The Amendment in Israel that had proposed letting same-sex couples participate under Israel’s surrogacy law has passed. To Same-Sex couples, the law now applies just as it previously did to married couples. Singles are now also included under the new law. Though this will likely mean fewer Israeli couples traveling overseas for their surrogacy journey, we are pleased that they will now be treated as equals in their own country.

A welcome initiative by Minister of Health Yael German has led to the approval of the Amendment to the Law for the Agreement to Carry Embryos, known as the “Surrogacy Law”.

According to the Amendment proposed by the Bill, undergoing the surrogacy process will now also be allowed in Israel for same-sex couples, couples that are not married, and individuals and not just married heterosexual couples. Until now, many people were compelled to undergo the surrogacy process overseas, and were confronted by many obstacles in doing so.

Alongside those who support the Amendment to the Surrogacy Law, there were also those who opposed it in the Knesset’s Ministerial Committee for Legislative Affairs. In their opinion, “Not everybody is the same. Not everybody is a family and not everybody is equal.” The Amendment’s supporters thought otherwise and felt certain that expanding the possibility of undergoing surrogacy in Israel for same-sex couples and individuals is the right thing.

This is only the start of the way forward but we are talking about a significant milestone. In the next stage, the Bill to amend the Law must pass the second and third readings in the Knesset plenum. But it can certainly be said that the way has been paved towards equal rights for same-sex couples, couples that are not married, and individuals in Israel who want to set up a family that is sometimes different from the traditional family. For the first time in Israel, there is equality in bringing children into the world and the ability to set up a family, between heterosexual couples and other couples and individuals.

The Amendment to the Surrogacy Law was preceded by the work of the professional committee headed by Prof. Mor Yosef, which submitted recommendations back in 2012. The Amendment to the Surrogacy Law is based on the principles raised by the committee’s recommendations.

The Bill to amend the Law stipulates that the surrogate mother can undergo three procedures of returning fertilized eggs or two births that are successfully completed. The age of the prospective parents is restricted to 54 for at least one of them (on the date that the surrogacy agreement is signed) and at the start of the procedure they can already have just one child. Individuals that request to undergo the surrogacy process by law can only begin the process if they have no biological children at all. The surrogate mother must undergo medical and psychological tests and receive the required approvals to commence the procedure.

The Amendment to the Law proposes increasing the maximum age for surrogate mothers from 36 to 38 and providing married women with the option of being surrogates on condition that they have already undergone pregnancy and childbirth. The minimum age for surrogacy has not been lowered from 22.

Another change in the Bill for the Amendment is that the surrogate mother can be a family member such as a sister or cousin, but not a mother or grandmother to one of the prospective parents. The aforementioned changes expand the possibilities and will increase the chances of bringing children into the world through the surrogacy process.

For the first time, the payment to a surrogate mother in Israel has been limited to NIS 160,000 for the entire process. This amount does not of course include the cost of tests. With this the total costs of the surrogacy process can amount to more than NIS 200,000.

With this, we are moving towards a situation of genuine equality in all matters regarding bringing children into the world and building a family that is not the typical family.

Same-sex couples, couples that are not married, and individuals will not have to travel overseas in order to realize their natural rights to parenthood and to set up a family. In the event that the amendment to the Surrogacy Law passes its second and third readings in the Knesset plenum, it will be a most significant step in our development towards creating real equality in all matters relating to bringing children into the world. We are talking about a welcome initiative and we must not accept the voices of those objecting, and who think that “not everyone is equal.”

Governor Bobby Jindal has not decided what to do yet about the surrogacy bill that was Introduced into the Legislature yet again. Louisiana lags behind its neighboring states where Surrogacy laws are concerned, as both Texas and Florida and other neighboring states have laws that more thoroughly protect the parties in a surrogacy contract. We have clients from Louisiana who seek surrogacy in Texas because the laws here are established and protect all parties in surrogacy. Louisiana is far behind and a law on surrogacy and guidelines there would establish them among the more progressive and educated states where surrogacy is concerned.

Gov. Bobby Jindal hasn’t made up his mind about a bill that would establish a legal framework for surrogacy birth contracts in Louisiana. He vetoed similar legislation last year, even though lawmakers had overwhelmingly supported it.

“We are in the process of reviewing the bill and will monitor it through the legislative process,” said Mike Reed, press secretary for Jindal.

Surrogacy allows a couple to have a child that is biologically their own, but carried to term by a third party. Other states have regulations in place that outline procedures and protections for the parents and the woman who is carrying the pregnancy. But in Louisiana, a contract governing a surrogacy cannot be enforced.

Rep. Joe Lopinto, R-Metairie, wants to set up a legal system and regulations that would allow couples to have a legally binding contract with the woman carrying their child. Lopinto said many Louisiana couples are have to pursue surrogacy partners outside of the state, where they have more legal protections.

At least one powerful Christian group that opposed the legislation and pushed for the Governor’s veto last year said they aren’t happy with the current surrogacy bill.

“We remain concerned about any bill that commercializes reproduction,” said Gene Mills, president of the Louisiana Family Forum, a conservative Christian advocacy group, about the legislation.

Mills commended Lopinto for making one significant adjustment from the bill as it was introduced last year. Lopinto’s legislation requires that a medical professional verify the couple can’t conceive through traditional methods before signing off on a surrogacy contract.

Still, Mills said the legislation doesn’t offer enough protections for the person who will be carrying the child. Women’s groups also raised concerns about the potential for exploitation of women involved in surrogacy last year.

“There are disproportionate protections for the parents and not for the woman in this bill,” Mills said.

Very Exciting news that a bill is being introduced to allow surrogacy to be legal in New York State. What a wonderful circumstance that would be for all of the many Gay men and other families  seeking to create a family through surrogacy. Simple Surrogacy has helped to create many families on behalf of New York Parents, most of whom choose to match under the excellent laws already in place in Texas, California or other Surrogacy friendly states. We would look forward to be able to match those families in their own back yards of  New York City and in greater New York. We are in complete agreement with the article’s statement that Surrogacy is a long way from the Baby “M” case in the 80’s. Gestational Carriers are wonderful, generous women and each one is truly a gift to the family that they help to create. We would welcome the ability to invite surrogates in New York into our happy Surrogacy family!

And Surrogacy Makes 3

In New York, a Push for Compensated Surrogacy

Photo

Launch media viewer

A month before their baby’s due date, Brad Hoylman and David Sigal got a call from the woman they had hired to have their child.

She was having contractions; come right away.

Mr. Sigal, a filmmaker, had the more flexible schedule. So after a sleepless night, he hopped on a plane to San Diego while Mr. Hoylman stayed in New York and frantically oversaw the dusty conversion of their TV room into a nursery.

The contractions turned out to be a false alarm, but Mr. Sigal stayed. And stayed, touching up his documentary in his hotel room, going to family outings — a picnic, a cheerleading event — with the surrogate and her daughters, and calling Mr. Hoylman “every 10 minutes” with updates.

Four weeks later, the baby was induced, and Mr. Hoylman flew in for the birth.

‘The timing was perfect,” Mr. Hoylman said. “I cut the cord and David —”

“Held her,” Mr. Sigal finished the sentence.

Such is the world of gestational surrogacy, in which a woman is paid to go through the pregnancy and birth of a child who is not genetically related to her and then promises to give that child away. To anyone who has had a baby, or known someone who has, the couple’s tireless zest for reciting their daughter’s birth story will bring a knowing smile, maybe a jaded shrug. But for Mr. Sigal and Mr. Hoylman, two gay men, the birth narrative carries with it an extra frisson of the illicit that seems to them more than a little archaic and unfair in the post-marriage-equality world.

Photo

Launch media viewer

They had their baby in California because if they had had her in New York, they would have been breaking a 1992 New York law that bars commercial surrogacy contracts and equates them with baby-selling — a legacy of the notorious Baby M case of the 1980s.

Now Mr. Hoylman, as a novice state senator, is in a position to do something about it. He is the co-sponsor of a proposed law that would overturn the current law and make compensated surrogacy legal in New York State.

Surrogate baby-making has long been a path taken by the affluent and celebrities, partly because it takes good legal advice and money to accomplish. But in recent years, it has been growing among gay men, who in a fundamentally conservative embrace of family values, see having children and building a family as the logical next step after getting married.

“Not to be cliché, but you know how the phrase goes — first comes love, then comes marriage, then comes the baby and the baby carriage,” said Allison Steinberg, a spokeswoman for the Empire State Pride Agenda, which has endorsed the bill.

The bill’s supporters argue that it makes no sense for New York, which has a large number of fertility clinics, not to mention a flourishing gay community, not to be able to offer commercial surrogacy to those who want it. And they say that making surrogacy more widely available could reduce the exorbitant costs, easily as much as $100,000 per baby.

In Mr. Hoylman and Mr. Sigal’s case, neither of their parents expected them to have children. “Now they think he’s a family man,” Mr. Sigal said, grinning at his husband.

“It’s a funny phrase,” Mr. Hoylman said. “This is what it takes for people to relate to you.”

Mr. Hoylman says views on his Facebook page spike when he puts up pictures of their daughter, Silvia, now 3, but not when he puts up photographs of him and his husband without her.

The bill’s co-sponsors could hardly offer a more perfect vision of the surrogacy constituency. Mr. Hoylman, who took his Senate office last year, represents the heart of gay New York, in the Village, Chelsea and Hell’s Kitchen. The Assembly sponsor, Amy Paulin, who actually originated the bill, is from wealthy Scarsdale.

When a constituent approached her on the issue, Ms. Paulin said, she was intrigued because she had had her own fertility issues and was able to conceive her second child only after three years of arduous fertility treatments.

Ms. Paulin still cringes when remembering that people tried to console her by saying, “Well, you already have one,” which did not help. “All those remarks, they’re ingrained in you,” she said. “Any opportunity I would have in my position to help couples have a family would be something I could give back.”

Photo

Launch media viewer

Mr. Hoylman asked to be the Senate sponsor, and when she learned he had a daughter, “obviously he was the natural choice,” she said. “We’re a very strong team.”

Surrogate births are a small but growing part of the in vitro fertilization industry. Conservatively, about 1,600 babies a year in the United States are born through gestational surrogacy (which now accounts for almost all surrogacies), more than double the number in 2004, according to the American Society for Reproductive Medicine.

Celebrities who have used surrogates have gone a long way toward normalizing the process. The list is long, including Angela Bassett and Courtney B. Vance, Sarah Jessica Parker and Matthew Broderick, Neil Patrick Harris and David Burtka, Elton John and David Furnish, Nicole Kidman and Keith Urban, and Ricky Martin as a gay single father.

But driven by the law of supply and demand, a first-time egg donor could be paid $8,000 to $10,000, and a first-time surrogate $30,000 and up, bringing the cost of a no-frills contract to $75,000 to $120,000 with medical, legal and agency fees.

“You basically have to take out a loan to have a child,” Mr. Hoylman said.

Agencies prefer to contract with surrogates who are married with children, because they have a proven ability to have a healthy baby and are less likely to have second thoughts about giving up the child.

Conversely, gay couples are popular among surrogates. “Most of my surrogates want same-sex couples,” said Darlene Pinkerton, the owner of A Perfect Match, the agency in San Diego that Mr. Hoylman used. Women unable to become pregnant often go through feelings of jealousy and loss, she said. But with gay men, that is not part of the dynamic, so “the experience is really positive for the surrogate.”

Or as her husband, Tom, a third-party reproductive lawyer, put it, “Imagine instead of just having one husband doting on you, you have three guys now sending you flowers.”

New York has one of the harshest surrogacy laws in the country, along with Arizona, Indiana, Michigan, Nebraska and the District of Columbia.

“The only thing you can use the contract for is to wallpaper your powder room,” said Diane Hinson, a reproductive lawyer and owner of Creative Family Connections, a surrogacy company in Chevy Chase, Md.

It is legal in New York for a volunteer to carry a baby without pay, known as altruistic or compassionate surrogacy. And New Yorkers find ways around the law by shipping frozen embryos to clinics in nearby surrogacy-friendly states — Connecticut, Maryland, Pennsylvania, Massachusetts — for implantation. In New Jersey, paid surrogacy is still considered risky because of case law going back to Baby M. In 2012, Gov. Chris Christie vetoed a law that would have permitted some types of payment, saying he wanted more discussion of such “profound change in the traditional beginnings of a family.”

Photo

Launch media viewer

Historically, the legal aversion to surrogacy stems from a sort of Margaret Atwood, “Handmaid’s Tale” fear that it lends itself to unnatural social engineering and the subjugation of women. This led to an unusual alliance of feminists, civil libertarians and the Catholic church in the early 1990s, when the New York Catholic Conference joined with the New York Civil Liberties Union and the National Organization for Women to oppose surrogacy.

The Baby M case led to a pioneering court ruling on the validity of a surrogate-mother contract, and its outcome had a strong impact on New York because it played out across the river in New Jersey. Mary Beth Whitehead was a young homemaker with two children, in a rocky marriage to a sanitation worker, when she agreed in 1985 to have another man’s baby for $10,000.

Soon after giving birth, she took the baby to Florida and renounced her fee, saying she wanted to keep the child.

On appeal, the New Jersey Supreme Court restored her parental rights while leaving custody of Baby M with her biological father and his wife. “This is the sale of a child, or at the very least, the sale of a mother’s right to her child, the only mitigating factor being that one of the purchasers is the father,” the high court said.

Helene Weinstein, the Brooklyn Democratic assemblywoman who sponsored the resulting 1992 New York law, said it sent a message that children should not be “treated as commodities to be bought and sold.”

Now Ms. Weinstein is the chairwoman of the assembly judiciary committee, which Ms. Paulin’s bill must pass through; she says she is willing to at least reconsider the law.

“So much has changed since Baby M,” said Sonia Ossorio, president of the New York City chapter of the National Organization for Women.

For one thing, Ms. Whitehead was artificially inseminated using her own egg and the prospective father’s sperm, a process now disdained as “traditional” surrogacy. Today, the pregnancy would involve a third-party egg, so the surrogate would not be genetically related to the baby.

The new technology has given rise to a whole new language — gestational carrier, instead of surrogate mother, “intended parents,” “collaborative reproduction.”

Instead of bonding with the baby, “the gestational carrier bonds to the parents, and that’s what we want to have happen,” Ms. Hinson said. “That’s the key — that it’s somebody else’s child. These women, they just renew your faith in womankind.”

In a nod to the baby-selling concerns of the Baby M case, Mr. Hoylman and Ms. Paulin’s proposed law says that the gestational carrier would be paid for her services, not for giving up parental rights to a baby.

Photo

Launch media viewer

It also addresses potential concerns about social engineering, forbidding contracts to tie payment to the characteristics of the donor or the child.

Mr. Hoylman, now 48, and Mr. Sigal, 47, had not planned to have children. “But there comes a point when we were in our early 40s: well, what else is there?” Mr. Sigal said. “We were shocked that you couldn’t do surrogacy in New York.”

“It was also surprising that it was so readily available in California,” Mr. Hoylman said, in the singsong back and forth of their conversations.

They toyed with the idea of finding a female friend to have their baby, but most of them were past prime childbearing age, they said, and anyway, it seemed emotionally fraught.

They settled the quandary of who should be the biological father by each contributing sperm and choosing not to know whose DNA prevailed.

“The amazing thing about the California law is that both my husband and I are on the birth certificate as the parents,” Mr. Hoylman said, which would also happen in New York under the proposed law.

Sitting in their apartment near Washington Square, with Silvia bouncing around in a tutu, they joked about the hazards of being the child of two gay men. “She’s going to hear a lot of musicals in her life,” Mr. Hoylman said. They have compiled a baby book filled with photographs — her first subway ride; Silvia wearing an austere brown outfit that Mr. Hoylman thinks makes her look like a Holbein painting.

“Who’s that?” Mr. Hoylman asks, pointing to a picture of a cheerful-looking blonde. “Mari!” Silvia replies, naming her gestational carrier.

Their life is a series of sleepovers, dress-up games and grilled cheese sandwiches. They have attended playgroups run by the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual & Transgender Community Center, which also runs a monthly group called “Planning Biological Parenthood for Men.”

“Once we had entered this world, we realized that we were on the cusp of a generation that is embracing parenthood,” Mr. Hoylman said.

Mr. Sigal added, “I think in the next generation of kids now in their 20s and 30s, this will be really, really common.”

“It’s the best thing —” Mr. Sigal began.

“We’ve ever done,” Mr. Hoylman finished.

Yet another heartwarming piece on the blessings of surrogacy and how we are all working as a village to bring these precious, cherished new lives into the world. My favorite line in this piece is how her surrogate is “now part of the family.”

——–

Melissa Harris-Perry revealed in an essay on Tuesday the story of how her newborn daughter came into the world, opening up about her struggles to conceive and about her decision to use a surrogate.

Harris-Perry’s baby girl was born on Friday. “Many people in our lives knew that we were expecting but most viewers of MHP Show were not aware of the impending arrival because I was not visibly pregnant,” the MSNBC host wrote.

Harris-Perry explained that, after her first pregnancy with her daughter Parker, she “spent years suffering from the agony of uterine fibroids,” and ultimately decided to have a hysterectomy. She said that after marrying her husband James in 2010, she “struggled with accepting that we would never have our own children,” and turned to IVF and surrogacy.

“My pregnancy with my first daughter was blessedly uneventful; this one, however, was indeed an event. It took two families, three states, four doctors, and five attorneys to get this little girl here. And while our gestational carrier has no genetic tie to our little one, she is now our family,” Harris-Perry wrote. She added that she and her family would “strive to be worthy of the miracle we have received.”

What an amazing miracle, and a gift of true love. This is a very sad but also very loving story, a woman’s best friend carried her baby due to her having cancer, and that baby was born 4 months after her mother died. Another example of the selfless, amazing gift that surrogacy is to a family.

DES MOINES, IA (KCCI/CNN) – Nate and Laura Yoho looked like a model couple – in more ways than one. But looks can be deceiving.

“I found out I had a brain tumor, so it’s very, very bad, very serious, I guess you could say,” said Laura Yoho, 30, in an interview a year and a half ago. “There’s only about 2 to 5 percent that you’re going to be OK.”

One year into a marriage, that was heavy, even for weightlifters.

“You’re in uncharted territory. You don’t know how to feel,” Nate Yoho said.

Even her friends since elementary couldn’t believe this was happening. How could it to the girl who preached healthy living through college?

“She would get up and make breakfast while I was still in bed,” Kara Stetson, Laura’s best friend, said.

Laura Yoho kept fighting, while Nate Yoho kept hoping.

“I don’t think I’ve been more nervous for anything in my life,” Nate Yoho said.

But within nine months, Laura Yoho’s fight was over.

“All of her family, everyone that loved her was there,” Nate Yoho said.

“I told everyone she was my soulmate,” Stetson said. “Best friend doesn’t begin to describe what we were.”

Even the best obituaries struggle to summarize a life. But Laura’s also contained a surprise. She is survived, it read, by her husband Nate and her daughter Caralyn, due to be born through surrogacy.

“She was such an amazing person. I think a piece of her deserves to live on,” Nate Yoho said.

It was a plan they’d shared with only their closest friends.

“I told her if you ever have trouble carrying a child, I’ve done it twice,” Stetson said. “I know I can do it again, and I’d be willing to do it for you.”

The young couple had no idea that during Laura’s last year, her best friend had already been setting the stage.

“She said, ‘I’ve been going to the doctor and preparing myself for the past year knowing that I was going to carry this baby,'” Nate Yoho said.

“I really meant that and we … decided right then that we were going to do it,” Stetson said.

Laura lived to see her baby’s first black and white ultrasound and found out she was a girl. She knew, if the baby shower days before her death was any indication, her weightlifter was going to have plenty of spotters on this one.

Baby Caralyn was born four months and two days after her mother died.

Since baby Caralyn’s been home from the hospital, her dad’s been getting a lot of help from her grandparents and from Laura’s friends, including some who’ve even supplied her with many months worth of breast milk.

Both Caralyn and her surrogate mom are doing great.

This week Great Britain again issued a caution for couples considering surrogacy in India. It can be a troubling place to begin a surrogacy, especially with all of the legal machinations that can result from not thoroughly researching your options. Many enter into surrogacy in India believing there will be no issues returning to their home country with the baby, and enter into arrangements without thoroughly researching the conditions of the Carrier Mothers. This can result in a baby trapped in India, and great expense spent in trying to figure things out after the case.

We are thoroughly versed in International Surrogacy, and recommend a free consultation before beginning any surrogacy program so that we can demonstrate the benefits of Surrogacy in the United states with a reputable, thoroughly experienced agency. We will be attending the Family and Parenting Alternative show in Great Britain in September, and we will be offering free consultations during the week we are there visiting. Please contact us to schedule a consultation now, as our spots are already filling up this fare in advance. We look forward to meeting many more British clients on our visit in September.

BRITONS TOLD TO RESEARCH BEFORE BEGINNING SURROGACY

We wholeheartedly agree with the writer of the post below, the new bill introduced in Kansas is a travesty for women everywhere. If you live in Kansas be sure to write to email your representative to try and out a stop to the government again telling us how and what we are allowed to do with our own bodies!

Proposed Ban on Surrogacy Is Just Another Assault on Women’s Rights

Read more: http://www.care2.com/causes/proposed-ban-on-surrogacy-is-just-another-assault-on-womens-rights.html#ixzz2sOdK45zr

Those in the surrogacy world are no stranger to the debate on termination, and who is willing to terminate and for what conditions. Now, North Dakota makes the decision for Intended Parents, by saying that is is now illegal there to terminate for reasons of Downs syndrome or for gender. Should courts really be making these agonizing decisions on behalf of parents, who will do the actual raising of the children?

And how will they be able to enforce this law, if an abortion can still legally be obtained for other reasons? And interesting discussion to have about who should determine our reproductive rights and responsibilities.

Our neighbors to the north are misguided when it comes to surrogacy and have recently introduced a new bill into the legislature that would make paid surrogacy a crime. They worry that women are being “exploited” by people seeking them to carry their babies. How awful that once again politicians should decide that they know better than women do what is right for their bodies! Thankfully, one brave family is standing up to protest this hopelessly backwards and misguided law.

http://www.kake.com/home/headlines/Local-family-to-speak-out-against-surrogacy-bill-to-Kansas-Senate–242157061.html

The case in Tarrant county that was recently decided by the courts brings Texas’s law protecting the life of an unborn into question. If you have not been following along with the case, a woman who was pregnant with a 21 week old fetus, who was brain dead, was just removed from life support following the lawsuit filed by her husband to let her die. Texas has a law on the books that was believed to keep a pregnant woman on life support in order to safely deliver her child after viability is reached. This case now throws a wrench into that supposition, because as it was decided in court, if the pregnant woman is in fact brain dead, then she cannot be required to remain on life support.

How this applies to surrogacy is if a surrogate were pregnant, but became brain dead, and her husband requested her removal from life support, it now appears that there would be little that the Intended Parents would be able to do to stop the court from issuing an order to comply to the hospital. This makes it even more important that the Surrogate and her husband sign Living wills and medical powers of attorney stating that they agree to remain on life support until the child or children she is carrying can be safely delivered. Simple Surrogacy assures that each surrogate has these estate planning documents signed and notarized and on file once they reach the second trimester. These documents will assure that the surrogate and the person she empowers to make medical decisions for her in case of incapacitation both agree to allow her to remain on life support until such time the baby is delivered. With this paperwork signed and executed, the Intended Parents can be confident that their baby would remain in the womb until it could be safely delivered. Simple Surrogacy has been executing these documents for years now, benefiting the Intended Parents with peace of mind, and allowing the Surrogate and her family the assurance that their wishes are known and respected. These documents are another way that Simple Surrogacy, as your Surrogacy Agency, is doing everything we can to protect out Clients and Surrogates from even the most unlikely of events. And as this week’s court decision makes clear, you never know what could happen, so you should plan for the worst eventualities.

http://thescoopblog.dallasnews.com/2014/01/jps-hospital-says-they-will-follow-court-order-in-munoz-case-discontinue-life-support.html/