A bill that would allow parents to transfer their children for money, or to sell them, is expected to be approved by the Massachusetts House on June 12. It is known as “parentage equality.”
The” Parentage Equality” bill seeks to redefine parenthood. Parenthood is recognized on its normal biological base, or by providing a child with a healthy, loving home in the event of adoption. This act redefines it based on a “person’s intention to be a family of a baby.” By doing this, it removes all references to mothers and fathers from lineage law and substitutes gender-neutered language with these crucial interpersonal roles.
In addition, Massachusetts would permit commercial surrogacy under H. 4672, which is the most alarming, in cases where the person carrying the child is physically related to the baby and in cases where she is exchanging her natural child for cash.
The’ Parentage Equality ‘ Act Legalizes child- offering
Surrogacy is a process that is essentially manipulative. It treats children as commodities and commodities girls. This particular bill enables especially severe arrangements. Deals are typically only granted where the person carrying the baby is not genetically related to the baby. A woman may be permitted to take money in exchange for her natural child under the terms of the hereditary surrogacy arrangements approved by this bill.
In any other occasion, if a person accepts money in exchange for handing over her filial say on her baby, she has engaged in baby- selling. If she has a true infertility deal under this act, she can do it as well, as long as the deal is legitimate before the child is born. She can do this as long as she makes the arrangements with the adoptive parents after becoming pregnant.
The following may be perfectly legitimate under H. 4672: a woman goes through the physical and mental health screenings necessary to become a substitute, becomes pregnant using sperm from a eggs lender, and then posts to a infertility website or social media team that she is not only available as a surrogate but is already pregnant.
She could then choose to “match” with the couple willing to pay the highest “payment of consideration”, essentially auctioning off her child. As long as the surrogacy agreement complies with the requirements set forth in the bill, it may be accepted by a court as both permissible and legally binding. However, she would face child selling charges if that same woman became pregnant and agreed to make an agreement with a couple to adopt her child while demanding that she be paid to do so.
The differences between these two scenarios are semantic, yet one would not only be legal and praised as” compassionate family building”, but, should she hand the baby over to a same- sex couple, a step towards ending discrimination. By contrast, the other case would be derided as child trafficking, despite effectually producing the same result.
Accepting money in exchange for a child is always wrong, no matter how much seductive gymnastics surrogacy opponents use.
Surrogacy Laws Have a History of Abuse
We have already seen the sale of children under the surrogacy guise, so do n’t let naysayers make up their minds that the above scenario sounds far-fetched. Three Californian women were found guilty in 2011 of operating an illegal surrogacy business.
Although the women did violate California’s surrogacy laws, they were able to continue doing so without being discovered for years because of legal surrogacy there. Without California’s surrogacy law, which allows the names of unrelated adults to be listed on a child’s birth certificate without the need for an adoption procedure, this case would not have been possible, as Dr. David Smolinhas noted.
The fact that the women in charge of the baby-selling ring filed false court records, alleging that the agreements had been secured prior to pregnancy was one of the scandal’s most important aspects. In a statement released by the FBI regarding the case, it was once more stated that a surrogacy agreement must be in place before beginning surrogacy. Imagine how bad actors could break into the law that allows surrogacy after the pregnancy has begun.
Potential for Money in Sex Exchange
Section 28N ( d ) of the bill addresses the scenario where a surrogacy child is alleged to have been born naturally rather than through assisted reproduction. The court would order a genetic test to determine a child’s parentage in this case. However, the bill states:
]I ] f the second genetic source is an intended parent, the court, in its sole discretion, may determine parentage under sections 1 through 27 of this chapter. If the child was not conceived through assisted reproduction, the genetic surrogate is not entitled to any non-financial compensation for acting as a surrogate unless the genetic surrogacy agreement specifically states otherwise. ]Emphasis added. ]
In other words, a surrogacy agreement could be ruled upon at the discretion of the courts in cases where a woman consents to have sex with the intended father in accordance with the law. In this scenario, the bill leaves the possibility of a surrogate being paid more than expense-related compensation open by stating that “unless the genetic surrogacy agreement provides otherwise.”
That is, this bill could combine prostitution and child trafficking by allowing a woman to accept money in exchange for sex as long as she conceives and then ceded her parental rights so the father could raise the child.
What additional crimes might this bill prevent? Forced surrogacy is not a hypothetical issue. As long as the flimsy conditions for a surrogacy agreement are satisfied, there may be untapped exploitation of both women and children.
Women and children are not commodities. Children have a right to be born free, not to be bought or sold. The fact that the” Parentage Equality” bill monetizes women’s bodies and turns children into products cannot be covered up by any amount of saccharine language. Better is what Massachusetts’s women and children deserve.
Them Before Us, a nonprofit that focuses on promoting children’s rights, has Patience Griswold as its engagement coordinator.
