Category: Reproductive Rights

The Dark Side of the Global Surrogacy and Fertility Industry – The New York Times

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 the 1990s, India became the undisputed hub of commercial surrogacy; the country legalized the practice in 2002, as parents also flocked there for low-cost I.V.F. packages. But over time, scandals mounted — reports of abused and unpaid surrogates, sick or abandoned babies and mixed-up embryos — and in 2012, India began to regulate the practice. So, the industry adapted, hopscotching to Thailand, Mexico and Nepal, all of which soon experienced their own controversies. After a 2015 earthquake stranded dozens of Indian surrogates and newborns in Nepal, Israel airlifted 26 babies, leaving the surrogates behind; Nepal banned the practice soon afterward. India and Thailand banned commercial surrogacy for foreigners in 2015. In 2016, Cambodia followed, as did the sole state in Mexico that had allowed it, completely cutting off the trade.

The market reconstituted in Russia, which became popular with intended parents, particularly from China. In 2015, the Chinese Communist Party amended its one-child policy to allow all married couples to have two children, while the collapse of the Russian ruble, coupled with the rising incomes of China’s growing middle class, made Russia an attractive destination. The demand for Asian eggs there grew so great, women were often stimulated locally — in Thailand, Taiwan, China or Kyrgyzstan — flown to cities in Russia, operated on and then sent back on a plane. After a surrogate-born baby died of unknown causes, Russia banned commercial surrogacy for foreigners in 2022, leaning heavily on tropes of “traditional values.” That same year, the country banned egg donations in surrogate pregnancies for its own citizens, pushing Russians to join the throngs of couples seeking treatment abroad.

After the Russian market closed, the influx adapted again, flowing into Ukraine, which had already attracted intended parents from America and Europe after it legalized the practice in 2002. Ukraine, home to a population of 41 million rife with blue-eyed blondes — the ultimate stereotypically desired phenotype — quickly became a hub of both eggs and surrogacy, with nearly 3,000 donor cycles and more than 2,000 children born to surrogates each year before the war. Unlike many other countries, Ukraine amended its regulations in 2013 to prohibit women from selling eggs or being a surrogate unless they already had one healthy child. The change was primarily a marketing gimmick guaranteeing the donors’ or surrogates’ “proven” fertility, but it also happened to protect against some of the medical and ethical concerns tied to participating in these markets, including future infertility.
When Russia invaded Ukraine in the middle of the night in February 2022, leaving foreign parents stranded far from their infants, the tiny former Soviet state of Georgia experienced an avalanche of interest. The rush was overwhelming. The country simply did not have enough wombs, so clinics and agencies began importing them.
In general, surrogates spoke about their own situations almost as if they were property. I sat with two Kenyan surrogates who explained their understanding of the system — that they would be “sold” from recruiter to agency to clinic. When I asked them how they would be OK with this, they said it was better than being abused as housemaids in Dubai. From a surrogate’s perspective of her rights in this process, once she arrives in Georgia, she can expect to undergo three embryo transfers before the agency will send her home. If a surrogate arrives and a clinic disqualifies her in the initial health check, or after one transfer, the agency might send her home, but more likely it would try to find a different clinic to accept her. This is foremost a business, and it costs the agency money to bring her over, house her and feed her, after all.
Most of the 30 women I spoke with who had become or tried to become surrogates in Georgia had trouble communicating or advocating for themselves.
As I was leaving their apartment, a coordinator called and threatened the women for what they had told me. One of the other surrogates in the apartment had reported on them. Days later, they said the clinic warned them it would withhold payment to any surrogate who spoke to me if anything negative about them were published.
Surrogates had their horror stories, while intended parents had theirs. There were important facts that agencies had failed to disclose to them — like that their surrogate was a teenager. Or the couple who showed up at the hospital to discover that their surrogate had no teeth. There were children born with birth defects that the intended parents believed were covered up by the clinics, or babies who died soon after birth. I heard stories about the wrong donor eggs being used, surrogates inducing early labor to speed up the process or even aborting embryo transfers so they could move from clinic to clinic, collecting payment for each transfer without going through with the pregnancy.
The Georgian Parliament was poised to regulate the industry in 2023, but the draft law mysteriously died.
“This is a multimillion-dollar business,” Baia Pataraia, the director of Georgia’s leading women’s NGO, Sapari, which represented the women, told me. “Somebody is making lots of money, and that’s why commercial surrogacy with very few regulations and nonexistent monitoring remains. If they wanted to regulate it, they could.”
An agent who worked in Tbilisi until recently, and who requested anonymity because of her ongoing involvement in the industry worldwide, told me she was “99.9 percent” certain that some women in Georgia were having eggs retrieved without their consent. Egg theft happens all over the world — whether it’s unauthorized retrievals or misuse of the eggs retrieved with consent.
It’s not unusual for survivors of trafficking to be trafficked again. I asked Eve and Eye whether they would compare their experience in Georgia with the one they had in Bahrain, where promises of massage work led to forced prostitution.
They immediately declared that Georgia was worse than Bahrain: It was so isolating, as they didn’t know who was their friend and who was secretly reporting on them.
But worse, in Georgia they really had no idea what had been done to their bodies. Sex work was self-explanatory, but white pills, injections and suppositories could be anything.

Source: The Dark Side of the Global Surrogacy and Fertility Industry – The New York Times

White couple faked DNA test to keep mixed-race surrogate baby | The Times

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 couple, referred to as Mr P and Mrs P in the judgment to protect the toddler’s identity, met the surrogate, Ms T, on a Facebook group for surrogacy in June 2021 after struggling for three years to conceive naturally. Ms T agreed to become a surrogate mother for the couple and entered into a surrogacy agreement that included a clause stating she would “abstain from sexual intercourse” from that time until a pregnancy was confirmed.

Mr P was named as J’s father on the birth certificate. But by the time the couple came to apply to the courts for a parental order in May 2023, which was required under laws pertaining to surrogacy to register them as the legal parents, doubts were being expressed about J’s paternity by the paternal grandmother. The couple said they had noted J’s skin darkening but preferred to think this reflected Mr P’s olive skin, the judgment said.

During the parental order application, Mr and Mrs P were asked to submit a DNA test proving paternity. But after it emerged they had used a DNA test which was not court-approved, that had confirmed Mr P as the father, they expressed a wish to the family court in January last year to withdraw their parental order application and instead apply for an adoption order.

The judgment further reveals that in June last year the couple filed a statement saying that “although they had not had a second DNA test, they now accepted that Mr P is not J’s biological father”. They stated that “as J has grown, J’s complexion has obviously darkened and it has become apparent that they are of mixed race”.

Under current laws, “intended parents” can obtain a parental order to register them as the legal parents of a surrogate baby as long as they have a genetic link to the child and can prove they only paid “reasonable expenses” to the surrogate.
Helen Gibson from Surrogacy Concern, a group campaigning for surrogacy to be banned in Britain, said: “This case exemplifies everything that is wrong with the UK’s so-called altruistic surrogacy model. It seems nobody in this arrangement considered the needs and rights of the child.”
[Ed: Another case demonstrating the pitfalls of engaging in an unconscionable trade in babies.]

Source: White couple faked DNA test to keep mixed-race surrogate baby

A Surrogacy Firm Told Parents-to-Be Their Money Was Safe. Suddenly, It Vanished. – The New York Times

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.

Micah Nerio had known since his early 30s that he wanted to be a father, even if he did not have a partner. He spent a decade saving up to pursue surrogacy, an expensive process where he would create embryos with his sperm and a donor’s eggs to transfer to a woman who would carry the pregnancy.
Eventually, Mr. Nerio, now 40, selected a surrogate, who is due to give birth to his baby next month. Since 2022, he has sent over $118,000 to the agency that found his surrogate — money that went into an account to cover her medical bills, monthly compensation and other costs through the end of the pregnancy.
About a third of that money disappeared on Friday when the agency, Surro Connections, closed without warning. Mr. Nerio received a brief email stating that the business, which had operated for 13 years, had “no ability” to return clients’ funds. He had no way to retrieve the $44,000 left in his account with the agency, which was to be used to pay his surrogate’s remaining expenses.
Surro Connections, based in Portland, Ore., was, until this month, a well-regarded surrogacy agency with clients from around the world. Now, many have lost tens of thousands of dollars, and their surrogates are in the middle of pregnancies.
In May 2024, the leadership of Men Having Babies became aware that Surro held patient money in-house. The organization advised Ms. Hall-Greenberg that she would need to start using a third-party escrow accounts if she wanted to remain on the group’s council of industry advisers, said Mr. Poole-Dayan, the group’s president.
Ms. Hall-Greenberg declined, he said, and was removed from the advisory council last June.
Some surrogacy agencies have begun offering to waive administrative fees, which can cost thousands of dollars, to Surro clients who transfer their contracts. But the parents are still responsible for their surrogate’s medical bills and compensation, which make up the bulk of expenses.
Over the weekend, Mr. Nerio began working with one of those companies. He is excited for his child’s birth but angry at the betrayal he experienced. He will tap into his savings to cover his losses.
“At night, I’m staring at the ceiling thinking, Is $44,000 really gone?” he said. “Hopefully it will sting a little less once I’m holding a baby in my arms.”
[Ed: Oh dear – imagine losing money for doing something completely unconscionable! Are we meant to feel sorry for them? If there were justice these men would be locked up and all these agencies would go broke.]

Source: A Surrogacy Firm Told Parents-to-Be Their Money Was Safe. Suddenly, It Vanished. – The New York Times

EBU Investigative Journalism Network exposé reveals how sperm from a donor with a rare genetic mutation linked to heightened cancer risk conceived at least 197 children across Europe. | EBU

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.

Fourteen EBU Members are today publishing a collaborative investigation into an alarming donor case where one man’s sperm was used to conceive at least 197 children in 14 countries – some of whom were born with a rare and dangerous gene mutation.

Based on initial research by Danish broadcaster DR, and under the umbrella of the EBU Investigative Journalism Network (IJN), more than 30 journalists from 14 public service media organizations worked for months to obtain official records, interview families and clinicians, and analyse the failures that enabled the case to unfold across Europe’s borders.

The investigation documents how sperm from Donor 7069 – who has not done anything illegal or unethical – was distributed to 67 clinics across Europe over 17 years. In Belgium, Spain and Denmark, the number of conceptions far exceeded national family-limit rules. And despite a Rapid Alert issued in 2023, many parents were notified as late as mid-2025, in some cases having already heard the news from other affected families. Some families are yet to be reached.

Specialists in cancer genetics interviewed for the story said some of the children had already developed cancer, and some had already died. Doctors from the European GENTURIS network, which specializes in hereditary tumour risk, warn that urgent screening is needed to find all affected children and provide potentially life-saving monitoring.

The global fertility market, today valued at more than €45 billion, continues to grow despite fragmented and inconsistent regulation. While a new EU regulation (SoHO) will enter into force in 2027, it will still not impose EU-wide limits on the number of children per donor.

‘The case exposes the consequences of a system built on trust without the mechanisms to enforce it,’ said Liz Corbin, EBU Director of News.

Source: EBU Investigative Journalism Network exposé reveals how sperm from a donor with a rare genetic mutation linked to heightened cancer risk conceived at least 197 children across Europe. | EBU

ALRC surrogacy review: why process matters as much as principle – AAWAA

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.

On 18 December, feminist organisations from across Australia will participate in a roundtable discussion on the Australian Law Reform Commission’s review of surrogacy laws. This review will shape national policy affecting women and children for years to come. Yet the process through which this review is being conducted raises fundamental questions about impartiality, democratic participation, and compliance with Australia’s international human rights obligations.

Women’s organisations have been systematically excluded from early policy development, whilst those with direct financial interests in surrogacy expansion have shaped the review’s direction. The result is a predetermined framework that will be difficult to challenge, even as evidence of exploitation and harm mounts.

Based on an analysis of publicly available information, the ALRC’s advisory committee includes eight members with direct professional or financial interests in surrogacy expansion: fertility specialists, specialist surrogacy lawyers, surrogacy counsellors, and organisations advocating for surrogacy access.

This creates what governance scholars term ‘structural capture’: those advising on regulation of an industry are the professionals whose livelihoods depend on that industry expanding.

The governance failures documented above raise fundamental questions about the integrity of this review — questions that the Feminist Legal Clinic and other organisations in the coalition are also raising. The Commission should explain on the public record how the advisory committee was selected and assessed for independence from industry interests; how material and perceived conflicts of interest were managed for each member; why the Discussion Paper contemplates commercial surrogacy arrangements when the formal Terms of Reference direct the ALRC to focus on altruistic surrogacy; and on what legal and ethical basis private contracts between commissioning adults can override fundamental human rights protections.

Furthermore, the Commission cannot proceed with proposals to facilitate surrogacy without violating Australia’s obligations under the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, which prohibits the sale of children: the Commission must explain to the Australian public why it is contemplating reforms that would breach these fundamental human rights protections, rather than upholding them.

Source: ALRC surrogacy review: why process matters as much as principle – AAWAA

Parental child abduction: why extending criminalisation is not the answer | The Conversation | 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 government is proposing a change in the law on parental child abduction. The crime and policing bill, under consideration in parliament, would make it a crime for a parent to take their child on holiday and then not return them at the end of the agreed holiday period. This would be punishable by up to seven years’ imprisonment.

The government is attempting to remedy what could be seen as a gap in the law. But this approach fails to take into account what we know about the situations in which this kind of parental child abduction occurs. In many cases, it involves a mother fleeing domestic abuse with her children.

Parental child abduction happens when a child is taken to another country without the other parent’s knowledge or consent, or when one parent takes the children abroad for a holiday and keeps them overseas beyond the agreed holiday period. Currently, the recourse for parents left behind is contained in the 1980 Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of Child Abduction.

The crime and policing bill currently before Parliament will leave the 1980 Convention untouched but bolster criminal sanctions against parents who take children by amending the Child Abduction Act 1984, which applies to England and Wales.

There was little hard statistical data available on parental child abduction when the Hague Convention was created. However, the abduction of children was primarily seen as something done by fathers who were not the primary carer of their children.

The picture is now very different. Research conducted in 2015 found that 73% of taking parents were mothers, an increase from earlier years, and of these 91% are primary carers. My research and that of other scholars has found that domestic abuse features heavily in these cases. Essentially, these mothers are taking their children and attempting to escape an abusive situation. Research suggests that domestic abuse may be present in approximately 70% of child abduction cases.

If this amendment proceeds, then mothers who have fled overseas with their children to escape an abusive relationship may refuse to return for fear of prosecution. But through the mechanism set up under the Hague Convention, the children can still be ordered to go back. This proposed change in law takes no account of the impact on children of criminalising the parent who will most often be their primary carer. The potential criminalisation of primary carers will inevitably compound the trauma for children at the centre of these cases.

Source: Parental child abduction: why extending criminalisation is not the answer

Lab-grown milk is coming – here’s what it means for mums | 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.

An Australian biotech firm says it has successfully used precision fermentation to reproduce the most vital proteins in human breast milk, setting the stage to revolutionise the $90bn global infant formula market.

The Sydney-based firm – whose investors include W23, the venture fund backed by Woolworths – has raised more than $10m in a convertible note round and formed a joint venture with French dairy giant Armor Protéines to scale globally. This takes the total capital it has raised so far to $50m.
The funds will be used to commercialise All G’s technology that bypasses cows, using precision fermentation to create “bio-identical milk” and human proteins in industrial bioreactors. But Mr Pacas says the path to full commercialisation remains complex, given the tight regulations across the global infant formula market.

Source: Lab-grown milk is coming – here’s what it means for mums

If you’re pregnant, do you have to tell your boss? And what are the rules for employers? | The Conversation

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 Sydney warehouse worker fired by text message within two weeks of telling her employer she was pregnant has won her job back, along with A$15,000 in backpay.

The recent Fair Work Commission ruling about an Adecco contractor working at an Amazon warehouse highlights how employers and employees can interpret the rules on pregnancy and workplace discrimination very differently – sometimes leading to disputes.

Whether you’re newly pregnant or you’re a boss trying to look after your staff, these are the legal rights and obligations you need to know about.

I’m pregnant and applying for work. Do I have to mention it?

No, you don’t. As the Sex Discrimination Act makes clear, an employer can’t ask you about it either.

Even indirect questions – “Are you planning to have a baby in the future?” – are not allowed.

I’ve found out I’m pregnant. Do I have to tell my boss?

No. When you tell them will depend on your job, your pregnancy and your preferences.

I’ve had fewer opportunities since telling work I’m pregnant. Is that allowed?

Under the law, employees can’t be discriminated against because they’re pregnant.

But discrimination often isn’t as obvious as being fired or demoted.

Can I ask for flexible work?

Yes – and that’s new.

Since June 2023, pregnant women have been able to ask for flexible work arrangements, after an update to the Fair Work Act.

Can I ask for my job to be modified?

Yes, you can ask for a “safe job” or “no safe job leave”. That’s true for casual workers too.

A pregnant employee who’s generally fit for work, but can provide evidence that they can’t do their current role because of illness, risk to their pregnancy or hazards at work can ask to be transferred to a “safe job”.

The challenge for employers – especially smaller businesses

There are lots of good employers wanting to do the right thing. But especially for smaller businesses without a human resources department, it isn’t easy.

My employee’s told me they’re pregnant. Do I have to do anything now?

The Sex Discrimination Act now contains an obligation known as a “positive duty”. It came into force in late 2022.

It means employers need to take reasonable and proportionate measures to eliminate sex discrimination – including discrimination because of pregnancy.

What if I’m worried my worker can’t safely do the job while pregnant?

If you’re an employer, even if you have genuine safety concerns you can’t unilaterally decide a pregnant worker can’t do their job.

Many jobs can be adjusted for pregnancy. Employers need to work with their employees to figure out the best solutions.

Source: If you’re pregnant, do you have to tell your boss? And what are the rules for employers?

UK IVF couples use legal loophole to rank embryos based on potential IQ, height and health | IVF | The Guardian

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.

Couples undergoing IVF in the UK are exploiting an apparent legal loophole to rank their embryos based on genetic predictions of IQ, height and health, the Guardian has learned.

The controversial screening technique, which scores embryos based on their DNA, is not permitted at UK fertility clinics and critics have raised scientific and ethical objections, saying the method is unproven. But under data protection laws, patients can – and in some cases have – demanded their embryos’ raw genetic data and sent it abroad for analysis in an effort to have smarter, healthier children.

One US company, Herasight, which charges couples $50,000 (£37,000) to assess an unlimited number of embryos, confirmed that it had already worked with couples undergoing IVF at clinics in the UK.

In the UK, tests performed on embryos are legally restricted to a list of serious health conditions, such as Huntington’s, sickle cell disease or cystic fibrosis. Clinics cannot perform polygenic screening for the purpose of embryo selection. The HFEA also says a clinician should not be guided by a patient on which embryo to use based on that patient’s knowledge of its scores.

[U]sing polygenic scores in the context of embryo selection remains contentious and the European Society of Genetics has condemned the technique as “unproven and unethical”.

There are also broader ethical concerns, including the potential for a stratified society where wealthier people pay to select the embryos they prefer and the prospect of normalising a belief that some individuals are genetically superior.

Source: UK IVF couples use legal loophole to rank embryos based on potential IQ, height and health | IVF | The Guardian

Convicted Pedophile Who Owns Multinational Surrogacy Empire Charged with Sexual Assault of Young Employee – Reduxx

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 prominent surrogacy agency in Europe is under investigation following accusations that its pedophile owner sexually assaulted an employee. José María Hill Prados, 63, is being accused of forcing a young employee to perform sexual acts as part of his employment with Gestlife.

Gestlife is one of the largest surrogacy firms in Europe, operating offices in 11 countries dedicated to facilitating child exchange contracts. On its site, it boasts that it has helped “2100 children be born,” and that over 55% of its clientele are “LGBTQIA+ couples.”

Prados, as “Albert,” offered Alejandro employment “in exchange for him maintaining a sexual relationship with the head of the company,” referring to himself. Because Alejandro was struggling to make ends meet, and the salary far exceeded his current compensation, he accepted the job.

Prados took Alejandro to his home in Premià de Dalt, Barcelona, where he sexually assaulted the young man in order to “verify” that the nature of his employment contract was “understood.” Prados then contracted Alejandro as an office worker for Gestlife.

In his legal complaint, Alejandro states that he was raped by Prados repeatedly, even after he asked him to stop, and that the surrogacy business owner would, at times, refuse to wear a condom.

Though Prados continued to use the fake identity of “Diego,” Alejandro soon discovered his real name, and learned that Prados had previously been sentenced to eight years in prison for sexually abusing two children, and for creating illicit pornography of the acts he subjected them to.

In 1996, Prados, who was 36 at the time, was investigated by a Barcelona court for the crime of corruption of minors and several more sexual assaults of which his four adopted children, aged between 12 and 17, were reported to be victims. However, the details of the case were sealed from the public.

During court proceedings, it was alleged that there were more than 30 children who had been victims of rape and sexual abuse at the hands of Prados and nearly a dozen other men while he worked at the Casal Dels Infants del Raval. A total of 13 individuals were arrested in addition to Prados. It has come to be known as one of the most shocking modern pedophilia scandals in Barcelona.

In order to distance the company from the litigation, Subrogalia Ukraine rebranded as Eurosurrogacy in 2017. Concurrently, Subrogalia Spain was renamed to Gestlife.

[I]n addition to his surrogacy network, Prados is also the figure behind a shadowy corporation dedicated to burying and erasing incriminating information from the internet.

Source: Convicted Pedophile Who Owns Multinational Surrogacy Empire Charged with Sexual Assault of Young Employee – Reduxx