Australian surrogate mothers discuss volunteering to carry another's baby

What does it take to have a baby for somebody else and then give it away? DAWN BARKER meets three Australian women who decided to become altruistic surrogates.

The saga of Gammy, the baby with Down syndrome left behind with his surrogate mother in Thailand, has highlighted the psychological and ethical complexities of the booming overseas commercial surrogacy industry. Commercial surrogacy within Australia is illegal, and NSW, the ACT and Queensland make it an offence to hire a surrogate overseas. Far fewer intended parents choose the legal option of using an uncompensated, or altruistic, surrogate: the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare says that only 16 children were born this way here in 2010.

The Australian Institute of Family Studies recently published a study by Sam Everingham that surveyed 217 parents who either had, or planned to have, children through surrogacy. Almost half did not even consider uncompensated surrogacy, their main concern being that the surrogate might not give up the child (the birth mother is considered the legal mother in Australia, regardless of the baby's genetics).

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/good-weekend/australian-surrogate-mothers-discuss-volunteering-to-carry-anothers-baby-20140911-10a931.html#ixzz3DSAc6x4V

SI will be closed on 13th September, 2014

SI is not working tomorrow i.e. 13th September, 2014, hence there could be delay in reply to the emails.

However, you may always give us a call in an emergency situation.

SI is working Half day on 8th September, 2014

SI is working Half day today i.e. 8th September, 2014 on occasion of Ganesh Visarjan (Immersion) hence there could be delay in reply to the emails.

However, you may always give us a call in an emergency situation.

Swiss Gay Fathers Granted Parental Recognition in Landmark Surrogacy Ruling

While surrogacy remains illegal in Switzerland, two gay fathers fought — and won — precedent-setting parental rights by crossing their homeland's borders.

Argentine newborn Tobias Grinblat Dermgerd rests in his pram between his two fathers Alejandro Grinblat (L) and Gustavo Dermgerd, in front of the Registry Office in Buenos Aires. 

 

In a first, a Swiss gay couple have been recognized as the legal parents of a child conceived via an American surrogate mother,  despite surrogacy being illegal in Switzerland, reports the U.K.'s Pink News.

The two St. Gallen-based fathers, whose partnership is legally registered in their home country, chose to have their child through the artificial insemination of a donor egg by one partner's sperm. Both were listed as fathers on the U.S. birth certificate, after their California-based surrogate mother delivered the newborn and abdicated parental rights.

But when Swiss law still considered the surrogate mother and her husband the legal parents of the child, the two gay fathers petitioned the Swiss national registry for parental recognition, supported by their own local registry.

The Federal Office of Justice (FOJ) appealed the couple's petition, forcing the case to be decided by St. Gallen's administrative court earlier this month.

Last week, the court finally announced their decision to recognize the child's California birth certificate. However, according to Gay Star News, a note about the child's genetic surrogate parentage will remain on the record, in a partial acknowledgement of FOJ's complaint.

The justice department can still appeal the decision to Switzerland's supreme court, but has not yet announced any intention to do so.

http://www.advocate.com/parenting/2014/08/30/swiss-gay-fathers-granted-parental-recognition-landmark-surrogacy-ruling

SI will be closed tomorrow.

SI is closed tomorrow i.e. 29th August, 2014 on occasion of Ganesh Chaturthi hence there could be delay in reply to the emails.

 However, you may always give us a call in an emergency situation.

Baby Gammy case: Thailand's ruling military considers draft law banning commercial surrogacy

 

Photo: The case of baby Gammy has led to a rethink of commercial surrogacy laws in Thailand. (Reuters: Damir Sagolj)

Thailand's ruling military is considering draft laws to ban commercial surrogacy, creating uncertainty for Australians who already have pregnant surrogates in the country.

The changes come in the wake of controversy surrounding a West Australian couple accused by their Thai surrogate of abandoning their newborn son - known as baby Gammy, who has Down syndrome - and only taking home his healthy twin sister.

It was later revealed father David Farnell has 22 child sex convictions, including unlawful and indecent dealing with girls as young as seven when he was in his 20s, but he says the girl is "100 per cent safe" in his care.

Thailand's newly formed national assembly, which is heavily dominated by members of the military, has now been handed the draft laws. 

When approved, they will mean surrogacy can only take place when a married couple and a relative are involved. 

The laws may also include a provision for a baby to remain with the surrogate for between three and six months for breastfeeding.

The surrogate will also be considered as the child's legal mother.

The ruling army general does not want Thailand to be a surrogacy hub and is expected to move quickly to outlaw the practice, essentially ending a lucrative foreign market.

It remains unclear what the laws will mean for Australians who already have pregnant surrogates in Thailand.

Impoverished Thai mother Pattaramon Chanbua, 21, told the ABC earlier this month she gave birth to twins after agreeing to be a surrogate for Mr Farnell and his wife Wendy, with a promised payment of about $16,000.

She claims the couple rejected Gammy and returned to Australia with his healthy sister. The pair deny abandoning the boy.

Last week, Foreign Affairs Minister Julie Bishop said she was in contact with authorities in Thailand about the issue.

Thai authorities said Ms Chanbua would not be charged with any offence.

However, the doctor and clinic owner involved in the surrogacy case would be prosecuted - they could face up to three years in jail.

Since the case of baby Gammy came to light, a number of fertility clinics have been raided and shut down.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-08-13/thai-military-considers-draft-law-banning-commercial-surrogacy/5668846

SI is closed on 09th August, 2014

SI will not be working tomorrow (i.e.09th August, 2014) hence there could be delay in reply to the emails. 

However, you may always give us a call in an emergency situation.

Draft law on surrogacy ready to be submitted for NLA review

THE USE of a surrogate mother remains a grey area for Thailand but there is hope that draft legislation now ready for review by the National Legislative Assembly (NLA) will finally bring clarity - and protect children born through the use of assisted reproductive technology (ART).

Because there is no law in relation to surrogacy, people seeking to use a surrogate mother to have a child won't always be able to do this, whether they pay money or not, Thai lawyer Sithichok Sricharoen said.

However, with no legal punishment for using surrogates at present, this meant a special law needed to be passed to make it illegal, he said.

Using a surrogate mother was not human trafficking, because it was about giving birth, Sithichok said. The civil code said a child born to a woman is that woman's legal child; surrogacy was not possible in the current legal perspective.

There are two types of surrogacy: "full surrogacy", which requires an embryo from the spouse's egg and sperm to be implanted to the surrogate mother's womb, and "partial surrogacy", which required the father's sperm and the surrogate mother's egg.

The Social Development and Human Security Ministry has put forward the draft bill, which has been reviewed by legal experts on the Council of State and is pending deliberation by the NLA. Key facets of the draft bill include:

1. The couple wishing to have a child through a surrogate mother must be legally wed.

2. The surrogate mother must be a relative to one of the spouse, but must not be the spouse's parents or child.

3. The surrogate mother must have at least one child before and, if she has a husband, she must get his consent first.

If these components are not met, the applicant must ask for permission from a government-endorsed committee to control the use of ART on a case-by-case basis and the committee's order is final.

4. It is prohibited for anyone to act as a middleman to collect payment or benefits as in a commercial activity or to reap benefits from arranging or encouraging surrogacy. It is also prohibited for a medical professional to carry out the ART procedure for a woman's pregnancy, with knowledge of or with reasons to believe that the woman is a surrogate mother for commercial gain.

5. When a child is born from artificial insemination or ART via donors' egg and sperm, the woman who gave birth shall be the child's legal mother and the woman's husband who consented to the pregnancy shall be the child's legal father. The donors whose egg and sperm were used shall have no right over the child.

6. In a case of a child born via surrogacy, using sperm and egg from a couple who want a surrogate, or others, the couple shall be the child's legal parents but they must allow the surrogate mother to breastfeed the child for at least three months. In cases in which the child is raised in a difficult situation, as per the Child Protection Act, the surrogate mother can sue or demand custody of a child, and a court can base judgement what appears best for the child's happiness and benefit.

There has been much debate in recent years over this sensitive issue. Those who support surrogacy claim the state should not intervene if people's actions don't harm others, saying that surrogacy would mutually benefit the couple and the surrogate mother and prevent child abduction or child trafficking.

Those opposed to surrogacy have said it is immoral and against human nature and would lead to exploitation, such as surrogacy for hire, as well as affecting the child and society. They also raised the question of what to do if a child is born prematurely or disabled, or if the couple changes their mind, and what if the couple only wants one child but the surrogate mother gives birth to twins or triplets.

Sources: http://www.nationmultimedia.com/national/Draft-law-on-surrogacy-ready-to-be-submitted-for-N-30240331.html

Supreme Court to decide plea regarding restrictions of Medical Termination of Pregnancy after 20 weeks

Hon’ble Supreme Court has agreed to examine the constitutional validity of the law that bans abortions after 20 weeks of pregnancy unless there’s an immediate threat to the would-be mother’s life. The Supreme Court on 5-8-2014 has decided to hear arguments on a plea seeking to extend the 20-week legal limit for abortion under the Medical Termination of Pregnancy (MTP) Act, 1971.

The Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971, allows abortions only till the 20th week of pregnancy for reasons such as severe foetal abnormalities or a grave risk to the pregnant woman’s health.

A bench headed by Justice Ranjan Gogoi posted the matter challenging the legal provision. Medical experts and women’s activists have for years been recommending that abortions be allowed beyond 20 weeks in case of a risk to the pregnant woman’s mental or physical health — even if it is not life-threatening — or severe foetal abnormalities. This is in line with the law in most countries where abortions are legal.

Senior advocate, appearing for petitioners Mrs X and Mrs Y (who suffered due to such provision), argued that the existing 20-week limit under the MTP Act violated women’s rights to bodily integrity as even in the case of severe foetal abnormalities, it forced women to carry pregnancies. He argued that with the advancement in technology, the restriction did not hold good as the abnormalities in the foetus could be detected earlier.

Three people have approached the Supreme Court, seeking an extension of the limit on abortion from 20 to 28 weeks. Patient Mrs. Niketa Mehta in year 2008 approached Hon’ble Bombay High Court for allowing her to undergo abortion after a cardiac defect was detected in the foetus in the 24th week of gestation. However, at that time her petition was rejected by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court stating that provisions allowing MTP up to 20 weeks are constitutional, valid and legal.

 

However, in present petition before Hon’ble Supreme Court, it is argued that, the legislation was made on the basis of a study carried out in 1971. The Medical Termination of Pregnancy (MTP) Act also came into force in 1971. Now, with advanced technology, there is no harm in women going for abortion at any stage. Even a committee of experts has suggested that extension will cause no mental or physical harm.

The National Commission for Women, the Federation of Obstetricians and Gynecologists of India (FOGSI), the international community and women's groups agree that the 20-week limit imposed by the MTP Act is irrational, outdated and unconstitutional. Out of the 26 million births that occur in India every year, approximately 2-3 per cent foetuses have a severe congenital or chromosomal abnormality, the petition said.

Most countries, which have legalised abortion, allow termination after 20 weeks in case of severe foetal abnormalities or to protect the mental or physical health of a pregnant woman.

However, it is pertinent to note that the period between 16 and 20 weeks is the ideal time to check for anomalies in foetuses through Sonography. Doctors generally ask a patient to undergo tests around the 18th week to find abnormalities.

It is true that some anomalies are picked only at a later stage of pregnancy but don't know whether raising MTP to the 28th week will be a good decision.

http://surrogacyindia.com/updateevent.php?cat_id=5&id=86

Children born through surrogates stranded

SOME 50 children born through Thai surrogates for Israeli couples have remained in Thailand since late last year due to an issue over their travel documents.

Thathree Chaowachata, chief of the Foreign Ministry's Department of Consular Affairs' Legalisation and Naturalisation Division, said these cases included homosexual couples.

Speaking at a Bangkok seminar, Thathree said the parents had applied for the children to leave the country using Israeli travel documents.

However, after consultation with police, he said it was to be determined if using a Thai as a surrogate who was not a blood relative fell within the frame of human trafficking.

Natthajak Patamasingh na Ayudhya, the Office of the Attorney-General's International Affairs Department executive, said interpreting the law in this case would take a long time, so the ruling junta should urgently consider the matter.

He said the Social Development and Human Security Ministry's draft legislation for the protection of children born through the use of assisted reproductive technology (ART) was currently being considered by the Council of State.

The bill would require ART procedures to be completed by a certified doctor, not be advertised commercially and the child must be guaranteed a good future.

Natthajak said that without this bill, people would use legal loopholes to benefit from the surrogacy business, which would lead to more social problems.

The Medical Council of Thailand will meet in mid-August to review its regulation for ART service standards in a bid to prevent abuses such as illegal surrogacy or embryo sex selection.

Council president Dr Somsak Lohlekha said the body would amend the law so it is clearer in the banning of ART for homosexuals and single women, and the banning of egg-donation advertisements.

Somsak said under the law only a spouse's blood relative, who has at least one child, can be a donor. 

 

http://www.nationmultimedia.com/national/Children-born-through-surrogates-stranded-30239973.html

 

Obama Signs Historic LGBT Non-Discrimination Order

 

On Monday morning, President Obama signed an executive LGBT non-discrimination order, barring discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity among federal contractors. The order also protects all federal employees from discrimination on the basis of gender identity. Crucially, Obama did not include the broad religious exemption that some faith leaders had begged the White House for. (These requested exemptions would have allowed religiously affiliated corporations to fire gay and trans workers with impunity.) The executive order does, however, preserve a Bush-era exemption that allows religiously affiliated contractors to continue to preference workers of a certain religion.

The president’s action on job discrimination is probably his biggest single gay rights accomplishment since signing the repeal of “don’t ask, don’t tell.” As the gay marriage battle draws to a close, Obama repeatedly targeted LGBT job discrimination as the next frontier of gay rights, urging Congress to outlaw it through federal legislation. But the Republican-controlled House has refused to countenace any sort of LGBT non-discrimination law, even after a bipartisan coalition pushed a weak bill through the Senate. That bill recently lost support from gay rights groups in the wake of Hobby Lobby thanks to its broad religious exemptions, officially flat-lining the effort for the foreseeable future.

Obama’s executive order won’t help nearly as many workers as federal legislation would, though it’s estimated that his ordinance will protect an impressive 20 percent of the American labor force. His order is also a moral victory for the LGBTQ movement, which fretted that Hobby Lobby would lead to a new era of discrimination under the guise of religious liberty. Although the debate over religious exemptions remains fierce and unsettled, Obama’s refusal to hand religiously affiliated companies a special license to discriminate suggests his administration has not bought into the notion that legalizing bigotry is necessary to preserve religious freedom. 

http://www.slate.com/blogs/outward/2014/07/21/obama_signs_history_executive_enda_forbidding_lgbt_discrimination.html

Clinic to bulk-bill for IVF parents

Ally, 3, Mark, Lincoln, 7 weeks, and Jane Brown at home in Blacktown.

 

IVF patients are set to save thousands with a new cut-price clinic offering to bulk-bill almost all services. 

Primary Health Care, Australia’s largest medical centre provider, has chosen Sydney to open its first bulk-billing IVF clinic, which will slash the average out-of-pocket expenses for patients to about $500 compared with the average gap of $4000 in private clinics.

The IVF clinic, which opens today at Town Hall in Sydney’s CBD, has already had 300 inquiries.

University of NSW figures show there were more than 61,000 IVF cycles in Australia in 2011. The average cost for treatment is about $8000 with between $3000 and $4000 covered by Medicare.

Primary Health Care chief executive Dr Edmund Bateman said with 60 medical clinics and 150 diagnostic practices nationwide, it was big enough to offer bulk-billed IVF treatment and absorb any additional costs instead of passing it on to patients.

“If the medical procedure has an item number (with Medicare) we will bulk-bill it and you will pay nothing for it,” Dr Bateman said.

Patients would still be charged for services not covered by Medicare such as the freezing of embryos and day surgery, which are expected to cost no more than $500.

Blacktown mum Jane Brown, 37, who used IVF treatment to conceive her two children, Ally, 3 and Lincoln, seven weeks, said bulk-billed fertility treatments would be amazing for “average families,” like hers.

Ms Brown and her husband Mark paid about $5000 each for six IVF cycles over eight years to conceive their two children. “We are still paying for it now but in the long run it is worth it of course,” Ms Brown said.

“There are a lot of average families out there who would not be able to afford it because it is too expensive.”

Infertility support group Access Australia chief executive Dr Sandra Dill was cautiously optimistic of the bulk-billing clinic. “If it is true there would be greater equity of access for treatment because there won’t be any additional costs,” Ms Dill said.

“But we would encourage people to seek advice from a number of clinics to decide what treatment is best.’’

Ms Dill said IVF was a huge burden for many couples.

“We are regularly contacted by people asking for clinics with the best results because they have taken out loans and can’t afford for it not to work.”

Dr Bateman said the IVF clinic had the staff and resources to conduct 5000 cycles are year but could double that if there was a greater demand.

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/clinic-to-bulkbill-for-ivf-parents/story-fni0cx4q-1226995515410?nk=056c571f30702139c548e6eb147f4072

Kenya: Judge Makes Groundbreaking Ruling On Surrogacy

Who is your mother? Is she the woman who gave birth to you -- the woman who is genetically related to you -- or the woman who intends for you to be born and plans to take up parental responsibility as outlined in the Children's Act?

Under section 23, parental responsibility means all the duties, rights, powers, responsibilities and authority which by law a parent has in relation to the child. This includes the duty to maintain the child and to provide him with an adequate diet, shelter, clothing, medical care, education and guidance and protect the child from neglect, discrimination and abuse.

Hospitals have to indicate the mother's particulars and name on the notification of birth slip and the registrar of births and deaths has to issue a birth certificate when a child is born. However, there is a dilemma when it comes to registering surrogate children and the recognition of surrogacy agreements.

Whereas the status of motherhood used to be "self-evident" by the pregnancy and birth of a child, new reproductive techniques (discussed in last week's article) have evolved in recent years ahead of jurisprudence, thereby complicating and overwhelming the issue of maternal and reproductive health rights.This means that there is a gap in the Kenyan laws since the laws do not directly address these emerging forms of parenthood.

In surrogacy arrangements, there are potentially three different players with different maternal rights: the donor who supplied the ovum, the woman who gestated and gave birth to the child, and the woman for whom the child was intended. The genetic rule is based on the view that a woman's genetic contribution to a child is the most determinative factor while the gestational maternity rule is primarily based on the emotional and physical connection developed during pregnancy. The intent based maternity rule is based on the fact that at the beginning of every surrogacy arrangement, the commissioning mother has the preconception intent to raise the child and the surrogate mother has the intent to surrender the child. We must not lose sight of the fact that under the constitution at Article 26, life begins at inception.

On June 30, a monumental judgment was delivered by Justice Majanja setting the precedent on how surrogacy arrangements and the conception of motherhood will be adjudicated in Kenya given that Parliament has yet to legislate or develop policy on this matter.

http://allafrica.com/stories/201407100595.html

Sweden to amend the Citizenship Act to include clause of citizenship of a child at birth wef 1st April 2015

The rules on how a child gets Swedish citizenship at birth will be changed so that women and men are treated equal. This means that a child will always be a Swedish citizen at birth if one parent has it.

Source : http://www.regeringen.se/sb/d/18540/a/235887

New surrogacy laws to allow couples chance at parenthood

Changes to the Law on Marriage and Family will allow close relatives to become surrogate mothers. Duong Dang Hue, director of the Civil and Economic Department at the Ministry of Justice explains the new reforms. 

Surrogacy has been illegal in Viet Nam for many years, why does MoJ want to revise the Law on Marriage and Family to lift the ban?

The revised law we are drafting will include an article on surrogacy for humanitarian purposes. The idea itself originated with direct requests from the Vietnamese people. 

In Vietnamese culture, many families consider it important to have children to continue the family name. In the north, it is not as important, but in the south, it is. 

It is unfortunate that in our society, a number couples do not have the ability to reproduce and have children of their own. It is especially unfortunate when they themselves are an only child. 

Many couples in need of surrogacy have resorted to asking hospitals for permission to engage in surrogacy. Many doctors reading these letters have felt the pain of these couples and want to help them, but do not want to break the law. This led to a number of doctors submitting a request to MoJ to consider the issue on humanitarian grounds. 

I myself fully support the proposal. Surrogacy is the best solution to this heart wrenching problem and is of humanitarian significance. For women unable to have children, it gives them a chance to experience motherhood. 

Don't you think that if surrogacy is legalised, some people will abuse the law to make money?

Yes, quite a few people have expressed concerns about this. 

In my opinion, these allegations are not substantial. Despite the current ban, breaches are occurring. By legalising surrogacy, we can prevent harmful practices taking place in the shadows and ensure the infants of surrogate couples are receiving appropriate attention from doctors, even in the early stages of pregnancy. 

This is good for babies and surrogates and we can address health complications as they arise throughout the pregnancy. 

Will the new law stipulate conditions on who is eligible for surrogacy and to be a surrogate?

Absolutely, the law will provide the requirements for eligible couples and eligible surrogate mothers.

Here I just want to reiterate that surrogacy will only be granted to couples where the wives, for health reasons, are physically incapable of having children. 

Eligible surrogates must be between the ages of 21 and 40 and be healthy. They must already have at least one child.

Most importantly, the two parties must consent that the planned surrogacy is solely for humanitarian purposes and not for financial gain.

The draft law will also stipulate that the surrogate mother must be a relative of either the husband or wife. In the event the couple cannot find any willing relatives, they may ask a non-relative woman. Do you think this is unreasonable?

Yes, during the drafting process we touched on this issue. We acknowledged there were pros and cons ideas of requiring the surrogate mother to be a relative. 

However, my own position is consistent with the policy's requirements. I favour the notion that the surrogate mother must be a relative, for two reasons. First, to minimise the risk of commercialising surrogacy and second, to ensure the surrogate is more likely to empathise with the couple's desire to have children of their own. 

http://vietnamnews.vn/opinion/243419/new-surrogacy-laws-to-allow-couples-chance-at-parenthood.html

Its Your Day, Doctor's!!!

Thank You

For the hard work, stress
and sleepless nights you have endured!

For the compassion, concern
and kindness you have shown!

And for the obstacles you've had to overcome
in the never ending fight for the best for your patients!!!

Happy Doctor's Day!!! 

Plan for surrogate births

A project team of the Liberal Democratic Party has recently compiled a bill on assisted reproductive technologies. It would not only allow donations of sperm and ova from third parties for the purpose of having babies but also conditionally allow surrogate births.

The team hopes to submit the bill to the Diet in the current session, but its prospect is unclear because the LDP is considering other legislation that bans surrogate births in light of the lingering opposition within the party to such births.

Assisted reproductive technologies involve sensitive ethical and legal issues. The LDP team’s draft legislation, put together by lawmakers behind closed doors, failed to address some of those issues, leaving them up for future discussion. Informed public discussions on the issue are indispensable.

Japan currently has no law that regulates surrogate births. The relevant panel of the Health, Labor and Welfare Ministry as well as the Japan Society of Obstetrics and Gynecology have opposed surrogate births on the grounds that “people should not be used as a means of reproduction.” However, a maternity doctor in Nagano Prefecture is known to have handled more than a dozen surrogate births, while a much larger number of Japanese couples are believed to have had children through surrogate birth arrangements overseas.

The LDP team’s bill would allow an arrangement in which a third-party surrogate carries a fetus to term for the intended parents if the woman cannot become pregnant because of surgical operations or the congenital absence of the uterus.

Surrogate birth imposes a great burden on the surrogate mother. The bill does not specify who would be qualified to become surrogate mothers and what protections to afford them. Surrogacy could involve other problems. A surrogate mother might develop a strong affection for the baby and refuse to give it up to the intended parents. Or intended parents might refuse to accept a child born to a surrogate mother if it has a serious disease or birth defect.

From the viewpoint of people who wish to resort to surrogacy to have children, the bill leaves key questions unanswered. It states that the woman who gives birth in a surrogacy arrangement should be recognized as the mother. The LDP team says it will consider — in the future — a scheme to establish a legal parent-child relationship between a child born to a surrogate mother and the intended parents. The absence of such a scheme would discourage many couples who want but cannot have babies from seeking surrogacy.

The bill would also allow donation of sperm or ova either for artificial insemination or in vitro fertilization. Sperm or ova must be donated by unidentified third parties. But the LDP team has postponed discussion on whether children born this way have the right to know their biological father or mother. There have been cases in which such children have developed a strong desire to find their biological parents and suffer emotionally. Donors of sperm or ova can also suffer psychologically if they are contacted by their biological children.

Japan needs a legal framework on assisted reproductive technologies. But hasty legislation with holes will cause confusion as various problems are inherent to the technologies. The government and lawmakers need to study potential problems and listen to opinions from wide sectors of society.

Couples who want but cannot have children also should remember that adoption could also be an option.

http://www.japantimes.co.jp/opinion/2014/06/15/editorials/plan-surrogate-births/#.U57Z0nZsD91 

Happy Daddy's Day!!!

My Daddy

 

My Daddy is a mountain
My Daddy is a sea
My Daddy smiles again and again
I love my Daddy
And I know he loves me
'cause my Daddy is a ray of lite
that warms a winters' eve
My daddy is very special to me
I could not live without my daddy
as he could not live without me.

Israel's Cabinet approves surrogacy for same-sex couples and single people

A bill permitting same-sex couples and single men and women to use surrogacy in Israel has been approved by the Israeli Cabinet. The bill now needs to be passed by Israel's parliament, the Knesset, before it can become law.

Under the current law only married heterosexual couples can use surrogacy in Israel. Same-sex couples and single parents are required to travel overseas and to enter into international surrogacy agreements, incurring extra costs and facing legal complications. Earlier this year the Israeli Government came under pressure from parents after it refused citizenship to babies born through surrogacy arrangements conducted in Thailand after a change in Thai parenthood laws, leaving parents unable to bring their children back home (reported in BioNews 739 and 740).

Elad, from Tel Aviv, whose six-month-old daughter was born via surrogacy, told the Jerusalem Post that together with his partner they went through an expensive, complicated and cumbersome two-year process that involved weaving through the bureaucratic red tape in order to bring their daughter from India to Israel.

'It's very unfortunate that up until now it hasn't been an option for us to be able to go through the process in Israel', he said.

The bill was introduced by health minister Yael German and, if passed, will permit any couple, including homosexuals, to be eligible to use surrogates in Israel if they are under the age of 54 and up to a maximum of two children (reported in BioNews 735). It will also allow single people to use surrogates in certain circumstances.

German said that 'the bill balances the desire and right of everyone to be a parent with protecting the surrogate mother and her rights'.

It is expected that the bill may increase the accessibility of such services to a wider range of Israeli citizens. In 2012, 126 people undertook the process abroad, while only 41 had surrogate births in Israel.

In support of the bill, Ofer Shelah, a member of the Knesset, said in the Times of Israel: 'This is an important step toward changing the face of Israeli society, and raising awareness. The surrogacy law is a significant process toward equality and openness, and from the moment it was presented by the health minister, we promised we would fight without compromising until it passes in the cabinet and Knesset.

'We kept this promise, despite a political struggle that wasn't simple, and we will continue to keep it until it becomes part of Israeli law'.

However, Irit Rosenblum, founder of the NGO, New Family, cautioned that the bill merely pays lip service to the LGBT community and any celebrating at this point would be premature. 'The new bill, with all of its humiliating committees and complex system that deals with agencies and laboratories abroad that have to authorise [the surrogacy], this ensures that there will be no surrogacy in Israel and many people will remain miserable'.

The Cabinet approval overturned an appeal by Housing Minister Uri Ariel. The Knesset is yet to approve the proposed legislation and although members of the Jewish Home party are opposed to the proposal, the Times of Israel published that the bill is likely to be passed. 

http://www.bionews.org.uk/page_427299.asp

SI is closed on 5th June, 2014

SI will not be working tomorrow (i.e.5th June, 2014) hence there could be delay in reply to the emails. 

However, you may always give us a call in an emergency situation.

Dr Sudhir Ajja's Birthday celebration

We celebrated Dr Sudhir Ajja's birthday yesterday.

The theme was super heroes.

Where most of us were Bat Women, a few Super Women and an Angel with Dr Sudhir Ajja being an Iron Man.

Fun filled Lunch. Enjoyed the Day!!!