Brandon Showalter reports for Christian Post that on February 27, 2018, Washington state’s House of Representatives passed a bill that legalizes commercial surrogacy — women renting out their wombs to produce babies for others. Earlier, on February 7, the bill SB 6037: Uniform Parentage Act, had been approved by the Washington state Senate.
Children’s rights advocates say if the bill becomes law, it amounts to the selling of babies, bases the definition of a parent on “intent,” and opens avenues for child abuse and other horrors.
As in the case of the Oregon legislature’s passage of HB 4135, an evil bill that paves the way for healthcare representatives to remove access to food and water for patients with dementia and Alzheimer’s, effectively starving them to death, Washington state’s SB 6037 also passed on party line:
- SB 6037 was approved in the Washington state House, with every Democrat in favor and every Republican opposed.
- SB 6037 was passed by the state Senate with total Democratic support and three Republicans.
Rep. Liz Pike (R-HD 18) said:
“For House Republicans, this bill was a matter of conscience. We all voted ‘no’ to protect the womb from being monetized and commercialized. This bill sets virtually no limits on the amount people will be able to sell or purchase a human baby for. I’m disgusted that such a bill would ever be considered let alone pass. What have we become as a state, selling human babies to the highest bidder? Is this who we are?“
There are three things wrong with SB 6037:
(1) SB 6037 would lead to the exploitation of economically disadvantaged and vulnerable women who think surrogacy is just another way to make money, because the bill contains:
- No limits on how many children can be procured through surrogacy arrangements.
- No requirements that:
- The women must be inseminated in Washington state.
- People intending to pay for surrogacy services must be residents of Washington state or even U.S. citizens. All it takes is one consultation that occurs on Washington soil and a contract can be legally enforced even if the individuals using the surrogate mother hail from nations where surrogacy is prohibited.
Katy Faust (what an unfortunate surname), who leads children’s rights organization Them Before Us and testified against the legislation during the hearings, said:
“When I say that we have established a global marketplace for children, I am not exaggerating. That is exactly what this is. Once you legalize something and commercialize something, you’re going to get more of it.”
(2) SB 6037 opens the door to child abuse — to people buying babies for all the wrong reasons, including pedophilia. But the Washington state legislature voted down all motions to:
- Amend the bill requiring “intended parents” — the people renting the surrogate wombs — to be subject to the same screening procedures as adoptive parents.
- Create a state-run database to track those intended parents and limit the number of births.
Rep. Pike notes that:
“In its current form, as it passed out of the House, the bill even permits convicted felons to purchase human babies. There was a host of amendments offered by my esteemed colleagues that would have put needed protections in the bill, but of course, the Democrats systematically rejected them all — one by one.”
(3) SB 6037 radically redefines “parent” as intent, instead of biology. Faust explains:
“What this bill actually does is establish that all it takes for [the state government] to decide that one gets full authority over a vulnerable baby is one’s ‘intent’ to parent. It doesn’t matter if you have any biological connection to the child at all. It doesn’t matter how many adults, if one is single or married. If you intend to parent and create a contract and have the means to create a child through surrogacy or other reproductive technologies, we will give you our full authority.”
Faust points out that mere “intent” to parent flies in the face of all of best practices of adoption. It also violates the Hague Convention on international adoption that has been adopted by 70 nations around the world. The number one predictor of child abuse is a home where a cohabiting male is present who is not related to the child. But he, too, can be a legal “parent” under this bill.
It’s not as if there are no abuses of the “fertility industry”. In fact, several countries have closed their borders to surrogacy altogether, banning third party reproductive operators from conducting business there, precisely because of abuses. Faust gave each legislature a copy of a list of documented cases where surrogacy-related incidents went horribly wrong, including:
- A case where two men were convicted of subjecting their surrogate-born son to, as one investigator described it, “the worst [paedophile] rings … if not the worst ring I’ve ever heard of.” Police believe the men created the boy through surrogacy ”for the sole purpose” of pedophilia.
- The Straits Times recently reported that 28-year-old Japanese billionaire Mitsutoki Shigeta, who is not married, won custody of 13 children that his sperm was used to create through an American-owned fertility clinic operating in Bangkok, using surrogates from Thailand. He reportedly told the clinic he wanted to produce 10 to 15 babies per year and continue the baby-making process until he dies, yielding potentially hundreds of children.
“We are knowingly putting children in situations where they are statistically the most likely to be abused and neglected. People don’t get what a massive shift this is. We are messing with the nature of what it means to be a human baby. That is what we’re doing.”
The last step for the bill to become law is the governor’s signature. Gov. Jay Inslee, a Democrat, is expected to sign the legislation.
Commercial surrogacy is also legal in California and legislation is currently under consideration in a few other states.
H/t FOTM‘s MomOfIV