Australia’s Largest Christian News Site

A NSW parliamentary inquiry into assisted reproduction has put commercial surrogacy in the spotlight, with witnesses clashing over ethics, human rights, and the law.

A committee of the New South Wales Parliament has begun hearing testimony about the regulation of assisted reproduction and fertility support. Two all-day sessions were held on 20 and 21 April, and two more have been scheduled for later in the year.  

The terms of reference for the Upper House inquiry cover a range of issues, from the economic impact of infertility to barriers to accessing IVF, and infertility education.  

Much of assisted reproduction is politically and ethically fraught, but one of the most controversial issues is the legalisation of commercial surrogacy.  

Although “altruistic surrogacy” – no compensation other than reasonable expenses – is permitted, commercial surrogacy, in which the birth mother is paid, is banned.  

However, demand for surrogacy has grown, especially for gay couples.   

In NSW, surrogacy is regulated under the Surrogacy Act 2010 (NSW). A Legislative Council committee has been tasked with examining how “to better support families and surrogates through surrogacy”, investigating surrogacy regulation overseas, and examining the possibility of a national legal framework. 

Church and Feminists Unite Against Surrogacy

Speaking for the Catholic Women’s League on 20 April, Dr Anna Walsh defended the Catholic Church’s consistent stand on surrogacy. 

Although she did not cite him, the late Pope Francis condemned surrogacy as “deplorable” and “a grave violation of the dignity of the woman and the child, based on the exploitation of situations of the mother’s material needs”.   

Walsh’s opening statement was followed by pointed questioning by Greens MLC Dr Amanda Cohn.  

“Aren’t you recommending that the whole state of New South Wales should be governed based on Catholic beliefs?” Cohn asked.  

Walsh responded that opposition to surrogacy is widespread.  

“Opposition to surrogacy is not constrained to people of faith based on some sacred texts that only people who are members understand,” she said.  

“Rather, it’s a shared perspective about the human person based on common wisdom which leads to certain conclusions about what is good for society. One of those conclusions is that there is no moral right to have a child, and the state should not grant a legal right to people to have a child via surrogacy legislation.”  

Walsh referred to a submission to the committee by a group called Feminist International Network of Resistance to Reproductive and Genetic Engineering (Australia), which states that “all surrogacy constitutes a human rights violation. We therefore want all surrogacy abolished.” 

The World Health Organisation, continued Cohn, has declared that everyone – “heterosexual, homosexual or single by choice” – has a right to access remedies for infertility.  

Walsh responded that the best interests of the child should be paramount in legislation.  

And they will be best protected, she told Cohn, “within a marriage between a man and a woman, which is for life, that gives the child the security they need to flourish. 

“So we would disagree with that kind of wider view that anyone who desires a child should be assisted through the law to be able to achieve that end.”  

“People will do whatever it takes”

Another witness, “family creation lawyer” Sarah Jefford, put some numbers on the prevalence of surrogacy in Australia. She has extensive experience in the surrogacy industry, as an egg donor and a surrogate mother, capped off by a Churchill fellowship to study surrogacy legislation overseas.  

She said that between 130 and 150 surrogacy births occur in Australia every year, and 400 via international surrogacy. Commissioning couples hire women in countries such as the United States, Mexico, Guatemala, or Ukraine. 

Jefford supports a national surrogacy legal framework which permits commercial surrogacy in Australia and overseas. But she agreed with Anna Walsh about a key ethical principle. 

“There is no right to a child,” she told the committee. However, she believes that since the law is powerless to stop people resorting to surrogacy, it needs to be regulated. “People will not be denied having a child if that is what they want, and they will do whatever it takes to make that happen,” she said. 

UN Rapporteur: Surrogacy is a Human Rights Abuse

The day’s final witness was Reem Alsalem, who testified via video link from overseas. She is the current United Nations Special Rapporteur on Violence against Women and Girls.  

Alsalem was vehement in her condemnation of surrogacy, both altruistic and commercial, as a human rights abuse.  

“I was recently in Colombia,” she told the committee. “I spoke to a woman who was a surrogate mother two years before I actually met her. She could not stop crying throughout the entire interview. She feels that her life was hijacked from her – and this is a woman who has children. She felt cheated, she felt betrayed, but most of all, she felt utterly dehumanised and treated as cattle.”   

Alsalem takes an abolitionist stand on surrogacy. She compares it to prostitution, which also exploits women’s human rights. She believes surrogate mothers and the children are victims, but that the agencies and intermediaries which enable surrogacy are no better than pimps and should be prosecuted.  

Also scheduled to appear at the committee hearings as The Catholic Weekly went to press were the chancellor of the Archdiocese of Sydney Monica Doumit, director of the Plunkett Centre for Ethics Dr Xavier Symons, and ACT and NSW director of the Australian Christian Lobby Joshua Rowe. 

The hearings will conclude in late May. No date for the publication of its report has been announced, but it will likely be in the second half of the year.  

___

Republished with thanks to The Catholic Weekly. Image courtesy of Adobe.