Category: Legislation

The Latest Study on Regulation of Compensated Gestational Surrogacy in New York

PFLAGLI

compensated gestational surrogacy

The Latest Study on Regulation of Compensated Gestational Surrogacy in New York

The Latest Study on Regulation of Compensated Gestational Surrogacy in New York underscores the need to pass this legislation and shows that it would provide the most comprehensive protections for gestational carriers in the US.compensated gestational surrogacy

This report on the regulation of compensated gestational surrogacy in New York, issued in March 2020 to the New York State Legislature by Weill Cornell Medicine and the Cornell Law School is one of the most comprehensive reports of its kind and leads the reader to now other conclusion but that New York’s pending legislation, The Child Parent Security Act, would be the most protective of gestational carriers, or surrogate mothers, of any piece of legislation in existence in the US.  Surrogacy legislation  can be ethical and comprehensive.

To quote from the article, “The trend among state legislatures in the United States is to permit rather than prohibit compensated gestational surrogacy. Since 2000, fifteen states and the District of Columbia have acted to explicitly permit compensated gestational surrogacy. On the other hand, only four states have taken a prohibitive approach since 2000 and two of those states permit uncompensated gestational surrogacy.”

“In forty-four states there is no prohibition on surrogacy by statute or there is explicit or implicit permission. Even in the six states that have statutes that appear to prohibit surrogacy, courts have granted pre-birth orders to intended parents and have issued other pro-surrogacy decisions. Consequently, surrogacy in varying ways, including by approving pre-birth orders.”

“In sum, the health and medical literature does not weigh in favor of continuing to prohibit gestational surrogacy in New York. There are generally no disparate health outcomes for gestational carriers as compared to non-gestational carriers using assisted reproductive technology (ART) nor are their disparate health impacts on children. Additionally, there are no disparate psychological impacts on gestational carriers as compared to women who have had spontaneously conceived pregnancies. States across the country are moving to legalize and regulate gestational surrogacy in the last decade.”

March 20, 2020 by Cornell Weill Medical Center and Law School 

Click here to read the entire article.

The post The Latest Study on Regulation of Compensated Gestational Surrogacy in New York appeared first on Time For Families.


Source: Time for Families

South Dakota Senate panel narrowly defeats commercial surrogacy ban

PFLAGLI

South Dakota surrogacy ban

A South Dakota Senate committee on Wednesday narrowly rejected a measure that would have criminalized commercial surrogate pregnancy agents, making it unlikely for such a ban to win approval this year.

The South Dakota Senate Health and Human Services voted down the surrogacy ban bill 4-3 after a debate pitting some families who have used surrogates for pregnancy against critics who argue the practice exploits and endangers women and babies.South Dakota

Sen. Arthur Rusch, a Republican from Vermillion, cast the deciding vote against the legislation after initially moving to approve it and send it on to the full Senate. He called it “one of the most difficult decisions that I’ve made.”

The House had previously passed the bill, which deals with the practice of having a woman being impregnated with an embryo from another couple.

The proposal would have made acting as a surrogacy agent a misdemeanor punishable by up to a year in jail. It would have made South Dakota one of a handful of states to criminalize the practice. Lawmakers said they would be more open to regulating surrogacy rather than passing an outright ban.

Rep. Jon Hansen, the Dell Rapids Republican who introduced the bill, argued that commercial surrogacy makes women and babies vulnerable to commercial contracts.

“Human beings are not property to be bartered for,” he said.

During testimony Wednesday, supporters of the commercial ban pointed to situations in other states where commercial surrogates have had to go to court over disputes arising from the contracts. They argued that commercial surrogacy targets women who are poor and from vulnerable communities.

Jennifer Lahl, an activist against commercial surrogacy from California, said surrogate pregnancies have higher health risks than normal pregnancies and pointed to the deaths of several women who died from complications during a surrogate pregnancy.

The bill also had the support of anti-abortion groups, an influential force in the conservative state. Many surrogacy contracts address “fetal reduction,” in which one fetus may be aborted if a woman has twins or triplets. They argued that the contracts could be used to pressure women into getting an abortion.

Women from a group of families that have had children through surrogacy opposed the bill. They have been frequent visitors to the Capitol as the bill progressed through the Legislature, making their case to lawmakers.

They argued that the bill is based on worst-case scenarios, mostly from other states, and that the commercial contracts protect both the women acting as surrogates and the intended parents.

TheHour.com by Stephen Groves, February 26, 2020

Click here to read the entire article.

The post South Dakota Senate panel narrowly defeats commercial surrogacy ban appeared first on Time For Families.


Source: Time for Families

War Of The New York Surrogacy Bills Erupts

PFLAGLI

New York surrogacy

New York is lagging behind the rest of the country as one of the few remaining jurisdictions in the United States that does not permit compensated surrogacy.

Things just took a bizarre turn in the New York legislature when it comes to surrogacy. Last week, New York State Senator Liz Kruger (SD-28) introduced S7717. That’s a new bill to legalize compensated surrogacy in New York. Great, right? Well, there’s already a different bill that’s both much further along and also, like, way better than S7717. So what gives?New York surrogacy

As astute readers know, New York is lagging behind the rest of the country as one of the few remaining jurisdictions in the United States that does not permit compensated surrogacy. And while a handful of jurisdictions once also had this legal prohibition, most have reversed course. Fortunately, New York has been looking poised to do the same with the smart, well-drafted Child-Parent Security Act. However, that’s a separate bill — and quite different from S7717.

What’s going on?

Last year, the Child Parent Security Act (CPSA) came very close to passing. But then it didn’t. Instead, it fell victim to the legislative sausage-making process.

After passing the Senate, and having the full and vocal support of Gov. Andrew Cuomo, it was never brought up for a vote on the Assembly floor. So eventually, it died at the end of the 2019 legislative session. It didn’t help that at the last minute, noted feminist icon Gloria Steinem, published an incendiary op-ed against surrogacy.

 

gestational carriersSo incendiary that some people had to do some real soul searching as to whether we were still, in fact, feminists, while Steinem argued that permitting compensated surrogacy was exploitative of women. It was sort of surreal to hear Steinem on the side of having the government tell women what they can and can’t do with their bodies.

However, after all that, this should be the CPSA’s year. Except now comes along S7717, which looks like an attempt to muddy the waters.

The CPSA takes the approach of following the generally accepted standards and best practices concerning surrogacy arrangements, including those recommended by the American Society for Reproductive Medicine (ASRM); S7717, in contrast, takes a very different approach.

To give it some credit, it does seem to provide a clearer path for compensation for “genetic surrogacy” –- where the surrogate is genetically related to the child. However, most surrogacy in the United States is “gestational surrogacy” –- where the surrogate is not genetically related to the child. She is, instead, providing a way to help intended parents, who could not have a genetic child otherwise, bring their child to birth. Here especially, S7717 takes a new and strange direction.

  • Everyone Must Live In New York. S7717 requires all parties to be either a United States citizen or a legal permanent resident and to be residents of New York for the past 12 months. There is an exception if the parties are “immediate” family and there is no compensation. But that’s a very narrow band. Penalizing and disqualifying someone for living across state lines or being a second cousin versus an “immediate” family member is a harsh line to draw. 
  • Random Restrictive Medical Requirements. If that weren’t enough, S7717 requires that a woman wishing to be a surrogate under the proposed law *must* be under 35 years old, and cannot have more than three births. It’s not exactly clear where these numbers came from though, since the ASRM guidelines provide that a woman can be a surrogate up to the age of 45 (ten more years!) and can have five prior births.
  • Impossible(?) Financial Requirements. The bill also requires what would often be impossible requirements. The intended parents would be required to have a life insurance policy in place for the surrogate for a minimum of $750,000, as well as a short-term and long-term disability policy. While maybe obtainable in some cases, and definitely good things to have in place in a perfect world, sometimes it can be very difficult to find such policies. For instance, some disability policies are not readily available to anyone if not provided by an employer, or require at least a year of being in place prior to eligibility for the benefits. So if no policy is available, it’s another no go.
  • Surrogate Can Keep The Child?! OK, the restrictions described above aren’t great. But probably way worse is the bill language providing that the surrogate is permitted to terminate the agreement at *any* time. And that specifically includes any time during the pregnancy. Even though the intended parents would be required to be financially responsible for the child at all times, a surrogate could decide to be a parent to the child.

Consistent with that madness, S7717 provides that hopeful intended parents can only be judicially recognized as the sole legal parents of the child after the surrogate submits a written declaration — no sooner than eight days following the birth of the child — stating that she is voluntarily consenting to disclaim and renounce her parental rights. But until such a waiver is submitted, the surrogate retains decision-making responsibility for the child (but still not financial responsibility). Whoa. That does not sound right.

AboveTheLaw.com by Ellen Trachman, February 19, 2020

Click here to read the entire article.

The post War Of The New York Surrogacy Bills Erupts appeared first on Time For Families.


Source: Time for Families

Commercial Surrogacy – a Complicated Legal Picture

PFLAGLI

finding a surrogate mother

Commercial Surrogacy’s Complicated Legal Picture

After trying to conceive through nine cycles of IVF, unsuccessfully, Alexis Cirel’s doctor suggested she and her husband take a different route: a gestational surrogate and commercial surrogacy.commercial surrogacy

“It was a hard decision and it took months of introspection,” says Cirel, an attorney in New York City. Ultimately, she agreed with her doctor. But surrogacy wasn’t legal in her home state, and she worried about the risk that her “biological child would not be my legal child” under state law.

New York is currently one of three states (along with Louisiana and Michigan) that don’t allow surrogacy contracts (though the remaining states vary greatly in their regulation of surrogacy) but may soon join the majority, with legislation on the table to make paid (aka commercial) surrogacy legal.

In the absence of a national policy, state legality issues date back to 1984, when a couple put an ad in the newspaper seeking a surrogate. Mary Beth Whitehead, of New Jersey, responded, and gave birth to Baby M. But everything soured when she wanted to keep the baby, which was conceived with her own egg. The New Jersey Supreme Court found that the payment to Whitehead was illegal, but ruled against her on the issue of custody: Baby M. went to the intended parents, though Whitehead received parental rights.

After the debacle, New York criminalized gestational surrogacy by fining parents and anyone who assists them, says Anthony Brown, New York-based founder of Time For Families Law, and the founding chairman of Men Having Babies, a nonprofit organization that educates gay men about surrogacy. The law was created to address traditional surrogacy (fertilizing the surrogate’s egg), but was extended to prohibit gestational surrogacy, where the child has no genetic relationship with the surrogate, rendering any contracts for “altruistic” surrogacy void and all commercial surrogacy contracts illegal.

Many people think it’s time to revisit the issue.

New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo recently launched a campaign to legalize gestational surrogacy, after a 2019 effort failed, and he has support from families, attorneys, LGBTQ rights groups, and even celebrities (Bravo’s Andy Cohen was present for the campaign announcement).

“This antiquated law is repugnant to our values, and we must repeal it once and for all and enact the nation’s strongest protections for surrogates and parents choosing to take part in the surrogacy process,” Cuomo said in a statement.

The new legislation would create protections for surrogates so they could make their own health care decisions, including whether to terminate a pregnancy; would create legal protections for parents of children conceived by reproductive technologies such as artificial insemination and egg donation; and would eliminate barriers to second-parent adoption (a single visit to court to recognize legal parenthood while the child is in utero would suffice).

Many New Yorkers use surrogates but travel to other states to use them. Repealing the bill would simply make it easier and safer for everyone involved, Cirel says. She switched from her corporate law role to become a family law and matrimonial attorney after going through the surrogacy process, and she is a member of New York’s Love Makes a Family Council, created in conjunction with the proposed law.

Romper.com, February 19, 2020 by Danielle Braff

Click here to read the entire article.

The post Commercial Surrogacy – a Complicated Legal Picture appeared first on Time For Families.


Source: Time for Families

Fertility Fraud: The U.S. Is Experiencing An Explosion Of Legislation. And That’s A Good Thing

PFLAGLI

More and more cases of fertility fraud have been uncovered. And more and more lawsuits have been filed. However, each prosecution or lawsuit has faced an uphill battle.

Direct-to-consumer DNA kits have changed our reality. The wall of secrecy that was once behind conception and parenting — including adoptions, affairs, and the use of donor eggs, sperm, and embryos — is crumbling. One major facet of this reckoning with the truth has been the stark realization that many, many doctors were using their own sperm, a form of fertility fraud, to “treat” their unknowing patients.fertility fraud

Sometimes this practice was in place of “anonymous donor” sperm; sometimes, it was actually in place of the spouse or partner’s sperm. It’s pretty gross to think about. But even grosser is the complete lack of accountability for the doctors who must have known of the ethical and moral shortcomings of their actions.

The Justice System Has Been Failing Us

A doctor using his own sperm to impregnate a patient, without her knowledge or consent as to the source of the sperm, must be a crime, right? Or at least a pretty solid tort – fertility fraud? For many states, you guessed wrong. More and more cases of those doctors’ egregious practices have been uncovered. And more and more lawsuits have been filed. However, each prosecution or lawsuit has faced an uphill battle.

Take, for example, the case of Donald Cline, formerly a licensed medical doctor in Indiana. In one of the most notorious cases of fertility fraud in the United States, DNA tests have shown Cline to have used his sperm in unknowing patients, resulting in at least sixty children. When the betrayed patients and offspring sought legal remedies against Cline, they were unsuccessful. After all, the patients had consented to Cline inseminating them with sperm. Cline did plead guilty to two charges of obstruction of justice, after lying to officials about using his own sperm with patients. But that, to most victims, was not sufficient.

Time To Change The Law

Since current law has been failing the victims, many have sought, and are currently seeking, to change the law. State by state, if necessary. Last year, two successful bills were passed. One was in Indiana, unsurprisingly, as ground zero of the Cline fiasco. Another was in Texas, where Eve Wiley led the charge. (Listen to this podcast where Wiley and her believed-donor tell the twisting and fascinating tale of uncovering the truth of Wiley’s genetic history.) In Texas, without a civil cause of action due to the state’s recent tort reforms, and without a viable criminal cause of action to charge him, Wiley’s “doctor daddy” is still actively practicing medicine even today. That’s crazytown.

Now other states are following suit, and closing the legal loopholes that existed for doctors to take advantage of their patients in this most intimate of areas. And while I doubt that as many doctors are so casually using their own sperm these days, there are certainly modern horror stories involving assisted reproduction, including that of a staff member at a Utah clinic swapping out countless sperm samples with his own.

The states currently making progress in this area include my own home state of Colorado with HB20-1014 (Go, Representative Kerry Tipper!), Nebraska with LB 748, Ohio with HB 486, and Florida with SB 698. Other states, as well, appear poised to introduce their own fertility fraud legislation. While the proposed laws vary, they are consistent in their goals of ensuring or clarifying that this type of behavior by trusted medical professionals is not acceptable and not legal, and providing a path forward for justice.

AboveTheLaw.com, by Ellen Trachman, February 12, 2020

Click here to read the entire article.

The post Fertility Fraud: The U.S. Is Experiencing An Explosion Of Legislation. And That’s A Good Thing appeared first on Time For Families.


Source: Time for Families

Paying gestational carriers should be legal in all states

PFLAGLI

gestational carriers

Every year, hundreds of thousands of babies are born in the U.S. using assisted reproductive technologies, including the use of gestational carriers, a multibillion-dollar industry that is controversial and largely unregulated.

One of the controversies involves the use of paid gestational carriers, women who agree to carry a fertilized embryo, created from another woman’s egg, give birth, and give the baby to its parents. This is different from tradition (or genetic) surrogates, who provide both their own eggs and their own wombs. Gestational surrogacy now constitutes 95% of all surrogacy in the U.S.gestational carriers

State laws about arrangements for gestational carriers vary widely and are in flux. This kind of surrogacy is currently allowed in 10 states; prohibited but with various caveats and additional legal proceedings in 30; practiced with potential legal obstacles and inconsistent outcomes in five; practiced but with legally unenforceable contracts in two and prohibited in three. Several of the 40 states with real or potential legal hurtles require that couples be married and heterosexual, or allow surrogates to choose at any point to keep the baby.

Commercial surrogacy first gained wide attention in the 1980s through the Baby M case. Elizabeth Stern had multiple sclerosis and feared that pregnancy would worsen it. Through a newspaper ad, she and her husband connected with Mary Beth Whitehead, who agreed to carry a fetus for them as a traditional surrogate, providing both an egg and a womb. But after giving birth, Whitehead decided to keep the child. A New Jersey court awarded the Sterns custody of Baby M, but banned all such future surrogacy contracts.

Since then, practices have changed and the use of gestational carriers has grown dramatically. In many states, however, prospective parents need to travel to other states, like California, to avoid legal obstacles. Some seek surrogates in the developing world, which has its own set of problems.

Competing proposed bills in New York state highlight the conflicts involved in gestational surrogacy.

In June 2019, the New York state Senate voted to legalize gestational surrogacy. The pushback was swift and strong. Noted feminist Gloria Steinem argued strongly against the proposal, raising concerns that poorer women of color would disproportionately serve as gestational carriers. She also pointed out that the bill would require surrogates to be state residents for only 90 days, which could prompt human traffickers to bring women to New York to serve as surrogates. The State Assembly then rejected the proposal. Lawmakers are now considering at least two different revised versions of the bill — one from Gov. Andrew Cuomo and one from the bill’s original sponsor — that address these criticisms.

I believe the state should legalize gestational surrogacy, providing it includes protections to avoid the problems Steinem highlighted.

In the debates in New York, as well as those in other states, both sides have been arguing in the relative absence of data, without acknowledging this deficit. In fact, the limited data available so far do not suggest that women become gestational carriers because of financial distress, nor do the demographics reflect racial disparities.

StatNews.com, by Robert Klitzman, February 12, 2020

Click here to read the entire article.

The post Paying gestational carriers should be legal in all states appeared first on Time For Families.


Source: Time for Families

Virginia Senate approves bill to prevent surrogates from being forced to abort multiples

PFLAGLI

Virginia Senate

The Virginia Senate unanimously approved a bill Tuesday that would prevent surrogates from either being required to or prohibited from aborting multiples in their surrogacy contracts.

The bill passed through the House of Delegates in January, and the Virginia Senate proposed an amendment that will see it sent back to the House for final approval.new Va. surrogacy

With the amendment from the Virginia Senate, the bill reads: “Any contract provision requiring [or prohibiting] an abortion or selective reduction is against the public policy of the Commonwealth and is void and unenforceable.”

TheJurist.com, by Angela Mauroni, February 5, 2020

Click here to read the entire article.

The post Virginia Senate approves bill to prevent surrogates from being forced to abort multiples appeared first on Time For Families.


Source: Time for Families

Dozens of anti-LGBTQ state bills already proposed in 2020, advocates warn

PFLAGLI

anti-LGBTQ state bills

Many of the anti-LGBTQ state bills focus on transgender youth, including legislation in South Dakota that would make it a felony to provide trans health care to minors.

Like most high school students, Aerin Geary does not typically pay attention to state legislation. However, the South Dakota teenager has been closely following House Bill 1057, a Republican anti-LGBTQ state bills proposal that would make it a felony for medical professionals to provide transgender health care to minors.anti-LGBTQ state bills

“This bill makes me feel scared, since this is something that affects me deeply,” Geary, 15, who identifies as nonbinary and uses they/them pronouns, told NBC News. “Transitioning is something that I’ve been hoping to get and been yearning for for years.

The high school sophomore is afraid that if the legislation passes, plans to take puberty-suppressing medication will be delayed indefinitely.

“I recently managed to convince my family to allow me to start transitioning, and I’m so close to getting there,” Geary said. “To take it away from me when I’m so close would be a huge blow to my hope.”

HB 1057, which successfully passed out of committee on Wednesday, would make providing certain forms of gender-affirming medical care to minors — including the prescription of puberty blockers — a Class Four felony, which in South Dakota carries a penalty of up to 10 years in prison. Proponents say the bill is needed to protect children from rushing into a “life-changing” decision, while critics say it interferes with the doctor-patient relationship and could cause physical and psychological harm to trans youth.

South Dakota’s trans health care bill is not the only state legislation that has lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and queer advocates sounding the alarm. In fact, they say it’s just one of at least 25 anti-LGBTQ state bill s that have been proposed so far in 2020.

Many of the bills, like South Dakota’s, focus on transgender youth, but a number of others deal with nondiscrimination protections and religious exemptions. Chase Strangio, deputy director of the ACLU’s LGBT and HIV Project, called this legislative session “one of the most hostile” for LGBTQ people in recent years.

Trans youth and health care

Bills seeking to limit transgender health care for minors have been introduced in at least seven states this month — all by Republican lawmakers.

Like South Dakota, Florida and Colorado have introduced bills that carry criminal penalties. The “Vulnerable Child Protection Act,” one of four bills proposed in Florida last week that have been opposed by LGBTQ advocates, would make providing certain medical care or treatments to transgender minors — including nonsurgical care, like hormone therapy — a second-degree felony. Medical practitioners could face up to 15 years in prison and a $10,000 fine.

The post Dozens of anti-LGBTQ state bills already proposed in 2020, advocates warn appeared first on Time For Families.


Source: Time for Families

Tennessee lawmakers pass legislation allowing adoption agencies to deny gay couples

PFLAGLI

religious liberty

Tennessee lawmakers are already making waves on the first day of the Legislative Session with passing a bill that would allow some adoption agencies to deny gay couples.

TennesseeIn the first bill voted on for the year, Tennessee lawmakers have passed HB 836/SB 1304. The bill would allow faith-based, private adoption agencies to deny certain couples. The bills prohibit privately licensed agencies from being required to perform, assist, consent to, refer, or participate in foster placement or adoption of a child with a family that would violate the agency’s written religious or moral convictions.

The bill passed the House last year and Senators voted to pass the measure on Tuesday. On Tuesday, 20 lawmakers voted yes and 6 voted no. Lt. Gov. Randy McNally declined to vote on the measure.

Fox17.com by Kaylin Jorge, January 14, 2020

Click here to read the entire article.

The post Tennessee lawmakers pass legislation allowing adoption agencies to deny gay couples appeared first on Time For Families.


Source: Time for Families

How will LGBT history be taught in New Jersey schools after new law?

PFLAGLI

New Jersey schools LGBT

New Jersey schools will teach LGBT history under a new state law, but what does that mean for the classroom? That may depend on where you live.

The law requires that middle and high school students learn about the social, political and economic contributions of LBGT individuals, but leaves it up to local districts to determine how to teach those lessons.  New Jersey schools and LGBT history is now a part.New Jersey schools LGBT

School boards have to update social studies standards — a process that will unfold locally in hundreds of school districts — in time for the 2020-21 school year.

“I envision each board of education will set policy or set a foundation for the curriculum that is age-appropriate, and I don’t think that’s difficult,” said Assemblywoman Valerie Vainieri Huttle, D-Englewood, one of the primary sponsors of the legislation.

Huttle offered examples of potential lessons: books about children with two moms or dads, or lessons on the achievements of leaders like Barbra “Babs” Siperstein, the transgender activist from Jersey City who died Feb. 3.

“When looking at someone like Babs, or Harvey Milk, or the Stonewall riots, these materials are readily available to implement and to teach students, for students to understand that there are differences,” Huttle said.

North Jersey Record, by Hannan Adely, January 7, 2020

Click here to read the entire article.

The post How will LGBT history be taught in New Jersey schools after new law? appeared first on Time For Families.


Source: Time for Families