According to this article, the District of Columbia just lifted a criminal ban on surrogacy. Here’s a copy of the bill.
According to this article, Minnesota is in the midst of considering surrogacy legislation again after the veto of a 2008 surrogacy bill. Church groups favor a ban or severe restrictions arguing, among other things, that surrogacy takes advantage of women and results in destruction of embryos.
A recent Arkansas Supreme Court opinion, reversed and dismissed a lower court ruling regarding the procedure for issuing birth certificates reflecting the names of both same-sex parents when one parent conceives a child using an anonymous sperm donor.
While the same-sex couples were successful in obtaining their birth certificates (because that part of the lower court decision was apparently not appealed), the Supreme Court of Arkansas reversed and dismissed the lower court’s holding that the Arkansas Statutes were unconstitutional because the Statute allowed a husband of a wife artificially inseminated to be automatically named a father on their child’s birth certificate; however, the statute did not afford the same treatment to same-sex female couples whereby one of the parents is artificially inseminated.
According to this article, American Express may be offering family formation benefits (adoption and surrogacy) to its employees that are up to $35,000.
A Texas lesbian mom who conceived her child with donor sperm from her friend through “nonmedical artificial insemination” was not successful in her fight to prevent the sperm donor dad from being recognized by Texas as the child’s legal father. Apparently, the sperm donor dad provided a donation in a cup that was then used by mom for artificial insemination. The court opinion held that “because father did not provide sperm to a licensed physician for the purpose of artificial insemination, we hold that father is not a donor as that term is defined in section 160.102(6) and therefore may be named as a parent” to the child.
A New Jersey mom sued Verizon after denying her paid maternity leave for twin boys born to a gestational surrogate.
The article reflects the struggle companies often face when medical innovation outpaces law; particularly in this case, laws protecting disability. To add to the complexity, the NJ mom argues that Verizon provides paid maternity leave and some financial assistance for its employees to expand their family through adoption and that the selection of a gestational surrogate should receive the same favorable treatment.
With historically friendly countries (India, Thailand, and Mexico) for Canadian citizens turning less friendly or hostile, Canada may emerge to fill the surrogacy void. Provinces, such as Quebec, are going on record that surrogacy legislation is needed. While Canadian commercial surrogacy is forbidden, certain surrogate reimbursable living expenses appear to be permissible. In addition, the surrogacy medical costs absorbed by Canada’s universal health care are likely to be less than a similar surrogacy arrangement in the United States for Canadian citizens. This reduced cost factor (versus a surrogacy arrangement in the United States for Canadian citizens) causes more attention and pressure on Canada to create a solid legislative framework for surrogacy. Canadian newspapers are taking notice and calling for collection of surrogacy data and new legislation.
The biological UK father of a child conceived with a donor egg and gestational carrier in the United States faced obstacles in being recognized as the sole legal parent in the UK based on the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 2008 which does not provide recognition to single parents and could have potentially given the gestational carrier more parental rights than the biological father.
An interview with the UK father can be found here. Details about the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 2008can be found here. Most recent Court Decision regarding UK Dad can be found here.
Report that an activist Wisconsin Judge appointed by Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker disagreed with a same-sex married couple’s surrogacy arrangement and appointed a Guardian Ad Litem who a few years earlier wrote an article against same-sex marriage. The Guardian Ad Litem charged about $100,000 in fees and the Court ultimately concluded same-sex married couple was great and “extraordinary” but implied that surrogacy was close to human trafficking and cautioned that next gay married couple might not be so great. The Judge eventually resigned a year after the decision was issued and recently lost a bid to land a seat on the Wisconsin State Supreme Court. The family spent about $400,000 in unexpected legal fees before the decision was reversed by new judge.
Here’s a REPORT that in Israel a woman with a medical problem that prevents her from conceiving a child may be able to legally enter into a surrogacy contract provided she is in a relationship with a male partner.
The Israeli attorney general just submitted an opinion that a woman’s relationship status with a male partner should have zero relevancy in the woman’s ability to contract with a surrogate. If this opinion is eventually accepted, it would mean that a single woman with a medical complication rendering her unable to carry a child should not have to obtain a male partner in order to contract with a surrogate.
The attorney general’s opinion could eventually open the door in Israel for single women to legally contract with a surrogate begging the question as to why single men and same-sex couples should be excluded.
40 MULBERRY DRIVE
MANALAPAN, NEW JERSEY 07726 USA
(732) 289-6253 FAX