Proposals on surrogacy, embryo freezing, raise tough questions

Experts consulted by the Times of Malta stand united against surrogacy but are divided on a proposal to allow embryo freezing.

As the government reviews the IVF law, Nisa Laburisti have urged the government to consider the introduction of surrogacy and embryo freezing.

Paul Sultana, IVF practitioner and laboratory director at Saint James Hospital, said he has his reservations on surrogacy. “I’m not against gay couples having children, but there are consequences of surrogacy. Basically, you’re hiring a womb and with that come ramifications, such as that of payment.”

Faculty of Theology dean Fr Emmanuel Agius said a balance had to be struck between a couple’s desire for children and the rights of the prospective child. Surrogacy flung the door wide open for the commercialisation of women’s wombs and rendered children a commodity to be sold. What would the emotional effects be on a woman who, following the bond established during gestation, would have to give up the baby?

Charles Savona Ventura, head of obstetrics and gynaecology, said there were situations where surrogacy could be contemplated such as with women who had no uterus either through a congenital malformation or surgery. But it was despicable if surrogacy was undertaken simply because a woman did not wish to go through the travail of pregnancy and childbirth because of body changes and career.

Mr Sultana said he was in favour of embryo freezing as it allowed for the best success rate with the least negative outcomes.

But Fr Agius asked what the moral and legal status of the embryo was. "Science is clear: an embryo is the beginning of human life. What Nisa Laburisti is proposing is the destruction of human life,” he said.
 
Fr Sultana asked what would happen to the frozen embryos once years went by and they were not thawed.

Sources: http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20150820/local/proposals-on-surrogacy-embryo-freezing-raise-tough-questions.581288

New hope for the childless

Divorced single women who cannot fall pregnant or conceive children through in vitro fertilisation (IVF) have been offered hope to become mothers via a landmark court decision.

This follows a successful challenge to the law governing surrogacy, by a woman known only as AB.

The woman, supported by the Surrogacy Advisory Group, said the law was discriminatory and violated her rights to choose surrogacy as her only option (apart from adoption and its bureaucratic red tape) to become a mother.

The Pretoria High Court ordered the ministry of social development to pay the costs of the action.

In a watershed judgment, Judge AC Basson ruled that the legislation was unfair and violated the rights, privacy and dignity of the woman, who had made 18 unsuccessful IVF attempts to have a baby.

The judge said it was not necessary to strike down the whole portion of the act governing surrogacy because the court found that only the genetic link requirement in the law was unconstitutional and invalid.

It is standard procedure in South Africa that all surrogacy agreements are sanctioned by the high court before the medical procedures begin.

Judge Basson said if the commissioning parents, or as in this case, a single person, are therefore biologically or medically unable to use their own gametes, the agreement would be invalid and the commissioning parents were legally prohibited from proceeding with surrogacy.

Judge Basson said in the factual matrix of this case the genetic link requirement effectively made it impossible for the applicant (AB) to conclude a surrogacy agreement.

“Because of the flawed law, she had just one option left – adoption. Adoption is a cumbersome and a time-consuming process. There is no certainty that an adoption application will be approved, even after years of waiting.”

The judge said it was clear that AB could not donate her own gametes.

“Her medical condition is permanent and irreversible. In 14 of the 18 IVF cycles, both male and female anonymous donor gametes were used.

“In other words, in the context of IVF, she made use of double donors to become pregnant.

“It is evident from her gynaecologist’s affidavit that she cannot contribute her own gametes for conception.”

The applicant said she was shocked, saddened and baffled when she was informed that she could not be considered for surrogacy because she could not provide the gametes.

She was puzzled because she had used double donors for years when attempting IVF.

“She believed the law was unfair and discriminated against single divorced women like herself,” said Judge Basson.

The judge gave the ministry of social development a tongue lashing for not co-operating with the applicant as far as the adoption report was concerned.

“The contents of the report were of considerable importance in this case.”

The ministry had commissioned the Human Sciences Research Council to compile the report. The respondent had also informed AB that it would only hand over the report if directed to do so by a court order.

“What is concerning is the contradictory statements given by the respondent’s department about the report.”

Judge Basson said the respondent had failed to convince the court that the law did not discriminate against the woman.

“It was submitted on behalf of the respondent that the IVF and surrogacy procedures are different and therefore not comparable.

“It was further submitted that in the event of double donor gametes, the surrogate mother merely provides her womb for hire, and that to allow the commissioning of a child with no genetic link to the commissioning parent is tantamount to the creation of a new form of adoption by the commissioning parent,” the judge said.

“While the procedures involved are different, I don’t agree with the respondent’s submissions.

“The womb for hire claim is fundamentally wrong. Section 295 (c) (iv) of the act specifically outlaws using surrogacy as a source of income.

“The submission that surrogacy will circumvent the existing laws for adoption is groundless.

“This submission is without merit, since the respondent conceded that adoption for AB is not a viable option.”

Sources: http://www.iol.co.za/news/new-hope-for-the-childless-1.1903169#.VdwEUiWqqko

Guidelines issued for issue of passport to minor children

The External Affairs Ministry has issued guidelines for issue of passport to minor children born to Indian or foreign genetic parents through surrogacy in India.

As there is no specific provision for such children, the Ministry has decided to apply the Indian Council of Medical Research guidelines that genetic parents are the real biological parents of the surrogate child.

Genetic parents, while applying for a minor child, have to submit the surrogacy agreement duly registered under the Registration Act, bonafide certificate issued by the head of the fertility clinic where the surrogacy was carried out; birth certificate issued by the competent authority in the name of the genetic parents of the surrogate child and DNA profiling test establishing the parentage of the surrogate child issued by the government or government-recognised laboratory.

However, as there is no government recognised laboratory in India to do DNA profiling test and government institutions do it only on the order of courts, the Ministry has decided to accept an affidavit sworn duly by the genetic parent before an Executive Magistrate or I class Judicial Magistrate affirming that the surrogate child was born through surrogacy in pursuance of the registered surrogacy agreement executed between the genetic parents and the surrogate mother, S.Lingasamy, Regional Passport Officer, Tiruchi, said in a press release.

Sources: http://www.thehindu.com/news/cities/Tiruchirapalli/guidelines-issued-for-issue-of-passport-to-minor-children/article7563949.ece

Watershed ruling on surrogacy

Pretoria - In a legal victory for parents unable to contribute their own sperm and eggs for the conception of a child, the high court in Pretoria overturned the so-called genetic link requirement for surrogacy.

This means that neither party need to contribute a gamete, and as in the case of in vitro fertilisation (IVF), no genetic lineage is required.

Up until now, the statutory requirement was that surrogacy commissioning parents had to contribute their own gametes - either both of them or at least one of them.

In the case of IVF, no genetic link was required.

But as the law stood on surrogacy, certain potential parents were excluded if neither of them could make a genetic contribution to the conception. If there was no genetic link, there could be no surrogacy agreement.

But Judge Anneli Basson, in a groundbreaking judgment, found this was against the Constitution which protected human rights.

The judgment followed an application by a woman who tried IVF - in vain - and as she does not have a partner or cannot contribute an egg herself, surrogacy was not an option as she did not qualify. This was despite a surrogate mother agreeing to carry the baby for her. The application was brought against the social development minister, with the Centre for Child Law in Pretoria joining in as a friend of the court.

The applicant said as the law now stood, a single infertile person was legally forbidden to use surrogacy as a means to become a parent.

The minister, on the other hand, said genetic lineage was relevant in defending the concept of a family.

But Judge Basson said: “A family cannot be defined with reference to the question whether a genetic link between the parent and the child exists. Our society does not regard a family consisting of an adopted child as less valuable or less equal than a family where children are the natural or genetically linked children of the parents. A family can therefore not be defined by genetic lineage.”

The Surrogacy Advisory Group, which assisted the applicant, hailed the judgment as groundbreaking.

“Surrogacy is a wonderful gift that a woman can give another couple that cannot carry a pregnancy themselves. We are delighted that the court has taken the stance to protect infertile people from discriminatory legislation,” Robynne Friedman, chief adviser of the group said.

The matter will, however, have to be tested in the Constitutional Court, which will have the last word on this legislation.

Sources: http://www.iol.co.za/news/crime-courts/watershed-ruling-on-surrogacy-1.1901954#.VdRTOLKqqko

Childless couples thrown a lifeline

One woman's 14-year battle with infertility has led to couples unable to have children now being able to start a family using surrogacy - without one of the partners having to give eggs or sperm to the birth mother.

In the first-of-its-kind case, a Cape Town woman successfully challenged a provision of the Children's Act of 2005 that allows surrogacy only when at least one of the commissioning parents contributes an egg or sperm.

The Pretoria High Court on Wednesday struck down the genetic-link requirement in surrogacy, declaring it unconstitutional.

Judge Anneli Basson said the case raised "difficult legal and ethical questions. [The dispute] raises complex and emotional issues that have a fundamental effect on many individuals who struggle with the devastating effects of infertility."

She said the genetic-link requirement violated human rights on a "very personal and intimate level. It effectively puts persons' personal lives and family building plans on hold. This situation begs immediate relief."

The case was brought against Minister of Social Development Bathabile Dlamini, who opposed the application but failed to present evidence to the court in time.

The Surrogacy Advisory Group, which assisted the woman in her court action, will ask the Constitutional Court to confirm the High Court order. The woman, whose identity is protected by court order, had a "permanent and irreversible" condition which prevented her from becoming pregnant. Since 2001 the 56-year-old has undergone 18 in vitro fertilisation procedures and has had two miscarriages. With little hope, she pursued the surrogacy option.

She said she was "shocked, saddened and baffled" when she discovered that she could not use surrogacy to have a child.

She claimed the requirement of a genetic link violated a number of her constitutional rights, including those related to equality and human dignity.

Yesterday experts welcomed the judgment, saying it would lead to more people applying for surrogacy agreements.

Pretoria attorney Adele van der Walt said she often dealt with similar matters and had foreign clients who faced this problem.

"This is opening up possibilities for people and creating opportunities for parents," Van der Walt said.

Johannesburg attorney Megan Harrington-Johnson said the judgment could be good news for couples denied children because of the bureaucracy inseparable from adoption.

"If this is confirmed by the Constitutional Court, there will now be very many more applications for surrogacy agreements. This is because there is so much red tape involved in adopting a child and so infertile couples may elect to take this route instead."

Surrogacy Advisory Group chief adviser Robynne Friedman said she sees three or four cases a month similar to that of the Cape Town woman and has had to turn infertile couples away.

"A woman who lost her husband wanted to have a sibling for her child but she was infertile. I have had gay couples who have abandoned the process. Surrogacy is a wonderful gift that a woman can give another couple that cannot carry a pregnancy."

Sources: http://www.timeslive.co.za/thetimes/2015/08/14/Childless-couples-thrown-a-lifeline

Welfare of children is first priority when crafting reproductive laws lawsmedicine

There have been rapid advances in assisted reproductive medicine, such as improved techniques for achieving pregnancy via eggs or sperm donated by third parties and for surrogate motherhood.
Broad-based discussion is required for improving legislation on these topics.

The Liberal Democratic Party's project team, comprised of members of the health, labor and welfare division and judicial affairs division, has compiled a bill to be related to Japan's Civil Code regarding assisted reproductive medicine.

The major pillar of the bill is a stipulation that, regarding childbirth achieved via donor eggs, the woman who gives birth must be recognized as the baby's mother.

The party plans to submit the bill to the current Diet session.

The Civil Code did not contemplate childbirth through assisted reproductive medicine involving third parties, and it has no clear stipulations regarding the relationship between a child and the parents in such circumstances.

We can understand the LDP's aim of stabilizing the law's treatment of the parent-child relationship from a viewpoint of child welfare, by establishing a new law beside the Civil Code.

Many people will probably agree with a rule that the woman who actually gives birth with the will to raise the baby must be recognized as the baby's mother, rather than the "genetic mother" who donates eggs.

Meanwhile, in the case of surrogacy, which involves a third-party woman who gives birth using an egg from the wife and the sperm of her husband, a parent-child relationship between the wife and the child cannot be recognized.

As Japan's Supreme Court has handed down a judgment similar to this, the bill has come in line with this way of thinking.

The Japan Society of Obstetrics and Gynecology has made clear through announcements and other means that it does not approve of in-vitro fertilization using donor eggs nor surrogate pregnancy in Japan.

But legal provisions have yet to be drafted concerning assisted reproductive medicine. The LDP's team has put off formulating any concrete statutory rules on these issues for now.

Techniques Outpace Laws
It was made known last month that there have been in-vitro fertilizations using eggs donated by volunteers for women with an ovarian disorder.

The fertilizations were carried out under the auspices of a non-profit organization established by a doctor engaged in fertility treatment and a group of patients.

This development reveals the real state of affairs: Practical efforts on the medical frontier have been going ahead while there are no statutory rules in place.

It is estimated that each year more than 100 Japanese women give birth to babies conceived overseas using donor eggs.

Regarding surrogate pregnancy, incidents have occurred overseas such as a couple refusing to accept a baby born to a surrogate because of a possible disability or a surrogate mother refusing to hand over the baby.

An arrangement under which a stable upbringing of a child is ensured is essential.

As for the use of donor sperm, an established fertility treatment, there has been a growing number of cases in recent years in which the resulting child wants to know his or her genetic father.

There is concern that should sperm donors be identified, sperm donations will decline.

It is necessary to further discuss the issue of what to do with information regarding the origins of those who are born through assisted reproductive technology.

Amid an increase in the number of women having babies later in life, there are many couples who want to take advantage of assisted reproductive medicine.

Is it allowable, however, to have third parties assume physical burdens in the first place, such as pregnancy and childbirth or donation of eggs?

It is essential to discuss these fundamental issues.

The most important thing is to have a perspective that puts top priority on the happiness of those children to be born through reproductive medicine.

Sources: http://www.chinapost.com.tw/commentary/the-china-post/special-to-the-china-post/2015/08/13/443108/p2/Welfare-of.htm

Legislation on reproductive medicine should put children’s welfare first

There have been rapid advances in assisted reproductive medicine, such as improved techniques for achieving pregnancy via eggs or sperm donated by third parties and for surrogate motherhood. Broad-based discussion is required for improving legislation on these topics.

The Liberal Democratic Party’s project team, comprised of members of the health, labor and welfare division and judicial affairs division, has compiled a bill to be related to the Civil Code regarding assisted reproductive medicine.

The major pillar of the bill is a stipulation that, regarding childbirth achieved via donor eggs, the woman who gives birth must be recognized as the baby’s mother. The party plans to submit the bill to the current Diet session.

The Civil Code did not contemplate childbirth through assisted reproductive medicine involving third parties, and it has no clear stipulations regarding the relationship between a child and the parents in such circumstances.

We can understand the LDP’s aim of stabilizing the law’s treatment of the parent-child relationship from a viewpoint of child welfare, by establishing a new law beside the Civil Code. Many people will probably agree with a rule that the woman who actually gives birth with the will to raise the baby must be recognized as the baby’s mother, rather than the “genetic mother” who donates eggs.

Meanwhile, in the case of surrogacy, which involves a third-party woman who gives birth using an egg from the wife and the sperm of her husband, a parent-child relationship between the wife and the child cannot be recognized.

As the Supreme Court has handed down a judgment similar to this, the bill has come in line with this way of thinking.

The Japan Society of Obstetrics and Gynecology has made clear through announcements and other means that it does not approve of in vitro fertilization using donor eggs nor surrogate pregnancy in Japan.

But legal provisions have yet to be drafted concerning assisted reproductive medicine. The LDP’s team has put off formulating any concrete statutory rules on these issues for now.

Techniques outpace laws

It was made known last month that there have been in vitro fertilizations using eggs donated by volunteers for women with an ovarian disorder. The fertilizations were carried out under the auspices of a nonprofit organization established by a doctor engaged in fertility treatment and a group of patients.

This development reveals the real state of affairs: Practical efforts on the medical frontier have been going ahead while there are no statutory rules in place. It is estimated that each year more than 100 Japanese women give birth to babies conceived overseas using donor eggs.

Regarding surrogate pregnancy, incidents have occurred overseas such as a couple refusing to accept a baby born to a surrogate because of a possible disability or a surrogate mother refusing to hand over the baby. An arrangement under which a stable upbringing of a child is ensured is essential.

As for the use of donor sperm, an established fertility treatment, there has been a growing number of cases in recent years in which the resulting child wants to know his or her genetic father.

There is concern that should sperm donors be identified, sperm donations will decline. It is necessary to further discuss the issue of what to do with information regarding the origins of those who are born through assisted reproductive technology.

Amid an increase in the number of women having babies later in life, there are many couples who want to take advantage of assisted reproductive medicine.

Is it allowable, however, to have third parties assume physical burdens in the first place, such as pregnancy and childbirth or donation of eggs? It is essential to discuss these fundamental issues. The most important thing is to have a perspective that puts top priority on the happiness of those children to be born through reproductive medicine.

Sources: http://www.the-japan-news.com/news/article/0002348753

Surrogate mothers are not ‘baby factories’ says former Nigerian official

Calling surrogate mothers ‘baby factories’ and cracking down on the issue only stigmatizes parents, says Reno Omokri, former Special Assistant to Nigerian President Goodluck Jonathan on New Media

A former aide to Nigerian ex-President Goodluck Jonathan is speaking out against stigmatization of surrogate mothers in the country, saying the practice should be allowed by government.

Reno Omokri, who lives in California, is urging the Nigerian government to regulate the sector, where orphan women and girls are often impregnated against their will before their babies are sold – leading to the term ‘baby factories’.

While he admits there is a problem with the lack of regulation, Omokri suggests mothers who consent to surrogacy should be treated with dignity and respect.

‘This is the 21st Century not the 12th,’ he said. ‘If women wish to be surrogate mothers, government shouldn’t stigmatize them as a ‘Baby Factories’.

‘As long as these aren’t underaged girls, and as long as they consent without duress to be surrogate mothers, they have committed no crime.’

Omokri said surrogacy should remain a legitimate option for couples unable to have children – enabling the parents to know more about the family history and genetics of their unborn child than they would with anonymous adoptions.

‘Tens of thousands of surrogate children are born each year in the Americas and even more in Europe,’ he explained, writing in the Premium Times.

‘Anyone who has ever experienced childlessness either directly or indirectly through a relative, extended family or friend is likely to appreciate the role surrogate mothers play in bringing succor to such families.

‘To ostracize them and tag them ‘Baby Factories’ is most unfortunate indeed.’

While attitudes to surrogacy are slowly shifting in the country, Nigeria has a long way to go as far as LGBTI rights are concerned.

Both male and female same-sex sexual activity is illegal, and can be punishable by 14 years in prison or death by stoning.

Sources: http://www.gaystarnews.com/article/surrogate-mothers-are-not-baby-factories-says-former-nigerian-official/

'Queen Bey' might be expecting her second child

A recent photo of Beyonce reignited rumors that she is expecting her second child.

The R&B singer was spotted at the West Side Heliport where she disembarked from a helicopter after spending a short vacation at the Hamptons with her whole family.

As she strode to a waiting car, Queen Bey held a laptop close to her body strategically hiding what appears to be baby curves.

Beyonce already has a daughter named Blue Ivy Carter whom she gave birth to on January 7, 2012 at Lenox Hill Hospital in New York City. Her pregnancy at the time caused quite a stir from fans that security was tightened during her labor. Blue Ivy is the first child of Beyonce and husband Jay Z.

Now rumors are spreading again that the famous couple is going to have baby number 2 and their fans are dying to know if it is true.

This isn't the first time Beyonce was rumored to be pregnant with a second child. In January, Michelle Williams, who is Beyonce's former bandmate in Destiny's Child, tried to debunk rumors that Knowles was pregnant after the latter posted a photo of herself on Instagram buried beneath the sand with the sand looking like a pregnant belly.

Williams appeared on "The View" and spoke about the picture. She said, "First of all, if you look at the picture, the baby bump is probably where her knees probably really are... Just stop it, stop it," she added, "You know, when she was pregnant, people said that she wasn't pregnant. There's just no truth to it. Sorry!"

In June, reports said that a surrogate mother was enlisted to carry Beyonce and Jay Z's second child. A source from the couple's camp said, "They were trying for several months, but Beyonce was having trouble. She was scared about another high-risk pregnancy, so surrogacy became the best decision for them."

The source added that the couple was hesitant to take any more risks, which prompted them to seek help from a surrogate. After the legalities were taken care of, it took them two months before they found the perfect candidate to carry their second child.

According to the same source, since the surrogate mother is still in the early stages of the pregnancy, the famous couple is holding back from announcing any news to the public.

Sources: http://www.mnrdaily.com/article/queen.bey.might.be.expecting.her.second.child/2521.htm

Marriage vs Egg Donation

Family is by chance, friend is by choice. Who has not heard about this quote and does not understand the importance of choosing your friends.

Whereas the marriage could stand for “making a family by choice”. Whether we refer to the older generation where only parents were allowed to “choose” bride / groom, or the present generation where the individual chooses a “friend” to become a “family”; Choice is an integral part of forming a family.

Infertility is no more a taboo, it is “just” a medical condition like any other, may it be headache, gastritis, poor eyesight, etc. Yes, it took a long time for the Indian culture to open its arms for IVF treatments, but couples are ready to talk about it, discuss, look at options, and choose the best option available.

We remember a beautiful story of a couple:

Couple finding it difficult to conceive, the Husband asks his wife, if she wanted to have her own genetic child or have her family, complete? This question made it so easy for the wife to accept the egg donor concept. Women who needs to identify something in her child, could choose for some characteristics like intelligence or skin tone (as she cannot see / know the egg donor). This only helps her to connect with the child during growing years, and not live in the shadows of “donor”.

If today’s women, who are educated, self-sufficient, confident, financially independent, come across infertility, don’t they have a right to choose their own path? May it be IVF treatments, adoption, or going for sperm donor / egg donor process. If a woman is being “strong” and ready to accept help to complete her motherhood, doesn’t she has right to accept a match like her? Are these choices limited only to marriage?

Every patient of mine has always said that whatever they can Compensate the donor with is less. We understand what it means. The donor was the reason the woman is a mother today.

ICMR has already laid down a Bill, stating who and how the advertisement can be released. The bill allows the donor to be compensated, and to ensure her details need to be kept confidential.

Let’s support these beautiful women, when they choose to outsource their biggest traumas, their own path, and accept egg donation to complete family. And The egg donors, who understand these women’s traumas and help them.

Empathy is about standing in someone else's shoes, feeling with his or her heart, seeing with his or her eyes. Not only is empathy hard to outsource and automate, but it makes the world a better place.

Daniel H. Pink

Surrogacy has been labeled “reproductive tourism” by a Swiss court

In 2011, two Swiss men who lived in the US registered their partnership. Two months later, they had a child through a surrogate mother in California, and according to the law were both recognized as fathers of the baby. But once back in Switzerland in 2014, despite an initial acknowledgment of their status, the federal court ruled against the status they acquired in the US.

It’s not the gender of the two to be the issue—or at least, not directly. Switzerland recognizes same-sex unions, but surrogacy is illegal and so is the adoption of children by same-sex couples. The country has the right not to recognize foreign documents incompatible with the local law, as it’s the case with a surrogacy birth certificate.

For the court, only one of the men can be the legal father—specifically the one who has biological ties to the baby, who was conceived with the sperm of one of the two men and an anonymous donor’s egg.

In explaining the ruling, which generated outrage amongst the gay community both inside and outside the country, the Swiss court has stated that the principles informing the decision weren’t informed by considerations on same-sex parenting, but rather by an ethical stand on surrogacy itself—as violating of the rights of the surrogate mothers and of the children. The court explained:

…a child must be protected from being downgraded to a commodity which can be ordered from a third party.

The country has faced an insurgence of children obtained through surrogacy services, particularly from Georgia, where services are offered for as little as €15,000 ($16,000). “According to Swiss civil law,” said the court, according to Swissinfo, “a pregnant woman cannot actively abandon her rights regarding the child before it is born”—and accepting the surrogacy would be a commercialization of the woman’s body and wouldn’t guarantee enough protection of her rights.

Highlighting that the two men knowingly bypassed the Swiss law, the court said recognizing their status would encourage “reproductive tourism.”

The Swiss law on assisted reproduction is rather restrictive and only allows IVF that doesn’t require egg or sperm donation, contrary to the country’s fame for liberal medical practices—Switzerland notoriously allows euthanasia, or “assisted dying.”

The case debated by the court, however, presents a further complication compared to what would be faced by an heterosexual couple: since same-sex adoption is not allowed in Switzerland, the “other father” cannot adopt the child had through surrogacy.

Sources: http://qz.com/468145/surrogacy-has-been-labeled-reproductive-tourism-by-a-swiss-court/

New Thai surrogacy law bans foreigners

New laws in Thailand banning commercial surrogacy have come into effect, ending a long-running debate triggered by the Baby Gammy case in 2014.

New laws banning commercial surrogacy in Thailand have come into effect this week, ending access previously available to foreigners and gay couples.

The new laws mark an end to a debate over commercial surrogacy triggered in 2014 after a Western Australian couple left a surrogate twin boy behind in Thailand when they were told he was suffering from Down's syndrome. They took home his healthy sister, Pipah.

The child, known as Baby Gammy, is now an Australian citizen, lives with his Thai surrogate mother, Pattaramon Chanbua, and is supported by financial aid from a special fund in Australia.

The initial controversy triggered an immediate backlash in Thailand, forcing commercial surrogate operators to close shop.

Under the new law, a couple, a man and a woman, must be legally married for at least three years with one or both holding Thai nationality.

The surrogate mother is required to be a sibling of the couple, but not the parents or the couple's children. The surrogate woman must also have her own child and have her husband's consent.

If the woman is not a relative of the couple, the woman needs to meet regulations laid down by the Thai public health ministry.

Public Health Minister Rajata Rajatanavin said foreign couples would no longer be able to seek surrogacy services in Thailand.

Homosexuals are no longer allowed to access the service because Thailand has not yet legalised same-sex marriage, Rajata told The Nation newspaper.

But while the restrictions are in place preventing foreigners seeking surrogacy, they are able to undergo other artificial fertilisation techniques for a woman to conceive.

Local media reported more than 2000 foreign couples had been coming to Thailand each year for commercial surrogacy services.

After the initial ban on commercial surrogacy, Australian officials negotiated a transition period enabling up to 150 Thai women carrying children of Australian couples to give birth.

Thai Public Health Ministry deputy permanent secretary Amnuay Gajeena said there were 45 clinics providing surrogacy services in Thailand, with six already shut down, with authorities making several arrests.

Anyone who breaks this law will be punished with up to 10 years' jail or a fine not exceeding 200,000 baht ($A8000). The selling of sperm, ovum and embryos are also banned, Mr Amnuay said.

Sources: http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/2015/07/31/new-thai-surrogacy-law-bans-foreigners

All Bark, No Brains: The View Talks Gay Weddings, Canine Groomsmen and Surrogacy

July 31st marked The View’s 7th annual “Mutt Show.” And according to co-host Raven-Symoné, gay former boy-band star Lance Bass was the “perfect guest to have” because Bass and his “husband” have 3 dogs.

“And they were your bridal party?” Symoné queried. (‘Wedding party’ might have been the better term, Raven, as there is no bride, but then again, weddings have historically required a bride as well...) “I was so excited that all my dogs could make it to the wedding,” Bass answered, “because my dream was to have my dogs walk down the isle.” Oh, goodness.

Later in the interview, Symoné announced, “Let me just talk and give you props that you were the first gay couple to get married on American television…that’s amazing.” A thunderous applause from the audience ensued. “It was very, uh, very special to be a part of that history…you know, we got to show the world a very loving story that I think people needed to see.”

“Ahh, you were so in love,” co-host Rosie Perez gushed, recollecting the 90-minute “historical wedding” aired by the E! channel.

Then “conservative” co-host Nicole Wallace chipped in. “You guys are obviously still very much in the honeymoon phase, but I saw your dog family, were you guys thinking of expanding to the two-legged variety?”

“Oh, definitely,” Bass answered. “That’s the one thing that I love about my husband is, you know, we had that conversation when we first started dating—kids, cause, I want to be a father. He would be the best, best dad ever. Uh, so, you know maybe three or four years, you know, not right now.”

“If you need a surrogate, I’m here,” co-host Michelle Collins piped in.

Yes, friends, tune in next week for more intelligent discussion on The View.

Sources: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/culture/sarah-stites/2015/07/31/all-bark-no-brains-view-talks-gay-weddings-canine-groomsmen