Give New Yorkers the Same Reproductive Rights Found in Other States
The proposed Child-Parent Security Act, currently under consideration by the New York State Legislature and which Governor Cuomo supports, should be passed.
February 28, 2019 at 02:00 PM
5 minute read
The proposed Child-Parent Security Act, currently under consideration by the New York State Legislature and which Governor Cuomo supports, should be passed.
An increasing number of U.S. states have statutes or case law which in some fashion permit commercial gestational surrogacy. As it stands now, only Michigan and New York have statutes which expressly consider the practice to be criminal. The New York statute, enacted in 1992, indicates that engaging in commercial surrogacy is unlawful and leads to fines and potential felony prosecution. This New York criminalization of surrogacy occurred as a direct result of the infamous 1988 Baby M case in New Jersey (109 N.J. 396 (1988)). “Baby M” was a custody dispute between the birth mother and intended parents. In that case, the baby was the genetic child of the surrogate (this is called a “traditional” surrogacy, rarely done nowadays). A woman cannot relinquish parental rights to her genetic child before birth, so the Baby M contract itself was invalidated. However, the resonance of this case has unfairly hindered the practice of gestational surrogacy, which involves the surrogate carrying an embryo created from the egg of the intended mother or a third-party egg donor (no genetic relation to the surrogate). It is well past the time for New York to join the likes of Illinois, New Hampshire, Maine, New Jersey, Washington and others in permitting—with sensible regulation and standards—commercial gestational surrogacy.
We have in New York arguably the most talented and sophisticated reproductive endocrinologists and IVF clinics anywhere. Yet for the last several decades these physicians have been unable to serve a large cross-section of patients (cancer survivors, gay men, women who have suffered repeated miscarriages or endured hysterectomies, women taking necessary medication inconsistent with safe pregnancy) who are legitimately unable to carry a baby, yet long for a genetic child. Prospective parents in New York have not been shut out, however—they instead have worked at clinics in more accommodating states and with carriers who reside in favorable venues. Babies are born in states other than New York, with legal orders of parentage and birth certificates, then brought back home with their New York parents. This entire circuitous mechanism has been rendered necessary because of New York's continued prohibition on surrogacy within its borders.
Critics warn that commercial surrogacy will result in an underclass of breeders, that it is exploitative of poor women, that it is only for celebrities or multi-millionaires. As a lawyer in this field for the last 20 years, I can confidently say that these charges are wholly inaccurate. The cases which don't make the news, but are emblematic of the vast majority of relationships I have been involved with, look very different from what the alarmists see as “baby selling.” Carriers are often college educated and have an appreciation for the major significance of this endeavor. They have the support of their spouse or partner. They are nurses, middle school teachers, veterinary technicians and stay-at-home moms. They are used to caring for others. A typical surrogate's family is solidly middle class—spouse or partner might be in law enforcement or construction or small business. Not wealthy, but far from desperate and destitute. And eager to save for college for their children (all carriers have given birth before) or for a down payment on a house or for some other justifiable need.
Intended parents (this is the terminology used) cannot—at any responsible clinic or program—be motivated by anything other than legitimate medical reasons. Any frivolous effort at “outsourcing” a pregnancy is exposed pretty quickly and rational physicians, mental health professionals and programs will not be in a position to assist. Rather, a common scenario would involve an intended mother on tamoxifen after breast cancer surgery, or an intended mother with a cardiac condition requiring medication which makes pregnancy dangerous, or a gay male couple now able to get married legally and wishing to have children just as any other young married couple might want. The costs are high and insurance coverage is minimal to non-existent, but it is worth it to these families.
Surrogacy has its place on the spectrum of reproductive freedom—a cause championed by Governor Cuomo. New York legislators should see the value in providing their own residents with the same reproductive rights and life-affirming opportunities found in other states. Going elsewhere for medical care and finding carriers in states other than one's own should be a choice, not a requirement, for anyone contemplating having a baby through surrogacy.
Sanford M. Benardo is an assisted reproduction lawyer in New York and co-founder of the Northeast Assisted Fertility Group.
Read More:
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllRetired Judge Susan Cacace Elected Westchester DA in Win for Democrats
In Eric Adams Case and Other Corruption Matters, Prosecutors Seem Bent on Pushing Boundaries of Their Already Awesome Power
5 minute readEric Adams Trial Set for April as Defense Urges Dismissal of Bribery Count
Major Drug Companies Agree to Pay $49.1 Million to 50 States, Territories
3 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Gibson Dunn Sued By Crypto Client After Lateral Hire Causes Conflict of Interest
- 2Trump's Solicitor General Expected to 'Flip' Prelogar's Positions at Supreme Court
- 3Pharmacy Lawyers See Promise in NY Regulator's Curbs on PBM Industry
- 4Outgoing USPTO Director Kathi Vidal: ‘We All Want the Country to Be in a Better Place’
- 5Supreme Court Will Review Constitutionality Of FCC's Universal Service Fund
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250