Bill Legalizing Gestational Surrogacy in NY Fails as Session Nears Close
“We must ensure that the health and welfare of women who enter into these arrangements are protected, and that reproductive surrogacy does not become commercialized,” Heastie said.
June 20, 2019 at 02:11 PM
4 minute read
New York will continue its ban on allowing women to be paid to act as gestational surrogates for individuals who can not physically have a child on their own, such as infertile or same-sex couples.
Assembly Speaker Carl Heastie, D-Bronx, confirmed in a statement Thursday morning that his chamber would not take up legislation to legalize surrogacy before the end of this year's legislative session.
He said the bill ultimately didn't have the support to pass after a number of concerns were aired by members of the Democratic conference, who hold a majority in the chamber. Some members were worried the bill was a slippery slope toward commercializing women's bodies.
“We must ensure that the health and welfare of women who enter into these arrangements are protected, and that reproductive surrogacy does not become commercialized,” Heastie said. “This requires careful thought. While our work for this session is nearly complete, I look forward to continuing this conversation in the coming months with our members and interested parties to develop a solution that works for everyone.”
Heastie said it wasn't any single member of the chamber that stopped the bill from coming to the floor; a “large majority of women” raised concerns about the measure, he said. Other Democrats, including Gov. Andrew Cuomo, have singled out a handful of Democrats in the Assembly in recent days who are opposed to the measure.
A major reservation held by opponents of the bill dealt with protections for women who enter into surrogacy agreements. But Cuomo, who's pushed hard in recent weeks for the bill to become law, has said the proposal would include several safeguards to address those concerns.
Those who agree to act as a surrogate would be required to have an attorney to execute the agreement, for example. That attorney would be chosen by the surrogate, but paid for by the intended parent or parents. Family court judges would have also been responsible for overseeing proceedings during which the so-called parentage of a child conceived through surrogacy is determined.
A surrogacy agreement also wouldn't preclude women from making their own decisions about their health care, according to the bill. They would still have the right to terminate a pregnancy, for example.
Cuomo criticized lawmakers in the Assembly for failing to pass the bill Thursday, comparing the issue to New York's recently enacted measure that enshrined the same protections from Roe v. Wade into state law.
“I say, how about a woman's right to choose, which we just argued for Roe v. Wade?” Cuomo said. “But in this state we say the woman must have an attorney, the woman must have a health counselor, the transaction will be supervised under the Department of Health, the woman can't be in dire economic conditions, but you still believe the woman is not competent to make that decision.”
State Sen. Brad Hoylman, D-Manhattan, sponsors the bill in the Senate, which already approved the bill earlier this month. Hoylman, the only openly gay member of the Senate, has two children born from surrogates in other states. He was disappointed the bill didn't come to the floor, but said he would try again next year.
“My children are the most important thing in the world to me,” Hoylman said. “Everyone in New York, including LGBTQ and people struggling with infertility, should have the same opportunity to build a family as my husband and me and the residents of the 47 other states that allow compensated surrogacy agreements.”
Lawmakers are expected to leave Albany either later Thursday or early Friday and aren't scheduled to return until next January.
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