Surrogacy is booming, but ethical questions remain | Washington Examiner

All entries on Feminist Legal Clinic’s News Digest Blog are extracts from news articles and other publications, with the source available at the link at the bottom. The content is not originally generated by Feminist Legal Clinic and does not necessarily reflect our views.

Surrogacy is a growing industry and trend. But there are very real ethical concerns that come with it.

There are two types of surrogacy: traditional and gestational. With the first, the surrogate donates her egg, which is joined with the father’s sperm via IUI, or intrauterine insemination. The surrogate is the legal mother until parental rights are terminated. With gestational, IVF occurs first, and the embryo is placed in the surrogate to carry. She does not have parental rights. In both these scenarios, a woman carries a child through all stages of pregnancy and then gives the baby away. It is not dramatic to say the child is forcibly separated from his or her mother and placed in the arms of another on purpose. It is difficult to express just how unique the bond is between mother and child. Carrying a baby in the womb is a beautiful, sometimes difficult experience that can’t be described. There is a reason mothers have a special bond with their children in a way fathers can’t and don’t. As a mother myself, the idea of giving away a baby that was nourished by and grown in my own body is a horrifying prospect. The immediate post-birth need for connection, skin-to-skin contact, and voice recognition outside the womb is real, to say nothing of the child’s need for their mother beyond delivery day.

While international adoptions are reportedly decreasing, the surrogacy industry is booming. According to CNBC, “The global commercial surrogacy industry grew to an estimated $14 billion in 2022. By 2032, that figure is forecast to rise to $129 billion.” Women from poorer countries who are in dire financial straits see carrying children for wealthier, Western couples as a way to improve their situations. This is the productization of pregnancy and parenthood.

Surrogacy will only grow in popularity as maternal age continues to climb and priorities shift. That makes it all the more important to talk about the downsides to what is so often presented as an unquestioned good. Reducing pregnancy to buyers, sellers, and multiple rounds of human life is not actually progress.

Source: Surrogacy is booming, but ethical questions remain

Top silk and charity boss dead after child abuse arrest | AAP

All entries on Feminist Legal Clinic’s News Digest Blog are extracts from news articles and other publications, with the source available at the link at the bottom. The content is not originally generated by Feminist Legal Clinic and does not necessarily reflect our views.

A top barrister and youth charity founder charged with child abuse material offences after stepping off a plane from Cambodia has been found dead.

Sydney silk Mark Philip Dennis had been released on bail in January after the Australian Border Force stopped him at Sydney Airport.

He was arrested and charged after Australian Federal Police officers allegedly found an image of a boy and explicit sexualised chats with and about minors on his phone.

The 60-year-old was found dead at his Leichhardt unit in Sydney’s inner west on Monday evening, NSW Police said in a statement on Tuesday.

Dennis was the co-founder and chair of charity Reasonable Cause, which focuses on helping disadvantaged Cambodian youths advance their education.

Dennis was admitted as a lawyer in 1991 and was principal solicitor of the Western NSW Aboriginal Legal Service.

He had authored numerous articles on criminal law, including a 2017 publication titled Defending Child Sexual Assault in the Local Court.

[Ed: It seems Mark Dennis also played a role with Inner City Legal Centre coordinating their Trans and Gender Diverse Legal Service (TGDLS).]

Source: Top silk and charity boss dead after child abuse arrest

The Babies Kept in a Mysterious Los Angeles Mansion | The New Yorker

All entries on Feminist Legal Clinic’s News Digest Blog are extracts from news articles and other publications, with the source available at the link at the bottom. The content is not originally generated by Feminist Legal Clinic and does not necessarily reflect our views.

Commercial surrogacy is banned or highly restricted in many countries, including India, China, and most of Western Europe. But no federal laws govern the practice in the United States. Anyone can start a surrogacy agency; unlike opening a hair salon, or a day care, no qualifications are needed for the intimate, unpredictable work of bringing strangers together to create a new life.

In the past decade, a surge of wealthy foreigners—lured by this permissive atmosphere, and by blue-chip medical care—have enlisted American women as surrogates. The majority of these clients use clinics in California, one of the strongholds of the forty-two-billion-dollar global fertility industry. A recent study of U.S. surrogacies found that, between 2014 and 2020, nearly a third of all parents were international. Forty-one per cent of those were from China, whose one-child policy limited family-making until 2016.

Child-welfare cases are confidential. But given that Elliott knew Hays’s full name and birth date—and that she had recently given birth to her—she was able to get through to a caseworker at the Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services. The caseworker said that one of Silvia and Guojun’s infant sons had recently been hospitalized with head injuries. The baby had twenty siblings, the majority under three years old. All of them, including Hays, had been taken into foster care. As for the rumors about child trafficking, the F.B.I. was looking into them.
As the women gathered online in private groups, they began to trade notes. They knew that, if they were found in breach of their contracts, they could be forced to repay the money they’d earned. But the risk seemed worth taking. They were desperate to understand what had happened to the children—or what was going to happen. Several of the women were still carrying for Silvia and Guojun, with due dates that summer and fall. One described feeling as if she were stranded in the middle of the ocean, pregnant and without a life raft.
Because the surrogates weren’t legally related to the children, the authorities couldn’t share much with them. The Arcadia Police Department said that it was planning to charge the couple with neglect and felony child endangerment, but it was unable to discuss its active investigation.
Stills from videos recorded inside the home showed a makeshift classroom where toddlers sat in rows at tables facing a whiteboard. All the children had shaved heads, and nannies could be seen physically disciplining them: forcing them into squats, spanking them on top of a table, and hitting them in the face. The surrogates searched for the children they’d carried, but the pictures were too blurry to make out individual features.
California is known as a particularly “surrogacy-friendly” destination, not least because it allows intended parents to obtain pre-birth orders, which establish their legal parentage before birth. In other states, however, the rules around surrogacy remain inconsistent or opaque. \
The word around the home office was that Guojun wanted to have as many children as possible to increase the odds of one of them becoming the President of the United States. In addition to Jefferson, several of his kids were named after former U.S. Presidents—a mix of Democrats and Republicans—or prominent foreign leaders.
Another rumor was that Silvia and Guojun “were having kids for the American citizenship benefits and selling them to other people,” Powers told me. After the family’s size was made public, both American and Chinese reporters seized on this idea, raising frenzied questions about whether the couple was engaged in human trafficking.
If anything, the trafficking rumors seemed to distract from the uncomfortable fact that Guojun’s industrialized approach to family-making was perfectly legal—and, among well-heeled élites, increasingly popular.
In China, the video-game billionaire Xu Bo recently issued a statement, in response to the Wall Street Journal’s reporting, saying that he has conceived more than a hundred children through surrogacies, with twelve of them carried out in the U.S.
Guojun, for his part, stressed to the World Journal, a Chinese-language newspaper based in New York, that the children “are all ours” and that “none of them are for sale.” He said that he’d always wanted to have a large family, but that it hadn’t been possible under China’s one-child policy.
Rex Zhang, who’d once worked as Guojun’s driver, wasn’t keen to chat, but he wanted me to know that his former boss had a lot of powerful connections, including, he claimed, a friendship with the chief of the Los Angeles Police Department. (A spokesperson for the L.A.P.D. denied this.) “Don’t fuck with him,” Zhang said of Guojun. “Be careful.”
Guojun, it turned out, was linked to an elusive criminal figure known as Haoren (Dragon) Ma.
[T]he surrogates looked into filing a lawsuit against Guojun and Silvia—maybe, they hoped, some sort of class action. They asked dozens of lawyers if, given the couple’s misrepresentations, their contracts were still enforceable (the consensus was that they were), and what custody rights, if any, they might be entitled to pursue (the consensus was not many). Attorneys “didn’t want nothing to do with this crap,” Hallie Weaver told me. “I was turned away, turned away, turned away.” After months of dead-end conversations, she ultimately concluded that there was nothing “to protect a surrogate if anything goes wrong.”
Most surrogates lack the funds to hire a private attorney, “so they often find themselves on their own,” Wald said. Elliott talked to many lawyers who told her, sometimes unkindly, that she couldn’t even afford their retainer.
By collecting children the same way they’d collected properties, Silvia and Guojun had reduced a benevolent act to a purely commercial exchange. From a certain perspective, the surrogates had been robbed of the value of their gift.

Source: The Babies Kept in a Mysterious Los Angeles Mansion | The New Yorker

Mom Lashes Out at Family Court at NY Presser after Son Beaten to Death by Ex | Women’s Coalition

All entries on Feminist Legal Clinic’s News Digest Blog are extracts from news articles and other publications, with the source available at the link at the bottom. The content is not originally generated by Feminist Legal Clinic and does not necessarily reflect our views.

A grief-stricken mother angrily lashed out at Family Court’s failure to protect her son at a New York press conference, held Wednesday outside the hospital where he lay unconscious on life support after being severely beaten by his father.

This brave mom went public with her outrage to let the world know she was furious with everyone in authority responsible for this outrage. She had warned this would happen and had begged for protection. Instead, was forced to share custody.

My son cried every time he had to go with that man…I fought for my son. I warned ACS, the courts, NYPD, everybody. I warned everybody!

But nobody—not police, not social workers, and, crucially, not judges—had done one thing to protect her baby boy from his violent father—over the course of two and a half whole years, nearly the entire life of the toddler.

Sadly, a few hours after the press conference, the little boy was taken off of life support.

The fact that judges routinely rule in the best interests of fathers, not children, makes it clear that The Patriarchy underlies the Family Court system. It’s all about men’s power to maintain control over “their” women after divorce, as well as to avoid child support via shared/joint/equal custody rulings.

Hence, this case supports that the core cause of the Custody Crisis is male entitlement.

Source: Mom Lashes Out at Family Court at NY Presser after Son Beaten to Death by Ex

RaffleTix | IWD 2026 Raffle

We are raising money to bring together our members and supporters in a national conference for International Women’s Day 2026, where they can exchange news and views, network and plan, and learn from each other. An exciting feature of this year’s conference is the participation of award-winning Scottish feminist performance poet Jenny Lindsay, author of the book Hounded (Polity Press). Our fundraising will help pay for her visit and other costs associated with organising the conference.

Source: RaffleTix | IWD 2026 Raffle

Victorian government must review transgender laws | The Australian

All entries on Feminist Legal Clinic’s News Digest Blog are extracts from news articles and other publications, with the source available at the link at the bottom. The content is not originally generated by Feminist Legal Clinic and does not necessarily reflect our views.

The Victorian government is letting down gender-distressed young people and their families by missing its own legislated deadline to have its contentious conversion therapy law reviewed. As Rachel Baxendale reported on Monday, the law is having a chilling effect on the willingness of medical professionals to treat vulnerable children questioning their gender. The Act, which took effect in February 2022, imposes penalties of up to $10,000 in fines or 10 years’ jail for anyone found to have attempted to suppress or change someone’s sexuality or gender. Victorian-based group Parents of Adolescents with Gender Distress say most therapists are now either unwilling to work with gender-distressed youth or under the misapprehension that if they do not automatically affirm a child’s declared gender identity they would find themselves accused of “conversion therapy”.

Premier Jacinta Allan should adhere to the Act by commissioning an independent review, which under the legislation should have started in February 2024 and been completed in six months. The timing is sensitive. Just two months after the Act took effect, the most comprehensive study of gender dysphoria services, conducted by Hilary Cass, a former president of the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health in Britain, found there was no good evidence to support the global clinical practice of prescribing hormones to under-18s to halt puberty or transition to the opposite sex. Dr Cass’s final report has led to a ­fundamental shift in approach across much of the world, away from medical intervention and towards addressing other mental health problems the young patients may have.

Source: Review Victorian transgender laws

American woman who had breasts cut off as teenager wins $2million payout | GB News

All entries on Feminist Legal Clinic’s News Digest Blog are extracts from news articles and other publications, with the source available at the link at the bottom. The content is not originally generated by Feminist Legal Clinic and does not necessarily reflect our views.

A young woman who had her breasts cut off as a teenager has been granted a $2million payout in what is being cited as a landmark court decision.

Fox Varian decided to have the life-altering “top-surgery”, removing her breasts to become a boy when she was just 16 years old.

The now-22-year-old, who is considered a “detransitioner”, has warned against the “massive medical and social experiment” on youngsters who believe they have been born in the wrong body.

She says the double mastectomy was pushed on her when she was a minor, after approval from psychologist Kenneth Einhorn and surgeon Simon Chin – a jury agreed.

The pair were found to be responsible for ignoring standards of care and procedural guardrails by pressuring the child into handling her gender dysphoria with permanent surgery, the jury in Westchester County Supreme Court decided.

Ms Varian’s mother, Claire Deacon, told the court that she was against the surgery, but didn’t contest it out of fear her daughter would commit suicide, according to The Epoch Times.

Tech billionaire Elon Musk experienced a similar scenario when his son, Xavier, now Vivienne Jenna, transitioned in 2022.

The world’s richest man said he was “tricked” by doctors and told his child would take his own life if he refused to consent to cross-sex hormone treatment.

“There will be thousands more court cases of children who were mutilated by evil doctors. The schools, psychologists, psychiatrists, and state officials who facilitated this will pay dearly, too,” Mr Musk said after Ms Varian’s ruling.

The professionals were told by Ms Varian’s lawyers, however, they should have ensured she did not have other psychological conditions, such as depression, ADHD, autism, or body dysmorphia before urging the surgery.

There are said to be at least 28 compensation cases, similar to Ms Varian’s, that are currently being worked on in the US.

Source: American woman who had breasts cut off as teenager wins $2million payout

Proceedings launched to stop puberty blocker trial | UK

All entries on Feminist Legal Clinic’s News Digest Blog are extracts from news articles and other publications, with the source available at the link at the bottom. The content is not originally generated by Feminist Legal Clinic and does not necessarily reflect our views.

The Bayswater Support Group, Bell & Esses v The HRA and The MHRA (Pathways 2)

This is a judicial review of the authorities behind the Pathways clinical trial of puberty blockers on children: the Health Research Authority and the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency. Our claimants, Bayswater Support Group (who support parents of trans children and young people), Keira Bell (who brought the case against the Tavistock in 2020) and James Esses, (a psychotherapist who campaigns for the ethical treatment of gender dysphoria), are challenging the lawfulness and ethics of this trial of banned drugs on children.  ONGOING.

Source: https://www.conrathegardner.com/healthcare

https://x.com/KBtheYoungOG/status/2019682477510406316/photo/1

 

 

Epstein files reveal Sydney connections with ‘not a girl not yet a woman’ photos from friend | SMH

All entries on Feminist Legal Clinic’s News Digest Blog are extracts from news articles and other publications, with the source available at the link at the bottom. The content is not originally generated by Feminist Legal Clinic and does not necessarily reflect our views.

Emails released by the US Department of Justice as part of the Epstein files reveal the convicted sex offender was contacted by a female friend – whose name was redacted – in March 2012, seemingly while she was studying in Sydney.
“jeffrey have you seen photos I sent you ? I think that those are the most sensual and ‘im not a girl not yet a woman’ style photos I have ever had,” she wrote to Epstein.
“I am still loving sydney so much.. can’t believe your friend Katherine left Syd for NY. hope you are great, having a holiday every day ;)”
That was an apparent reference to Katherine Keating, daughter of former prime minister Paul Keating, who had moved to New York and became part of Epstein’s circle there in 2011.
Epstein responded that he had seen the photos, calling them “really terrific”, and asking: “have you made any mew [sic] girlfriends?”
Months later, in October 2012, Epstein corresponded with another person who appeared to be, or have been, in Sydney, but the tone had soured. It was not evident whether it was the same person as the March email chain.
“Do you want to see me or you are interested in me only because I found pretty girls for you?” the emailer asked Epstein.
He replied: “your job in Sydney, has as i warned, made you hard . you are behaving in a very cheap, vulgar, manner. If it is irreparable, we can no longer have contact.”
The person told Epstein that she wished their relationship could return to how it was the previous year, and worried that he had grown bored with their “Nabokov-Lolita relations”, referring to the famous novel about lust for an under-age girl by Russian writer Vladimir Nabokov.

Source: Epstein files reveal Sydney connections with ‘not a girl not yet a woman’ photos from friend

Please sign our petition: Ban the DWP pimping women on OnlyFans? | UK

 

All entries on Feminist Legal Clinic’s News Digest Blog are extracts from news articles and other publications, with the source available at the link at the bottom. The content is not originally generated by Feminist Legal Clinic and does not necessarily reflect our views.

In previous newsletters we reported that UK jobcentres are pressuring claimants who are OnlyFans ‘creators’ to increase their OnlyFans income and about legislation that bans the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) from making “arrangements in respect of employment for sexual purposes”.

While some women make a lot of money on OnlyFans, the vast majority make very little, with average monthly earnings being about £130. The main way that a woman can increase her OnlyFans income is by creating more explicit and degrading content and attempting to attract new paying customers by posting clips on mainstream social media sites, including TikTok, Instagram and similar, where children are likely to be present.

Increasing her OnlyFans visibility in this way is likely to increase attention from predators who want to pay her for in-person sex, and pimps and other third parties who want to cash in on her earnings. It may push her into “full service” prostitution and will inevitably expose her to more risks.

This means that the DWP is complicit in the commercial sexual exploitation of (mainly) young women and in increasing the amount of pornographic material that children are likely to be exposed to.

We have published a new article that explains all this and provides links to the FOI responses, DWP self-employment rules, and Dame Diana Johnson’s responses.

We have also started a petition to campaign against this heinous situation. Please sign and share it and help us raise awareness of this heinous situation.

Source: Please sign our petition: Ban the DWP pimping women on OnlyFans?