haven’t seen her since I gave birth to her.

I was promised on multiple occasions during the court case that I would see her, but each time, the appointment was cancelled the day before. They were playing games with me. I believe the promises were only for the benefit of the court.

They hinted that they used me as a cheap commercial surrogate and if it hadn’t been for their legal costs they would have been granted their wish. They constantly tried to remove any trace of me from their child’s life, which is another reason why they needed my silence. I believe their behaviour stems from their resentment of me as the child’s birth mother, and that is me being generous.

I have been diagnosed with complex PTSD and underwent EMDR to alleviate some of the trauma resulting from the surrogacy. I have a deep fear of hospitals, children, and babies, which does not work well with my career in education. The damage done to me will never be repaired. Constant panic attacks and a fear and distrust of people serve as constant reminders. There are many days that I still wish I wasn’t here just to be rid of this painful world that did this to me.

The impact was not only on me, but also on my children. They took on the role of parents because I wasn’t able to take care of them. This happened ten years ago, and for the first five years, my children didn’t have a mother. They were taken away from me and sent to live with their father, which was traumatic for everyone. Then, the judge, when presented with evidence, came to the conclusion that this was not helpful to anyone and returned them to my care. Over the last five years, we have come together as a family and rebuilt our relationships, but for the first five years, we were a broken family.

In trying to help another family, they broke mine.

When did a women’s right to have a child mean that it would take away another woman’s right to have contact with a child she gave birth to? We talk about women’s rights as if they are universal but surrogacy actually means you are choosing which woman deserves more rights. That is inequality.

If leaders and law makers care so much about women’s rights why are they continuing to erode the rights of surrogate mothers?

Change needs to happen fast. Surrogacy in any form is wrong, not safe and harmful. It needs to be banned before any more women die as they already have. Listen to our voices and do not let us be silenced any more.

This speech was read by Marie Anne at FiLiA in Brighton on 11th October 2025.

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

4 Replies

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!

The Detail

Language and the Law

This Debate is not new

Reproductive Exploitation: Relocated

What Happens Next

Subscribe to continue reading