|
Bebys -> RE: surogat majke (21.5.2010 11:08:26)
|
[/link] // [ [link=http://translate.googleusercontent.com/translate_c?hl=hr&langpair=en%7Chr&u=http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php%3Ftitle%3DSurrogacy%26action%3Dedit%26section%3D1&rurl=translate.google.com&usg=ALkJrhjBI0tnO1muvavyutlzYFudHwG3gA]edit ] Terminology [ uredi ] Terminologija Surrogacy or Surrogate means substitute. Surrogacy ili surogat znaci zamjena. In medical parlance, the term surrogacy means using of a substitute mother in the place of the natural mother. U medicinskim govora, pojam surrogacy znači koristiti za nadomjestak majke na mjestu prirodne majke. In traditional surrogacy (also known as the Straight method) the surrogate is pregnant with her own biological child, but this child was conceived with the intention of relinquishing the child to be raised by others such as the biological father and possibly his spouse or partner. U tradicionalnom surrogacy (također poznat kao Straight metoda) surogat je trudna sa svojim biološko dijete, ali to dijete začeto s namjerom prepustivši djeteta da bude podignuta od strane drugih kao što su biološki otac, a možda i njegov bračni drug ili partner. The child may be conceived via sexual intercourse ( NI ), home artificial insemination using fresh or frozen sperm or impregnated via IUI (intrauterine insemination), or ICI (intracervical insemination) which is performed at a fertility clinic. Dijete može se zamisliti putem seksualnog odnosa ( NI ), dom umjetno osjemenjivanje koristi svježe ili smrznute sperme ili impregnirani putem IUI (intrauterini osjemenjavanje), ili ICI (intracervikalni osjemenjivanje) koja je nastupila na plodnost klinici. Sperm from the male partner of the 'commissioning couple' may be used, or alternatively, sperm from a sperm donor can be used. Spermiji od muških partnera 'puštanja u pogon par' mogu koristiti, ili alternativno, spermu donora sperme iz se može koristiti. Donor sperm will, for example, be used if the 'commissioning couple' are both female or where the child is commissioned by a single woman. Donator sperme će se, na primjer, može koristiti ako je "puštanje u pogon par 'su obje ženskog ili gdje dijete je naručio jednu ženu. In gestational surrogacy (aka the Host method) the surrogate becomes pregnant via embryo transfer with a child of which she is not the biological mother. Kod gestacijskog surrogacy (tzv. metoda Host) zamjenskom zatrudni putem embriotransfera s djetetom od kojih ona nije biološka majka. She may have made an arrangement to relinquish it to the biological mother or father to raise, or to a parent who is unrelated to the child (eg because the child was conceived using egg donation , sperm donation or is the result of a donated embryo). Ona svibanj imati je napravio dogovor da ga se odreći biološka majka ili otac podići, ili roditelj koji se ne odnose na dijete (npr. jer je dijete začeto korištenjem jaje donaciju , donacija sperme ili je rezultat donirao embrija) . The surrogate mother may be called the gestational carrier. Surogat majka može nazvati gestacijsku prijevoznika. Altruistic surrogacy is a situation where the surrogate receives no financial reward for her pregnancy or the relinquishment of the child (although usually all expenses related to the pregnancy and birth are paid by the intended parents such as medical expenses, maternity clothing, and other related expenses). [ 1 ] Altruist surrogacy je situacija u kojoj surogat ne dobiva novčanu nagradu za nju trudnoće ili odricanje od djeteta (iako sve troškove vezane za trudnoću i porod su obično plaća namijenjen roditeljima, kao što su medicinske troškove, materinstvo odjeću, i ostali povezani troškovi ). [1] Commercial surrogacy is a form of surrogacy in which a gestational carrier is paid to carry a child to maturity in her womb and is usually resorted to by higher income infertile couples who can afford the cost involved or people who save and borrow in order to complete their dream of being parents. Poslovni surrogacy je oblik u kojem surrogacy gestacijski prijevoznik plaća za nošenje djeteta do dospijeća u njezinoj utrobi i obično pribjegavaju prema višim prihodima neplodnih parova koji si mogu priuštiti troškove koji su uključeni i ljudi koji spasiti i posuditi kako bi dovršili njihovu san da roditelji. This procedure is legal in several countries including in India where due to high international demand and ready availability of poor surrogates it is reaching industry proportions. Ovaj postupak je pravno u nekoliko zemalja, uključujući i one u Indiji , gdje zbog velike međunarodne potražnje i spreman dostupnost siromašnih surogati je dostizanje industrija razmjere. Commercial surrogacy is sometimes referred to by the emotionally charged and potentially offensive terms "wombs for rent", "outsourced pregnancies" or "baby farms". Poslovni surrogacy se ponekad opisuje i po emotivnim nabojem i potencijalno uvredljivim uvjetima "utrobu za iznajmljivanje", "outsourced trudnoća" ili "baby farmi". [ edit ] Rationale [ uredi ] Obrazloženje Intended parents may arrange a surrogate pregnancy because of female infertility , or other medical issues which may make the pregnancy or the delivery risky. Namijenjen roditelji mogu organizirati zamjenska trudnoću zbog neplodnosti ili drugim medicinskim pitanjima , koja može dati trudnoće ili isporuku rizično. A female intending parent may also be fertile and healthy, but unwilling to undergo pregnancy. Ženski namjerava roditelja također može biti plodna i zdrava, ali ne želi proći kroz trudnoću. Some homosexual male couples turn to surrogacy as an option in becoming parents. Neki muški homoseksualni parovi okrenuti surrogacy kao mogućnost da postanu roditelji. Alternatively, the intended parent may be a single male or a single woman who is unable to bring a pregnancy to full term. Alternativno, namijenjen roditelj može biti jedan muška osoba ili jednu ženu koja nije u mogućnosti donijeti trudnoću do punog mandata. [ edit ] Surrogate Mothers [ uredi ] surogat majke Surrogate Mothers may be relatives, friends, or previous strangers. Surogat majke mogu biti rođaka, prijatelja, ili prethodne strancima. Many surrogacy arrangements are made through agencies that help match up intended parents with women who want to be surrogates for a fee. Mnogi surrogacy dogovore preko agencije koje se podudaraju namjeru pomoći roditeljima s ženama koje žele biti surogati, za određenu naknadu. The agencies often help manage the complex medical and legal aspects involved. Agencije često pomoći upravljati složenim medicinskim i pravnim aspektima koji su uključeni. Surrogacy arrangements can also be made independently. Surrogacy aranžmani se također mogu napraviti samostalno. In compensated surrogacies the amount a surrogate receives varies widely from almost nothing above expenses to over $30,000. [ citation needed ] Careful screening is needed to assure their health as the gestational carrier incurs potential obstetrical risks. U surrogacies nadoknaditi iznos surogat prima varira od gotovo ništa iznad troškova na više od 30.000 dolara. [ uredi ] Oprezno probira je potreban kako bi se osiguralo njihovo zdravlje kao gestacijsku prijevoznik snosi potencijalne rizike akušerski. It is also advisable that the intended parents and the surrogate mothers have independent advocates to help them in the legal issues in surrogacy. Također, poželjno da je namijenjen roditelji i surogat majke imaju nezavisne zagovara im pomoći u pravnim pitanjima u surrogacy. It is estimated that in the United States, the payment for a surrogate mother ranges between US $25,000 and $50,000, the whole procedure can cost $75,000 to $90,000+. Procjenjuje se da u Sjedinjenim Američkim Državama, plaćanje za surogat majka varira između US $ 25.000 i $ 50.000, cijeli postupak može koštati $ 75,000 do $ 90,000 +. According to a poll on http://www.surromomsonline.com , fees anywhere from $10,000 to 30,000+ are considered fair by the surrogates themselves; with most voting in the $22,000-$35,000 range. Prema anketi o http://www.surromomsonline.com , naknade bilo gdje od $ 10,000 do 30,000 + smatraju sajmu preko surogati sebe; s većinom glasovanja u $ 22.000 - $ 35.000 rasponu. The fees for the rest of the process- including fertility clinics; lawyers; medical fees; and agencies and/or egg donors (if they're used) generally cost more than the fee going to the surrogate. Naknade za nastavak postupka uključujući plodnosti klinike, odvjetnici, medicinske naknade, te agencija i / ili jaje donatora (ako se koristi) uglavnom koštati više od naknada će se surogat. Gestational surrogacy costs more than traditional surrogacy, since more complicated medical procedures are required. Gestacijska surrogacy košta više od tradicionalnih surrogacy, budući kompliciranije medicinskih zahvata su obavezna. Surrogates who carry a baby for a family member (ie, sister or daughter) usually do so for expenses only. Surogati koji nose bebu za člana obitelji (tj., sestra ili kćer) najčešće to čine iz izdataka samo. [ edit ] History [ uredi ] Povijest Having another woman bear a child for a couple to raise, usually with the male half of the couple as the genetic father, is referred to in antiquity. Nakon drugom ženom roditi za par podići, obično s muškog pola para kao genetski otac je iz antike. Babylonian law and custom allowed this practice and infertile woman could use the practice to avoid the divorce which would likely otherwise be inevitable. [ 2 ] Babilonski zakona i običaja dozvoljeno ovu praksu i neplodnih žena može koristiti praksa da se izbjegne razvod koji bi se inače vjerojatno biti neizbježno. [2] Attorney Noel Keane is generally recognized as the creator of the legal idea of surrogate motherhood. Odvjetnik Noel Keane je općenito priznat kao tvorac pravnih ideja surogat majčinstva. However, it was not until he developed an association with physician Warren J. Ringold in the city of Dearborn, Michigan that the idea became feasible. Međutim, to nije bilo sve dok nije razvio zajedno s liječnikom Warren J. Ringold u gradu Dearbornu, Michigan da je ideja postala izvedivo. Dr. Ringold agreed to perform all of the artificial inseminations , and the clinic grew rapidly in the early part of 1981. Dr. Ringold dogovoreno za obavljanje svih umjetnih osjemenjivanja , klinika i ubrzano rastao u ranom dijelu 1981. Though Keane and Ringold were widely criticized by some members of the press and politicians, they continued and eventually advocated for the passage of laws that protected the idea of surrogate motherhood. Bill Handel , who is a partner in a Los Angeles Surrogacy firm, also attempted to have such laws passed in California, but his attempts were struck down in the State Congress. Iako Keane i Ringold bili široko kritiziran od strane nekih članova tiska i političara, nastavili su i na kraju zalagao za donošenje zakona koje su štitile ideja surogat majčinstva. Billa Händela , koji je partner u Los Angelesu Surrogacy tvrtke, također je pokušao da su takvi zakoni doneseni u Kaliforniji, ali je njegov pokušaj je pokosio u državi Kongresu. Presently, the idea of surrogate motherhood has gained some societal acceptance and laws protecting the contractual arrangements exist in eight states. [ 3 ] Danas se ideja surogatstvo je dobila neke društvene prihvatljivosti i zakoni štite ugovorne odredbe koje postoje u osam država. [3] In the United States , the issue of surrogacy was widely publicised in the case of Baby M , in which the surrogate and biological mother of Melissa Stern ("Baby M"), born in 1986, refused to cede custody of Melissa to the couple with whom she had made the surrogacy agreement. U Sjedinjenim Državama , pitanje surrogacy široko je objavljen u slučaju Baby M , u kojoj je surogat majka i biološki Melissa Stern ("Baby M"), rođen u 1986, odbila ustupiti pritvor Melissa u par s kojeg je napravio surrogacy sporazuma. The courts of New Jersey found that Mary Beth Whitehead was the child's legal mother and declared contracts for surrogate motherhood illegal and invalid. Sudovi New Jerseya otkrili da Mary Beth Whitehead je djetetova majka i pravnih proglašeno ugovora za surogatstvo nezakonite i nevažeće. However, the court found it in the best interests of the infant to award custody of Melissa to her biological father William Stern and his wife Elizabeth Stern, rather than to the surrogate mother Mary Beth Whitehead. Međutim, sud ga je našao u najboljem interesu djeteta do dodjele skrbništva nad Melissa da je njezin biološki otac William Stern i njegova supruga Elizabeth Stern, a ne na surogat majka Mary Beth Whitehead. [ edit ] Legality [ uredi ] Zakonitost The legal aspects surrounding surrogacy are very complex and mostly unsettled. Pravnim aspektima oko surrogacy su vrlo složene i uglavnom nenaseljen. There is a default legal assumption in most countries that the woman giving birth to a child is that child's legal mother. Postoji zadani zakonski u većini zemalja pretpostavka da je žena rađanju djeteta je da dijete pravni majka. In some jurisdictions the possibility of surrogacy has been allowed and the intended parents may be recognized as the legal parents from birth. U nekim jurisdikcijama mogućnost surrogacy je dozvoljeno, a namijenjeni roditeljima može se prepoznati kao pravne roditelji od rođenja. Many states now issue pre-birth orders through the courts placing the name(s) of the intended parent(s) on the birth certificate from the start. Mnoge države sada problem pre-poroda naloga putem sudova stavljanje ime (na) namijenjene roditelj (i) na temelju rodnog lista od samog početka. In others the possibility of surrogacy is either not recognized (all contracts specifying different legal parents are void), or is prohibited. U drugima mogućnost surrogacy je jedan od ne priznaje (sve ugovore navodeći različite pravne roditelji su nevažeće), ili je zabranjeno. [ edit ] Australia [ uredi ] Hrvatska In all states in Australia , the surrogate mother is deemed by the law to be the legal mother of the child as well, and any surrogacy agreement giving custody to others is void. U svim državama u Australiji , surogat majka smatra po zakonu koji treba pravnu majka djeteta, kao i bilo surrogacy sporazum daje pritvora prema drugima je ništavna. In addition in all states and the Australian Capital Territory arranging commercial surrogacy is a criminal offence , although the Northern Territory has no legislation governing surrogacy at all and there are no plans to introduce laws on surrogacy into the NT Legislative Assembly anytime soon [5] . Osim toga u svim državama i Australian Capital Territory uređenje poslovne surrogacy je kazneno djelo , iako Northern Territory nema propis kojim surrogacy uopće i ne postoje planovi za uvođenje zakona o surrogacy na NT Zakonodavne skupštine bilo prije [5] . In 2006 Austrian senator Stephen Conroy and his wife Paula Benson announced that they had arranged for a child to be born through egg donation and gestational surrogacy. U 2006 austrijskih senatora Stephena Conroy i njegova supruga Paula Benson objavio da su dogovorili da se dijete roditi se jaje kroz donacije i gestacijski surrogacy. Unusually, Conroy was put on the birth certificate as the father of the child. Neobično, Conroy je bio stavljen na rodni list kao otac djeteta. Usually couples who make surrogacy arrangements in Australia must adopt the child rather than being recognised as birth parents, particularly if the surrogate mother is married. [ 4 ] [ 5 ] After the announcement, Conroy's home state of Victoria announced that they were reconsidering the Victorian laws that make surrogacy within the state almost impossible. [ 6 ] Obično parove koji bi surrogacy aranžmane u Australiji moraju usvojiti dijete, umjesto da budu prepoznati kao rođenje roditelji, pogotovo ako surogat majka je oženjen. [4] [5] Nakon najave, Conroy dom državi Viktoriji objavila da su preispitivanju Victorian zakona koji bi surrogacy u državi gotovo nemoguće. [6] In 2009 Queensland Premier Anna Bligh told State Parliament that the Government would overhaul laws to make altruistic surrogacy legal based on recent recommendations. U 2009 Queensland Premier Anna Bligh je rekao državni sabor da će Vlada remonta zakone kako bi altruistični surrogacy pravni temelji se na nedavne preporuke. Commercial surrogacy would continue to be illegal. [ 7 ] Poslovni surrogacy će i dalje biti i protuzakonito. [7] [ edit ] Canada [ uredi ] Hrvatska Commercial surrogacy arrangements were prohibited in 2004 by the Assisted Human Reproduction Act. Poslovni surrogacy aranžmani su zabranjene u 2004 Assisted Human Reproduction Zakona. Altruistic surrogacy remains legal. [ 8 ] Altruist surrogacy ostaje legalno. [8] In the province of Quebec, contracts that involve surrogacy are unenforceable. [ 9 ] U pokrajini Quebec, ugovore koji uključuju surrogacy su neprovediva. [9] [ edit ] France [ uredi ] Francuska [image]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/9/99/Question_book-new.svg/50px-Question_book-new.svg.png[/image] This section needs additional citations for verification . Ovaj dio zahtijeva dodatne citata za verifikaciju .
Please help improve this article by adding reliable references . Ugoditi pomoć poboljšati ovaj članak dodavanjem pouzdane reference . Unsourced material may be challenged and removed . (July 2008) Unsourced materijala svibanj biti izazvan i uklonjen . (srpanj 2008) In France, since 1994 any surrogacy arrangement that is commercial or altruistic is illegal or unlawful and sanctioned by the law (art 16-7 du code civil). [ 10 ] U Francuskoj, od 1994 bilo surrogacy aranžman koji je komercijalne ili altruistična je nezakonito ili protuzakonito i sankcionirano zakonom (16-7 umjetnosti du code civil). [10] [ edit ] Georgia (Country) [ uredi ] Gruzija (Zemlja) Since 1997 ovum and sperm donation and surrogacy is legal in Georgia . Od 1997 jajašce i sperma donacije i surrogacy je pravni u Gruziji . According to the law, a donor or surrogate mother has no parental rights over the child born. Prema zakonu, donatora ili surogat majka nema roditeljskog prava nad dijete. In Georgia the compensation of the surrogate mother does not exceed EUR 9 000 during the pregnancy period and after the birth of a child (post-natal rehabilitation period). U Gruziji naknadu surogat majka ne prelazi 9 000 eura u razdoblju trudnoće i nakon rođenja djeteta (nakon poroda rehabilitacije razdoblje). The major part of the surrogate mother's compensation shall be paid after the seventeenth week of pregnancy and in the post-natal rehabilitation period. Najveći dio surogat majke Naknada se isplaćuje nakon sedamnaesti tjedna trudnoće i nakon poroda rehabilitacije razdoblju. [ edit ] Hungary [ uredi ] Mađarska Commercial surrogacy is illegal in Hungary Poslovni surrogacy je ilegalan u Mađarskoj [ edit ] India [ uredi ] Hrvatska Main article: Commercial surrogacy in India Glavni članak: Poslovni surrogacy u Indiji Commercial surrogacy has been legal in India since 2002. [ 11 ] Poslovni surrogacy je pravni u Indiji od 2002. [11] India is emerging as a leader in international surrogacy and a destination in surrogacy-related fertility tourism . Indija je u nastajanju, kao lider u međunarodnoj surrogacy i destinacije u surrogacy vezane plodnosti turizam . Indian surrogates have been increasingly popular with fertile couples in industrialized nations because of the relatively low cost. Indijski surogati su sve popularnije s plodnim parovima u industrijaliziranim nacijama, zbog relativno niske cijene. Indian clinics are at the same time becoming more competitive, not just in the pricing, but in the hiring and retention of Indian females as surrogates. Indijski klinike su u isto vrijeme postaje sve više konkurentan, ne samo u cijene, ali u zapošljavanje i zadržavanje indijskih žena kao surogati. Clinics charge patients between $10,000 and $28,000 for the complete package, including fertilization, the surrogate's fee, and delivery of the baby at a hospital. Ordinacije zadužen pacijenata između 10.000 $ i 28.000 $ za kompletan paket, uključujući oplodnje, surogat's pristojbe, isporuku i beba u bolnici. Including the costs of flight tickets, medical procedures and hotels, it comes to roughly a third of the price compared with going through the procedure in the UK. [ 12 ] Uključujući i troškove zrakoplovne karte, medicinske postupke i hotela, to dogoditi se za otprilike trećina cijene u usporedbi s prolazi kroz postupak u Velikoj Britaniji. [12] While clinics quote costs of a single successful cycle without complications of $14,000 to $25,000, less than 50% of tries are successful. Dok klinike citat troškova jednog uspješnog ciklusa bez komplikacija od $ 14.000 do $ 25.000, manje od 50% od pokušaja su uspješni. An unsuccessful cycle will be roughly 1/3 to 1/2 the cost of a successful cycle, incurring IVF, surrogate recruitment and travel costs, without incurring the full surrogate compensation or delivery costs. Neuspješnog ciklus će se otprilike 1 / 3 do 1 / 2 troškova uspješnog ciklusa, incurring IVF, zamjena za zapošljavanje i putne troškove, bez incurring naknade ili surogat pune troškove dostave. A successful cycle may require additional costs, especially if the baby is born premature (intensive care costs) or if additional medical testing is required for either the baby or surrogate mother during the pregnancy. Uspješan ciklus može zahtijevati dodatne troškove, pogotovo ako je beba rođena prerano (intenzivne njege troškove) ili ako dodatne liječničke testiranje je potrebno za bilo bebe ili surogat majka za vrijeme trudnoće. Surrogacy in India is relatively low cost and the legal environment is favorable. Surrogacy u Indiji je relativno niska cijena i pravno okruženje je povoljno. In 2008, the Supreme Court of India in the Manji's case [ 13 ] (Japanese Baby) has held that commercial surrogacy is permitted in India. U 2008, Vrhovni sud u Indiji u slučaju Manji [13] (japanski Baby) smatra da komercijalne surrogacy je dozvoljeno u Indiji. That has again increased the international confidence in going in for surrogacy in India. To je opet povećao povjerenje u međunarodnu ide u za surrogacy u Indiji. The Law Commission of India [ 13 ] has submitted the 228th Report on “NEED FOR LEGISLATION TO REGULATE ASSISTED REPRODUCTIVE TECHNOLOGY CLINICS AS WELL AS RIGHTS AND OBLIGATIONS OF PARTIES TO A SURROGACY .” The following observations had been made by the Law Commission: Zakon povjerenstvo Indija [13] je podnijela 228. Izvještaj o "POTREBA ZA ZAKONODAVSTVO regulirati potpomognute oplodnje TEHNOLOGIJA KLINIKE KAO PRAVA I OBVEZE STRANAKA SURROGACY." sljedeća zapažanja su poduzete Zakonom Komisija: [1] Surrogacy arrangement will continue to be governed by contract amongst parties, which will contain all the terms requiring consent of surrogate mother to bear child, agreement of her husband and other family members for the same, medical procedures of artificial insemination, reimbursement of all reasonable expenses for carrying child to full term, willingness to hand over the child born to the commissioning parent(s), etc. But such an arrangement should not be for commercial purposes. [1] Surrogacy aranžman i dalje će biti regulirano ugovorom između stranaka, koja će sadržavati sve uvjete koje zahtijevaju pristanak surogat majke da nosi dijete, suglasnost svog supruga i ostalih članova obitelji za isti, medicinskih postupaka umjetne oplodnje, naknade svih opravdanih troškova za nošenje djeteta na puni mandat, spremnost da se preda dijete rođeno u pogon roditelj (i), itd. Međutim, takav sporazum ne bi trebao biti u komercijalne svrhe. [2] A surrogacy arrangement should provide for financial support for surrogate child in the event of death of the commissioning couple or individual before delivery of the child, or divorce between the intended parents and subsequent willingness of none to take delivery of the child. [2] surrogacy aranžman treba osigurati financijsku potporu za surogat djetetu u slučaju smrti puštanja par ili pojedinca prije isporuke djeteta, ili razvod između namijenjene roditeljima i kasnije spremnost da se nitko isporuku djeteta. [3] A surrogacy contract should necessarily take care of life insurance cover for surrogate mother. [3] surrogacy Ugovor bi trebao nužno brinuti se o životnom osiguranju pokriće za surogat majku. [4] One of the intended parents should be a donor as well, because the bond of love and affection with a child primarily emanates from biological relationship. [4] Jedan od namijenjene roditeljima treba donatora kao dobro, jer vezu ljubavi i naklonosti s djetetom prvenstveno proizlazi iz bioloških odnosa. Also, the chances of various kinds of child-abuse, which have been noticed in cases of adoptions, will be reduced. Također, šanse za razne vrste zlostavljanja djeteta, koji su primijetili u slučajevima usvajanja, će se smanjiti. In case the intended parent is single, he or she should be a donor to be able to have a surrogate child. U slučaju namjere roditelja je sam, on ili ona bi trebao biti darivatelj biti u mogućnosti da imaju surogat dijete. Otherwise, adoption is the way to have a child which is resorted to if biological (natural) parents and adoptive parents are different. Inače, usvajanje je način da se dijete koja je pribjegla ako biološke (prirodne) roditelja i posvojitelja su različite. [5] Legislation itself should recognize a surrogate child to be the legitimate child of the commissioning parent(s) without there being any need for adoption or even declaration of guardian. [5] Zakonodavstvo sebi trebao prepoznati surogat dijete da bude legitimni dijete puštanja roditelj (i) bez ikakve potrebe da se na usvajanje, pa čak i izjavu o čuvara. [6] The birth certificate of the surrogate child should contain the name(s) of the commissioning parent(s) only. [6] rodni list surogat dijete treba sadržavati ime (na) roditelja puštanje u pogon (e) jedini. [7] Right to privacy of donor as well as surrogate mother should be protected. [7] Pravo na privatnost donatora, kao i surogat majka bi trebao biti zaštićen. [8] Sex-selective surrogacy should be prohibited. [8] Sex-selektivna surrogacy treba zabraniti. [9] Cases of abortions should be governed by the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act 1971 only. [9] slučajevi pobačaja treba biti uređeno Medicinski prekid trudnoće Zakona samo 1971. The Report has come largely in support of the Surrogacy in India, highlighting a proper way of operating surrogacy in Indian conditions. Izvješće je došao uglavnom u potpori Surrogacy u Indiji, sa naglaskom na pravilan način rada surrogacy u Indian uvjetima. Exploitation of the women through surrogacy is another worrying factor which the law has to address. Eksploatacija žene kroz surrogacy je još jedan zabrinjavajući faktor koji zakon ima na adresu. Also, commercialization of surrogacy is something that has been issue in the mind of the Law Commission. Također, komercijalizacija surrogacy je nešto što je problem u vidu Zakona komisije. However, this is a great step forward to the present situation. Međutim, ovo je veliki korak naprijed na današnje stanje. We can expect a legislation to come by early 2010. Možemo očekivati da se zakona do početka 2010. There is an upcoming Assisted Reproductive Technology Bill, aiming to regulate the surrogacy business. Tu je predstojeći potpomognute oplodnje Tehnologija Bill, s ciljem da regulira surrogacy poslovanja. However, it is expected to increase the confidence in clinics by sorting out dubious practitioners, and in this way stimulate the practice. [ 12 ] Međutim, očekuje se povećanje povjerenja u klinikama koje sortiranje sumnjive praktičarima, i na taj način stimuliraju praksi. [12] [ edit ] Israel [ uredi ] Izrael In March 1996, the Israeli government legalized gestational surrogacy under the "Embryo Carrying Agreements Law." U ožujku 1996, izraelska vlada legalizirana gestacije surrogacy pod "Embrij Nošenje sporazumima Zakona." This law made Israel the first country in the world to implement a form of state-controlled surrogacy in which each and every contract must be approved directly by the state [ 14 ] . Ovaj zakon je navodio Izraela prva zemlja na svijetu za provedbu oblik državnom kontrolom surrogacy u kojem svaki ugovor mora odobriti izravno od države [14] . A state-appointed committee permits surrogacy arrangements to be filed only by Israeli citizens who share the same religion. Države imenovana povjerenstva dozvole surrogacy aranžmanima koje se podnosi isključivo od strane izraelskih građana koji dijele iste religije. Surrogates must be single, widowed or divorced and only infertile heterosexual couples are allowed to hire surrogates. [ 15 ] The numerous restrictions on surrogacy under Israeli law have prompted some intended parents to turn to surrogates outside of the country. Surrogates mora biti jedinstveno, udovica ili razvedena i samo neplodnih heteroseksualni parovi mogu iznajmiti surogati. [15] brojnih ograničenja surrogacy pod izraelskom zakonu potaknule su neke namijenjene roditeljima da se okrenu surogati izvan zemlje. Some turn to India because of its low costs. Neki pretvoriti u Indiji zbog svoje niske troškove. Others use US surrogates where an added bonus is an automatic US citizenship for the newborn. Drugi koriste US surogati gdje dodani bonus se automatski američko državljanstvo za novorođenčad. [ edit ] Japan [ uredi ] Japan In March 2008, the Science Council of Japan proposed a ban on surrogacy and said that doctors, agents and their clients should be punished for commercial surrogacy arrangements. [ 16 ] U ožujku 2008, znanosti Vijeće Japan predložio zabranu surrogacy i rekao da liječnici, predstavnici i njihove klijente treba kazniti za komercijalne surrogacy aranžmane. [16] [ edit ] Netherlands and Belgium [ uredi ] Nizozemska i Belgija [image]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/9/99/Question_book-new.svg/50px-Question_book-new.svg.png[/image] This section needs additional citations for verification . Ovaj dio zahtijeva dodatne citata za verifikaciju .
Please help improve this article by adding reliable references . Ugoditi pomoć poboljšati ovaj članak dodavanjem pouzdane reference . Unsourced material may be challenged and removed . (February 2010) Unsourced materijala svibanj biti izazvan i uklonjen . (veljača 2010) Commercial surrogacy is illegal in Belgium and the Netherlands. Poslovni surrogacy je protuzakonito u Belgiji i Nizozemskoj. [ edit ] Saudi Arabia [ uredi ] Saudijska Arabija Religious authorities in Saudi Arabia do not allow the use of surrogate mothers. Vjerske vlasti u Saudijskoj Arabiji ne dopuštaju korištenje zamjenske majke. They have instead suggested medical procedures to restore female fertility and ability to deliver. Oni umjesto toga su predložili medicinske postupke za vraćanje ženske plodnosti i sposobnost za predati. To this end, Saudi authorities sanctioned the world's first uterus transplant in an infertile woman. [ 17 ] U tu svrhu, Saudijske vlasti kažnjeni prvi svjetski transplantacije maternice u neplodnih žena. [17] [ edit ] Ukraine [ uredi ] Ukrajina Since 2002, surrogacy and surrogacy in combination with egg/sperm donation has been absolutely legal in Ukraine . Od 2002, surrogacy i surrogacy u kombinaciji s jajima / donacije spermija je apsolutno legalna u Ukrajini . According to the law a donor or a surrogate mother has no parental rights over the child born and the child born is legally the child of the prospective parents. Prema zakonu donatora ili surogat majka nema roditeljskog prava nad dijete rođeno i dijete rođeno je pravno dijete potencijalnim roditeljima. In Ukraine the start of introduction of methods of supporting reproductive medicine was given in eighties of the preceding century. U Ukrajini početak uvođenja metoda podržavanja reproduktivne medicine je dano u osamdesetih godina prethodnog stoljeća. It was Kharkov where the extracorporeal fertilization method was for the first time successfully applied in Ukraine , and thanks to use of extracorporeal fertilization there was born in 1991 a girl named Katy. Kharkiv was also the first in CIS countries to realize the Surrogacy Program. To je bio Kharkov, gdje izvantjelesnog gnojidbe je metoda po prvi put uspješno primijenjen u Ukrajini , a zahvaljujući korištenju izvantjelesnog oplodnje došlo je rođena 1991 djevojka po imenu Katy. Harkiv je bio prvi u CIS zemljama ostvariti Surrogacy programa. Many clinics dealing with surrogacy have been opened in Kiev . Mnoge klinike koje se bave surrogacy su otvorene u Kijevu . Ukrainian surrogacy laws are very favorable and fully support the individual's reproductive rights. Ukrajinski surrogacy zakoni su vrlo povoljne i potpuno podržavaju pojedinca reproduktivna prava. Surrogacy is officially regulated by Clause 123 of the Family Code of Ukraine and Order 771 of the Health Ministry of Ukraine. Surrogacy službeno reguliran je klauzuli 123 od obitelji kod Ukrajine i reda 771 od Ministarstva zdravstva Ukrajine. You can choose between Gestational Surrogacy, Egg/sperm Donation, special Embryo adoption programs and their combinations. Možete birati između Gestacijski Surrogacy, jaja / Donacija sperme, posebni Embrij usvajanje programa i njihovih kombinacija. No specific permission from any regulatory body is required for that. Nema izričitu dozvolu bilo koje tijelo je za to potrebno. A written informed consent of all parties (intended parents and surrogate) participating in the surrogacy program is mandatory. Pismeni informirani pristanak svih stranaka (namijenjene roditeljima i zamjenska) sudjelovanja u surrogacy program je obavezna. Ukrainian legislation allows intended parents to carry on a surrogacy program and their names will be on Birth certificate of the child born as a result of the surrogacy program from the very beginning. Ukrajinski zakonodavstvo dopušta namijenjeni roditeljima da nose na surrogacy programa i njihova imena će biti na rodni list djeteta rođena kao rezultat surrogacy program od samog početka. The child is considered to be legally "belonging" to the prospective parents from the very moment of conception. Dijete se smatra pravno "pripada" da potencijalnim roditeljima od prvog trenutka začeća. The surrogate can't keep the child after the birth. Zastupnik ne može zadržati dijete nakon poroda. Even if a donation program took place and there is no biological relation between the child and intended parents, their names will be on Birth certificate (Clause 3 of article 123 of the Family Code of Ukraine). Čak i ako program donacija je mjesto i ne postoji biološka veza između djeteta i roditelja namijenjeni, njihova imena će biti na Rodni list (clanak 3. članka 123 od obitelji kod Ukrajine). Embryo research is also allowed, gamete and embryo donation permitted on a commercial level. Embrij Istraživanje je također dozvoljeno, gamet i embrija donacije dopuštene na komercijalnoj razini. Single women can be treated by known or anonymous donor insemination. Jednokrevetna žena može se liječiti kod poznatih ili anonimnih donatora osjemenjivanja. Gestational surrogacy is an option for officially married couples and single women. Gestacijski surrogacy je izbor za službeno oženjeni parovi i neudate žene. There is no such concept as gay/lesbian marriage in Ukraine, meanwhile such patients can be treated as single women/men. Ne postoji takva koncepta kao gej / lezbijski brak u Ukrajini, u međuvremenu takvih bolesnika može se tretirati kao single žena / muškaraca. [ edit ] United Kingdom [ uredi ] Velika Britanija [image]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/f/f4/Ambox_content.png[/image]This section has multiple issues. Please help improve the article or discuss these issues on the talk page . Ovaj odjeljak ima više problema. Ugoditi pomoć poboljšati članak, ili raspravljati o tim pitanjima na stranici za razgovor . Commercial surrogacy arrangements have been legal in the United Kingdom since 2009. [ 18 ] Whilst it is illegal in the UK to pay more than expenses for a surrogacy, the relationship can be recognized under S 30 of the Human fertilization and Embryology Act 1990 under which a court may make parental orders similar to adoption orders. Poslovni surrogacy ugovori nisu pravno u Britaniji od 2009. [18] Iako je to ilegalna u Velikoj Britaniji platiti više od troškova za surrogacy, odnos može se prepoznati pod S 30 od ljudske oplodnje i embriologije iz 1990 pod kojima sud može roditeljske naloge slične donošenja naloga. How this came about is one of those occasions when an ordinary person can change the law. Kako se to dogodi o je jedan od onih puta kada obična osoba može promijeniti zakon. Derek Forrest was a family solicitor in a Preston law firm who was approached by a couple facing proceedings by their local authority. Derek Forrest je odvjetnik obitelji u poduzeću Preston zakon, koji se obratio par suočava postupka od strane svojih lokalnih vlasti. The wife had no womb but did have ova which could be fertilized by her husband's sperm. Žena nije imala utrobi, ali imala jajnih ćelija koje bi mogle biti oplođeno od suprugove sperme. This they did and a surrogate gave birth to their child. To su radili i surogat rodila njihovo dijete. When they took the child home to their Cumbrian address the local authority insisted that they should go through the procedure for registering as foster parents for their child even though genetically it was their own child. Kad su se uzme dijete kući u svoje Kambrijac adresu lokalne vlasti inzistirali da treba proći postupak registracije kao udomitelji za njihovo dijete, iako genetski je svoje dijete. It was quickly realized that there was no defense to these proceedings and the only possibility was to adopt their own child. Ubrzo je shvatio da nema obrane na te postupak i jedina mogućnost je da usvajaju svoje vlastito dijete. Derek Forrest wrote to The Times setting out the predicament his clients found themselves in and elicited a lot of favorable response. Derek Forrest piše Times u kojem se nevolje njegovi klijenti našli su se i izmamili dosta povoljnih reakcija. Then chance took a hand because the barrister acting for the parents knew the Member of Parliament who represented the parents. Tada slučajno uzeo ruku, jer odvjetnik koji radi za roditelje znao saborski zastupnik koji zastupa roditelje. It just so happened that the Human Fertilization and Embryology Bill was going through Parliament at the time and the Barrister spoke to the MP to see what could be done. To samo tako se dogodilo da se ljudska gnojidba i embriologiju Bill prolazi kroz Sabor na vrijeme i odvjetnik govorio MP da vidi što se može učiniti. The MP then got things moving and got s 30 drafted and passed as an amendment through parliament. MP onda kreće i stvari koje je dobio je dobio s 30 izrađeni i usvojeni kao amandman kroz parlament. The result was that the couple was the first to obtain parental orders under the new Act. Rezultat je da je par bio je prvi dobiti roditeljsku naloga po novom Zakonu. [ edit ] United States [ uredi ] SAD Many states have their own state laws written regarding the legality of surrogate parenting. Mnoge države imaju svoje državne zakone napisao o pravovaljanosti od surogat roditeljstvo. [ edit ] Alabama [ uredi ] Alabami Section 26-10A-33 Crime to place children for adoption. Odjeljak 26-10A-33 za mjesto zločina za posvajanje djece. Only a parent, a parent of a deceased parent, or a relative of the degree of relationship specified in Section 26-10A-28, the Department of Human Resources or a licensed child placing agency, or an agency approved by the Department of Human Resources may place a minor for adoption. Samo roditelj, roditelj preminulog roditelja ili rođaka stupnja odnosa navedenih u Odjeljku 26-10A-28, Uprava za ljudske resurse ili licencirana dijete stavljanje agencija, odnosno agencija odobrila Uprava za ljudske resurse svibanj mjesto maloljetnika radi usvajanja. No person or entity other than the Department of Human Resources or a licensed child placing agency shall engage in the business of placing minors for adoption. Nijedna osoba ili subjekt, osim Odjela za ljudske resurse ili licencirana dijete stavljanje agencija ne smiju se upuštati u posao postavljanja maloljetnika radi usvajanja. Any person or entity making more than two unrelated placements of minors for adoption within the preceding twelve month period shall be deemed to be in the business of placing minors for adoption. Svaka osoba ili subjekt izradu više od dvije nepovezane prostore maloljetnika radi usvajanja tijekom prethodnih dvanaest mjeseci smatrat će se da se u poslovnom postavljanja maloljetnika radi usvajanja. Any other person who places a minor for adoption is guilty, upon the first conviction, of a Class A misdemeanor and upon subsequent convictions is guilty of a Class C felony. Svaka druga osoba koja mjestima molu za usvajanje je kriv, po prvi osude, a klase prekršajnim i nakon naknadnog uvjerenja je krivim za krivično djelo C klase. This section does not intend to make it unlawful for any person not engaged in the business of placing minors for adoption to give advice and assistance to a natural parent in an adoption. Ovo poglavlje ne namjerava da izvrši to protuzakonito za bilo koju osobu ne obavljaju posao postavljanja maloljetnika na usvajanje dati savjete i pomoć roditelja u prirodnom usvajanje. In making adoption arrangements, potential adopting parents and birth parents are entitled to the advice and assistance of legal counsel. U donošenju usvajanje sporazuma, usvajanje potencijalne roditelje i porod roditelji imaju pravo na savjet i pomoć pravnog savjetnika. Surrogate motherhood is not intended to be covered by this section. Surogat majčinstvo nije namijenjen da bude obuhvaćena ovom odjeljku. (Acts 1990, No. 90-554, p. 912, §32.) (Djela apostolska 1990, br 90-554, p. 912, § 32). Section 26-10A-34 Payments to parent for placing minor for adoption; maternity expenses; receipt of financial benefits by father. Odjeljak 26-10A-34 Uplate roditelja za smještaj maloljetnika radi usvajanja, materinstva troškova; primitka financijske koristi od strane oca. (a) It shall be a Class A misdemeanor for any person or agency to offer to pay money or anything of value to a parent for the placement for adoption, for the consent to an adoption, or for cooperation in the completion of an adoption of his or her minor. () On će biti klase prekršaj za bilo koju osobu ili agenciju za ponuditi da platite novac ili ništa od vrijednosti roditelja za plasman na usvajanje, za pristanak na usvajanje, odnosno za suradnju u završetku usvajanja svoje male. It shall be a Class C felony for any person or agency to pay money or anything of value to a parent for the placement of a child for adoption, for the consent to an adoption, or for cooperation in the completion of an adoption of his or her minor. Ona će biti krivično djelo klase C za bilo koju osobu ili agenciju uplatiti novac ili ništa od vrijednosti roditelja za smještaj djeteta na usvajanje, za pristanak na usvajanje, odnosno za suradnju u završetku usvajanja njegove ili ju manje. This section does not make it unlawful to pay the maternity-connected medical or hospital and necessary living expenses of the mother preceding and during pregnancy-related incapacity as an act of charity, as long as the payment is not contingent upon placement of the minor for adoption, consent to the adoption, or cooperation in the completion of the adoption. Ovo poglavlje ne bi ga nezakonito plaćati majčinstvo povezan medicinski ili bolnicu i nužne životne troškove majke prije i za vrijeme trudnoće povezane nesposobnosti kao čin ljubavi, sve dok se ne isplate ovisi plasman molu za usvajanje, pristanak na usvajanje, odnosno suradnje na završetku usvajanje. (b) It shall be a Class C felony for any person or agency to receive any money or other thing of value for placing, assisting or arranging a minor placement. (B) On će biti krivično djelo klase C za bilo koju osobu ili agenciju primati novac ili druge vrijedne stvari za plasman, pomažući ili maloljetnik uređenje prostora. This section is not intended to prohibit legitimate charges for medical, legal, prenatal or other professional services. Ovaj dio nije namijenjen za zabranu legitimnog troškove za medicinske, pravne, prenatalnim ili druge stručne usluge. (c) Surrogate motherhood is not intended to be covered by this section. (C) surogat majčinstva ne namjerava biti pokriveni ovom dijelu. (Acts 1990, No. 90-554, p. 912, §33.) (Djela apostolska 1990, br 90-554, p. 912, § 33). [ edit ] Alaska [ uredi ] Aljasci The legal status of surrogacy agreements in Alaska is unclear. Pravni status surrogacy ugovora u Aljaska je nejasno. State law is silent regarding surrogacy and only one reported case of limited importance has touched on the issue. Državni zakon šuti o surrogacy i samo jedan prijavljen slučaj ograničene važnosti je dotaknuo pitanje. The only case dealing with surrogacy in the Alaska courts appears to treat surrogacy as a type of adoption. Jedini slučaj bave surrogacy u Aljasci sudovima čini se da tretirati kao surrogacy vrsta usvajanje. In one 1989 custody case, the plaintiff was a Chickasaw woman who orally agreed to be inseminated by sperm from her sister's husband to bear a child for them and then signed legal adoption papers upon relinquishing custody. U jednom 1989 pritvor slučaju, tužitelj je Chickasaw žena koja usmeno dogovorili da se od strane osjemenjene sperme iz njezine sestre muž da nosi dijete za njih i tada potpisali pravni usvajanju radova na prepustivši pritvora. She sought to have the adoption invalidated on the basis that it had not been carried out in accordance with a relevant federal statute (related to Indian governance). Ona je tražila da se usvajanje poništio na temelju toga da ona nije bila provedena u skladu s odgovarajućim saveznim zakonom (vezane za indijski upravljanja). The Supreme Court of Alaska rejected her petition, finding that the state adoption law's one-year statute of limitations had passed. Vrhovni sud odbio njezin prijedlog Aljaske, utvrdivši da je usvajanje zakona države jednogodišnji zastare prošao. Citation: In re TNF, 781 P.2d 973 (Alaska 1989). Citation: Odg TNF, 781 P.2d 973 (Aljaska 1989). [ edit ] Arkansas [ uredi ] Arkansas Arkansas law provides for surrogacy contracts, but it is unclear how courts may apply the law to surrogacy situations involving gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender individuals and couples. Arkansas zakon predviđa surrogacy ugovora, ali nejasno je kako sudovi mogu primjenjivati zakon surrogacy situacijama koje uključuju gay, lezbijke, biseksualne i transrodne osobe i parove. State law generally holds surrogacy contracts valid and enforceable. Državni zakon općenito drži surrogacy ugovora važeća i provediva. It also has clear guidelines that specify the legal parents in several different surrogacy scenarios. Ona također ima jasne smjernice koji određuju pravni roditelja u nekoliko različitih scenarija surrogacy. Specifically, it states (1) if the intended father is the sperm donor, and he is married to the intended mother, then they are both considered the legal parents; (2) if the intended father is the sperm donor and he is unmarried, then he is the sole parent; and (3) if an anonymous donor inseminated the traditional surrogate, then the intended mother is the legal parent. Naime, on navodi (1) ako je namijenjen otac je donor sperme, a on je oženjen za namjeru majku, a zatim su obje smatraju pravnim roditelja, (2) ako je namijenjen otac je donor sperme, a on je neoženjen, onda je samohrani roditelj, i (3) ako je anonimni donator osjemenjene tradicionalnom surogat, onda namijenjene majka je pravni roditelj. Nevertheless, it is unclear how courts would apply these particular provisions to a gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgender individual or couple, especially in light of the ban on GLBT foster parents and the use of “moral character” laws to deny GLBT parents custody of their children. Ipak, nejasno je kako sudovi bi se primijeniti te pojedinih odredbi u gay, lezbijske, biseksualne ili transrodne osobe ili par, osobito u svjetlu zabrane GLBT udomitelja i korištenje "moralni lik" zakone da se uskrati GLBT roditeljima pritvor njihove djece. Case law does not specifically address surrogacy by same-sex couples, but recent cases do show a broad support for surrogacy agreements in Arkansas. Sudska praksa nije izričito adresu surrogacy strane istospolnih parova, ali nedavni slučajevi pokazuju široku podršku za surrogacy sporazuma u Arkansasu. In one 1998 case, a heterosexual couple who had a child though a surrogate mother in California went to Arkansas for the required 30 days to legally adopt the child. U jednom slučaju 1998, heteroseksualni par koji ima dijete, iako surogat majka u Kaliforniji otišao u Arkansasu za potrebno 30 dana da legalno usvojiti dijete. This action circumvented the mandated six-month residency requirement under California law. Ova akcija izigrane mandatom od šest mjeseci boravka zahtjeva prema Kaliforniji zakonom. The Arkansas Supreme Court ruled that this was in agreement with Arkansas law and was valid. Arkansas Vrhovni sud donio odluku da je to bilo u dogovoru s Arkansas zakona i bio valjan. In one case in 1993, a surrogate mother decided that she wished to keep the twins she was carrying for an Arkansas couple. U jednom slučaju u 1993, surogat majka odlučila da želi zadržati blizance bila je nosio par Arkansas. Because she lived in Michigan, where surrogacy is illegal, a court granted her petition to revoke the surrogacy contract. Budući da je živjela u Michiganu, gdje surrogacy je ilegalna, sud odobrio njezin zahtjev da ukine surrogacy ugovora. However, the court granted custody to the intended father in Arkansas, allowing her visitation rights. Međutim, sud odobrio pritvor na željenu oca u Arkansasu, dopuštajući joj pohođenja prava. After the surrogate failed to contact the children for one year, the wife of the intended father moved to adopt them in Arkansas. Nakon surogat nije uspio kontaktirati djece za jednu godinu, supruga namjerava otac preselio njihovo usvajanje u Arkansasu. The Arkansas Supreme Court granted the petition to adopt, finding it in the best interest of the child. Arkansas Vrhovni sud odobrio je zahtjev za usvajanje, ga pronaći u najboljem interesu djeteta. While the case was decided on neutral custody law, it does demonstrate the degree to which Arkansas courts are willing to assert their jurisdiction to protect surrogacy agreements. Dok slučaj je odlučio na neutralnom pritvoru zakonu, on ne pokazuju stupanj u kojem Arkansas sudovi su spremni potvrditi njihove nadležnosti radi zaštite surrogacy sporazuma. Citations: ARK. Citati: ARK-a. CODE ANN. CODE ANN. § 9-10-201 (2002); In Re Samant, 333 Ark. 471 (Ark. 1998); In Re Adoption of KFH and KFH, 311 Ark. 416 (Ark. 1993). § 9-10-201 (2002); Odg Samant, 333 Arka 471 (Ark 1998); Odg Usvajanje KFH i KFH, 311 Arka 416 (Ark 1993). [ edit ] Arizona [ uredi ] Arizona The legal status of surrogacy agreements in Arizona is unclear. Pravni status surrogacy ugovora u Arizona je nejasno. While Arizona law prohibits both traditional (in which the surrogate mother is the biological contributor of the egg) and gestational (in which the surrogate mother is not the biological contributor of the egg) surrogacy agreements, part of that statute has been ruled unconstitutional by an appellate court. Dok Arizoni zakon zabranjuje kako tradicionalnih (u kojem je surogat majka biološka contributor od jaja) i gestacijski (u kojem je surogat majka ne biološka contributor od jaja) surrogacy sporazuma, dio tog statuta je vladao neustavnim strane žalbeni sud. Arizona statute forbids “surrogate parent contracts.” However, should a surrogacy occur, the law states that the surrogate is the legal mother of the child she carries and, if she is married, there is a rebuttable presumption that her husband is the child's father. Arizona statut zabranjuje "surogat roditelja ugovora." Međutim, treba surrogacy dogodi, zakon navodi da je surogat je pravni majka dijete ona nosi i, ako je oženjen, ima je osporiva pretpostavka da je njen muž otac djeteta . The automatic determination of surrogate as legal mother was ruled unconstitutional by an Arizona appeals court. Automatsko određivanje surogat majka je kao pravni vladao neustavnim od strane suda Arizona žalbe. The case law calls into question the validity of the prohibition of surrogacy arrangements. Sudska praksa dovodi u pitanje valjanost zabrane surrogacy aranžmana. However, because the appellate court opinion may only have struck down one provision of the surrogacy law, and because the Arizona Supreme Court chose not to review the case, the precise scope of the prohibition is unclear. Međutim, budući da žalbeni sud može imati samo mišljenje udari jednom odredbom surrogacy zakona, a zbog Arizoni Vrhovni sud odlučio ne za revizijom slučaja, precizno opseg zabrane je nejasno. In one case in 1994, a husband and wife entered into a gestational surrogacy agreement. U jednom slučaju u 1994, muž i žena stupila na gestacijsku surrogacy sporazum. Eggs from the wife were removed, fertilized with the husband's sperm and implanted in the gestational surrogate, who became pregnant with triplets. Jaja od žena bili su uklonjeni, s gnojenih muža spermij i ugrađuju u surogat trudnoće, koja je postala trudna s triplets. During the course of the surrogate's pregnancy, the wife filed for divorce and sought custody of the unborn children. Tijekom surogat trudnoće, supruga zatražila razvod i tražio skrbništvo nad nerođene djece. The husband argued that he was the biological father of the children and, pursuant to statute, the surrogate was the biological mother, leaving the wife no standing to seek custody. Muž tvrdio da je bio biološki otac djece i, u skladu sa zakonom, surogat je biološka majka, ostavivši ženu ne stoji da traži pritvor. The trial court found the section of statutory prohibition on surrogacy agreements which automatically conferred status as legal mother to the surrogate unconstitutional. Prvostupanjski sud pronašao dio zakonske zabrane surrogacy sporazume koji se automatski dodijelio status pravne majka surogat protuustavnim. The Court of Appeals, Division One upheld the trial court's conclusion, finding that the statute violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment by granting the intended father an opportunity to establish paternity but denying the same chance to the intended mother. Prizivni sud, Division One prvostupanjskog suda potvrdio zaključak, utvrdivši da krši statut klauzule jednake zaštite četrnaeste Izmjena i dopuna kojim namjerava oca mogućnost da utvrdi očinstvo, ali odbija priliku da istim namijenjen majci. Thus, at least in the counties within the jurisdiction of Appellate Division One (Apache, Coconino, La Paz, Maricopa, Mohave, Navajo, Yavapai and Yuma) a purported mother is entitled to rebut the presumption that the surrogate is the legal mother of the child born of the surrogacy arrangement. Tako, barem u županijama u nadležnosti žalbenog odjeljenja One (Apache, Coconino, La Paz, Maricopa, Mohave, Navajo, Yavapai i Yuma) krenula majka ima pravo na opovrgnuti pretpostavke da je surogat majka pravni dijete rođeno u surrogacy dogovoru. Citations: ARS § 25-218 (2001); Soos v. Superior Court ex rel. Citati: ARS § 25-218 (2001); Soos Vrhovnog suda protiv bivše rel. County of Maricopa, 182 Ariz. 470 (Ct. App. 1994). Maricopa županija, 182 Arizoni 470 (Ct. App. 1994). [ edit ] California [ uredi ] Kaliforniji California is generally accepting of surrogacy agreements, particularly when the couple seeking surrogacy has contributed some of the genetic material. Kalifornija je općenito prihvaćaju surrogacy sporazuma, osobito kad par koji traži surrogacy doprinijela neke od genetskog materijala. While the state has no statute directly addressing surrogacy, state courts have used the Uniform Parentage Act to interpret several cases concerning surrogacy agreements. Dok država nema statut izravno obrati surrogacy, stanje sudovi su koristili Jedinstvenim Čistoća krvi za tumačenje Zakona o nekoliko slučajeva u vezi surrogacy sporazuma. In fact, one of the most influential cases regarding surrogacy rights (Johnson v. Calvert) was decided in California. In 1993's Johnson v. Calvert, the California Supreme Court held that the intended parents in a gestational-surrogacy agreement (an agreement in which the carrying mother had no genetic relationship to the baby) should be recognized as the natural and legal parents. Since the intended mother donated the egg but the surrogate mother gave birth, the court decided that the person who intended to procreate should be considered the natural mother. A 1998 case, Buzzanca v. Buzzanca, addressed the issue of traditional surrogacy agreements in which the surrogate mother has been artificially inseminated. In this case, a surrogate mother was impregnated using her egg and anonymous sperm. In other words, neither of the intended parents had a genetic link to the child. The court found that when a married couple uses non-genetically related embryo and sperm implanted into a surrogate intended to procreate a child, they are the lawful parents of the child. Another similar 1998 case, In Re Marriage of Moschetta, dealt with the same issue, except that the intended parents had separated. In that case, the court awarded legal parent rights to the intended father and surrogate mother. It is unclear what result would come from a same-sex couple attempting to use surrogacy in California to start a family. California seems to rely heavily on the "intent of the parties," but the Buzzanca case only speaks to married couples and Moschetta seems to emphasize the importance of a committed relationship, if not a marriage, between the intended parents. A bill, AB25, signed in 2001 by Democratic Gov. Gray Davis extending domestic partner rights may strengthen same-sex couples' rights in the surrogacy context. California Family Code § 7540 (2001); Johnson v. Calvert, 5 Cal. 4th 84 (Cal. 1993); Buzzanca v. Buzzanca, 61 Cal. App. 4th 1410 (Cal. Ct. App. 4th 1998); In Re Marriage of Moschetta, 25 Cal. App. 4th 1218 (Cal. Ct. App. 4th 1994). [ edit ] Connecticut While Connecticut law is silent with regard to surrogacy agreements, courts have addressed cases involving such agreements and upheld their terms. No Connecticut appellate court has explicitly indicated that surrogacy contracts are valid, but cases involving such agreements have been adjudicated and parenting arrangements contemplated by those agreements have been upheld. Additionally, a state superior court has upheld a surrogacy agreement. The Connecticut Supreme Court, in Doe v. Doe, decided a custody dispute in 1998 between a husband and wife over a child born to a surrogate mother through a traditional surrogacy agreement (in which the surrogate mother is the biological contributor of the egg). Based on a state statutory presumption that it is in the best interests of the child to be in the custody of a biological parent, the Court held that even though the wife was not biologically related to the child, her role in raising the child was enough to overcome the presumption. However, the Court explicitly stated that it was not addressing “whether, or to what extent a surrogate contract, by which the surrogate obligates herself to surrender the child to the child's father and his spouse, is enforceable.” The Connecticut Supreme Court found in the 1998 case of Doe v. Roe, that a trial court had subject matter jurisdiction to approve an adoption agreement that includes a surrogate mother's consent to termination of parental rights. The surrogate mother had argued that the contract was void because it was against public policy. Nevertheless, the Court explicitly stated that it was not deciding the validity of surrogacy contracts. In a 2002 case, Vogel v. McBride, a gay male couple had contracted with a surrogate to deliver an embryo developed from an egg fertilized by one of the men's sperm. The superior court ordered the hospital to place the names of both men on the birth certificate. The court went on to state, “The egg donor agreement and the gestational carrier agreement [were] valid, enforceable, irrevocable and of full legal effect” under the laws of Connecticut. Citations: Doe v. Doe, 710 A.2d 1297 (Conn. 1998); Doe v. Roe, 717 A.2d 706 (Conn. 1998), Vogel v. McBride, Docket No. FA 02 0471850S (Super. Ct. 2002). [ edit ] District of Columbia District of Columbia law prohibits surrogacy agreements. Under DC law, both traditional (in which the surrogate mother is the biological contributor of the egg) and gestational (in which the surrogate mother is not the biological contributor of the egg) surrogacy agreements are prohibited and unenforceable. Violation of the statute is punishable by a fine of up to $10,000, as much as one year in jail, or both. Citations: DC CODE §§ 16-401, 402 (2002). [ edit ] Colorado There are no provisions in Colorado law or reported or published cases dealing with the issue of surrogacy. [ edit ] Delaware While Delaware law does not address surrogacy agreements, at least one court has ruled those agreements are against the public policy of the state. While the Delaware Supreme Court has not ruled on the legality or enforceability of surrogacy contracts, a lower court held that a “contractual agreement to terminate parental rights … is against the public policy of this tate and may not be enforced by the [c]ourt.” One 1988 case did not involve a surrogacy agreement, but rather concerned an adoptive father who sought to terminate all parental rights over his wife's biological son through a “Property Division Agreement” after a divorce. The court noted that the Delaware Legislature had not “provide[d] for termination of parental rights by contractual agreement of the parents,” and analogized the case to the well-publicized Baby M surrogacy case in New Jersey. It held that “the receipt of money in connection with an adoption is barred by Delaware law,” and termination of parental rights through contractual agreement is forbidden. Citation: Hawkins v. Frye (aka Frank v. Hall), 1988 Del. Fam. Ct. LEXIS 31 (Fam. Ct. Sussex County 1988). [ edit ] Florida Florida law explicitly allows both gestational (in which the surrogate mother is not the biological contributor of the egg) and traditional (in which the surrogate mother is the biological contributor of the egg) surrogacy agreements, but neither is available to unmarried same-sex couples. The gestational surrogacy statutes impose strict requirements on the contracts, among them limiting involvement to "couple[s that] are legally married and are both 18 years of age or older." The law governing traditional surrogacy arrangements, referred to as preplanned adoption agreements, connects those contracts to state adoption law. Florida law explicitly prohibits “homosexuals” from adopting. This law was upheld by the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals. In one case in 2000, the Florida Court of Appeals noted that the right to enter into surrogate-parenting agreements is reserved for married couples only and is one of the many rights not given to domestic partners. While the ruling concerned only the Broward County Domestic Partnership Act, Florida courts would likely interpret other county domestic partnership laws in a similar way. Citations: FLA. STAT. §§ 742.11-15 (2002); FLA. STAT. § 63.212 (2002); Lofton v. Kearney, 358 F. 3d 804 (11th Cir. 2004); Lowe v. Broward County, 766 So. 2d 1199 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2000). [ edit ] Georgia (US state) There are no provisions in Georgia law or reported or published cases dealing with the issue of surrogacy. But same sex unmarried couples are not allowed to do the procedures. [ edit ] Hawaii There are no provisions in Hawaii law or reported or published cases dealing with the issue of surrogacy. [ edit ] Idaho Idaho law does not address surrogacy agreements, but case law indicates such contracts may be enforceable in the state. Detail: Idaho case law indicates that surrogacy contracts may be enforceable in the state. In one 1986 case, the Idaho Supreme Court reviewed custody rights where a biological mother decided to seek custody after she had relinquished the child to the adoptive parents. While maintaining that a custody decision is governed by the “best interests of the child" standard, the Court determined that biology was not the sole factor to be considered. Instead, the Court held that when the biological mother has decided to relinquish custody and there has been no fraud, duress or undue influence in the adoption process, she should be bound to that choice. Particularly significant was the fact that the child had lived for a long time with the adoptive parents and in that time had developed a strong bond with them. While not at issue, the legality of surrogate-parenting agreements could be implicit in the decision. However, the Idaho courts could insist on a rigid adherence of adoption procedures in order to give the agreement validity, and such adherence may be impossible in the context of a same-sex parent surrogacy. Citation: DeBernardi v. Steve BD, 723 P.2d 829 (Idaho 1986). [ edit ] Illinois Illinois law provides for gestational surrogacy (where the surrogate mother is not biologically related to the child she is carrying), but does not address traditional surrogacy (in which the surrogate mother is the biological contributor of the egg). According to Illinois law, a parent and child relationship may be established voluntarily by consent of the parties when: (1) the surrogate mother certifies she is not the biological mother; (2) the husband of the surrogate mother certifies he is not the biological father; (3) the biological mother certifies she donated the egg; (4) the biological father certifies he donated the sperm; and (5) a licensed physician certifies in writing that all of the above is true. Citation: 750 ILL. COMP. STAT. 45/6 (2002). [ edit ] Indiana Indiana law declares surrogacy contracts unenforceable as against public policy. Detail: State law declares surrogacy contracts "void and unenforceable.” Specifically, the law lists several broad contractual terms that, if any is included, void a surrogacy agreement. Such forbidden terms include requiring the surrogate to provide a gamete (a mature sexual reproductive cell) to conceive a child, become pregnant herself or waive her parental rights or duties — provisions typically at the heart of any meaningful traditional (in which the surrogate mother is the biological contributor of the egg) or gestational (in which the surrogate mother is not the biological contributor of the egg) surrogacy agreement. Citation: BURNS IND. CODE ANN. §31-20-1-1 (2002). [ edit ] Iowa Iowa has no laws that specifically address the enforceability of surrogacy contracts. The state law prohibiting the purchase or sale of an individual specifically states that it does not apply to surrogate mother arrangements. [ edit ] Kansas Kansas has no laws regarding surrogacy, but two attorney general opinions indicate that surrogate parenting agreements are unenforceable in the state. Detail: One opinion of the state attorney general in 1996 addressed whether a surrogate fee would be considered a professional service governed under the provision of state law which addresses fees in adoption proceedings. The statute permits reasonable fees for “legal and other professional services rendered in connection with the placement or adoption.” The opinion stated that surrogate motherhood does not fit into the definition of “professional service.” Though this opinion indicates that a contract providing a fee for bearing a child for another may be unenforceable, it noted that it is permissible to provide reasonable living expenses for the mother during pregnancy. Another opinion in 1982 stated that a surrogate parent contract would be void as against public policy. The attorney general noted that the “commercialization of motherhood” had not been legitimated by the Kansas legislature, and that these contracts would be unenforceable public policy until they receive legislative approval. Citations: Office of the Attorney General of the State of Kansas, No. 96-73, 1996 Kan. AG LEXIS 73, Sept. 11, 1996; Office of the Attorney General of the State of Kansas, No. 82-150, 1982 Kan. AG LEXIS 137, July 2, 1982. [ edit ] Kentucky Kentucky Surrogacy Law Summary : There is no statutory provision in Kentucky directly addressing the validity of surrogacy agreements, but a Kentucky Supreme Court case and an Attorney General opinion indicate that uncompensated agreements may be permissible. The issue of surrogacy agreements involving lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender (LGBT) individuals has not yet been considered by the courts. Explanation : A 1980 opinion from the Kentucky Attorney General cautions against compensated surrogacy agreements. He concluded that “contracts involving surrogate parenthood are illegal and unenforceable in the Commonwealth,” basing his opinion on statutory provisions barring the sale of children and requiring voluntary consent for adoption, as well as “strong public policy against the buying and selling of children”. Kentucky case law indicates approval for uncompensated surrogacy agreements, but it is unclear how a court would evaluate a surrogacy agreement involving money. In 1986, the Kentucky Attorney General sought to revoke the corporate charter of an agency that arranged surrogacy contracts. In the resulting lawsuit, the Attorney General argued that surrogacy contracts arranged by the company violated statutes that barred the sale of a child for purposes of adoption, as well as statutes that invalidated a mother's consent to adoption prior to the birth of her child. However, the Kentucky Supreme Court held that traditional surrogacy agreements (in which the surrogate mother is the biological contributor of the egg) were fundamentally different than the practice of buying and selling children. The Court reasoned that laws against the purchase and sale of children are intended to protect individuals from overwhelming mothers with financial incentives. Surrogacy arrangements, on the other hand, are made prior to the conception of the child; thus, the surrogate mother is concerned not with the results of an unwanted pregnancy or the financial burden of raising a child, but rather with assisting an infertile couple. The Court found that it was not up to the judicial branch to “cut off [procreative] solutions offered by science.” However, they also held that surrogacy contracts are voidable (meaning they can be broken by one of the parties involved), rather than illegal. There is no explicit prohibition in Kentucky on LGBT couples jointly adopting a child, nor is there an explicit prohibition on LGBT individuals adopting the child of their same-sex partner. Citations : Op. Ky. Att'y Gen. No. OAG 81-18 (Jan. 26, 1981), 1981 Ky. AG LEXIS 399; Surrogate Parenting Assocs. v. Commonwealth ex rel. Armstrong, 704 SW2d 209 (Ky. 1986). The legal information provided on this page is provided as a courtesy to the public. It is not designed to serve as legal advice. HRC does not warrant that this information is current or comprehensive. Last Updated: 9/9/2009 [ edit ] Louisiana Louisiana law holds any traditional surrogacy contract (in which the surrogate mother is the biological contributor of the egg) void and unenforceable, but does not address uncompensated agreements or gestational surrogacy (in which the surrogate mother is not the biological contributor of the egg) arrangements. Louisiana law finds traditional surrogacy agreements "contrary to public policy" and thus “absolutely null.” Citation: LA. RS 9:2713 (2002). [ edit ] Maine There are no provisions in Maine law or reported or published cases dealing with the issue of surrogacy. [ edit ] Maryland The enforceability of surrogacy contracts in Maryland is unclear. While Maryland does not have a specific law that addresses surrogacy agreements, related laws may hold compensated agreements unenforceable. Maryland law bans payment for adoption services and prohibits the sale or purchase of minors and punishes this act by a fine and/or jail time. The question as to whether or not these laws apply to surrogacy agreements is widely contested among politicians and legal academics in the state. An opinion of the attorney general indicates disapproval of compensated surrogacy agreements. In an attempt to settle the issue, the Legislature has unsuccessfully tried for the past several years to pass bills regarding surrogacy. One 2000 state attorney general opinion indicates that surrogacy contracts involving the payment of a fee to the birth mother are generally illegal and unenforceable based on existing state law. This suggests that the state would not challenge an uncompensated surrogacy contract. The opinion also states that the payment of a surrogacy fee could not by itself bar approval of an adoption petition and the decision to grant an adoption decision must turn on the best interests of the child. Citations: MD. CODE ANN., FAM. LAW § 5-327 (2002); MD. CODE ANN., CRIM. LAW § 3-603 (2002); Abby Brandel, Legislating Surrogacy: A Partial Answer to Feminist Criticism, 54 Md. L. Rev. 488 (1995); 85 Opinions of the Attorney General ___ (2000) [Opinion No. 00-035 (December 19, 2000)]. [ edit ] Massachusetts State courts have generally treated surrogacy contracts favorably. Massachusetts treats traditional surrogacy agreements, in which a surrogate mother is artificially inseminated, differently from gestational surrogacy, in which she has no genetic relationship to the child but carries an egg from the intended mother that was fertilized by the intended father. In one case in 2001, the Supreme Judicial Court granted a joint request from a paid gestational mother, a genetic mother, and a genetic father to have the genetic parents listed as the parents on the baby's birth certificate. While this is further indication of the judiciary's openness to surrogacy agreements, the Court did not give a ringing endorsement of the enterprise. The Court emphasized that current state law did not address gestational surrogacy agreements, and set forth criteria under which lower courts may review requests for atypical birth-certificate assignations in surrogacy cases. Those criteria are: (a) the plaintiffs are the sole genetic sources; (b) the gestational carrier agrees with the orders sought; (c) no one, including the hospital, has contested the complaint or petition; and (d) by filing the complaint and stipulation for judgment, the plaintiffs agree that they have waived any contradictory provisions in the contract. The Court also noted that a factor indicating positive disposition in these cases is that the gestational mother is related to one of the genetic parents. In one 1998 case, a surrogate mother decided in the sixth month of her pregnancy to keep the child. The court found that two elements must exist to validate a surrogacy agreement: (1) the surrogate mother's consent to the surrogacy must last until four days after the birth and (2) the surrogate mother must receive no compensation. Other conditions might be important in deciding the enforceability of a surrogacy agreement, among them (a) that the surrogate mother's husband give his informed consent to the agreement in advance; (b) that the surrogate mother is an adult and has had at least one successful pregnancy; (c) that the surrogate mother, her husband, and the intended parents have been evaluated for the soundness of their judgment and for their capacity to carry out the agreement; (d) the intended mother be incapable of bearing a child without endangering her health; (e) the intended parents be suitable persons to assume custody of the child; and (f) all parties have the advice of counsel. The Court does emphasize that no agreement is per se valid: “the mother and father may not … make a binding best-interests-of-the-child determination by private agreement. Any custody agreement is subject to a judicial determination of custody based on the best interests of the child.” While all of the other conditions listed above need not exist to validate the surrogacy, it is not entirely clear how a judge would apply them to a gay male couple as intended parents. Because the best of interests of the child is the final determination, however, a judge could certainly find such a couple to be the best environment for the child of the surrogacy. Citations: Culliton v. Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, 756 NE2d 1133 (Mass. 2001); RR v. MH, 689 NE2d 790 (Mass. 1998). [ edit ] Michigan Michigan has one of the strictest laws prohibiting surrogacy contracts, not only holding them unenforceable, but also imposing fines and jail time on anyone who enters into such a contract (up to five years and $50,000 for some). Case law has upheld the validity of this law. In one case in 1992, several would-be participants in surrogacy arrangements challenged the law, arguing that the state had no compelling interest in prohibiting surrogacy. The court disagreed and found three compelling interests: preventing children from becoming commodities, serving the best interests of children and preventing the exploitation of women. Further clarifying the surrogacy statute, the court noted that any agreement involving conception and relinquishment of parental rights by the surrogate is void. In one 1981 case, individuals involved in compensated surrogacy agreements challenged the constitutionality of Michigan statutes barring the exchange of money or other consideration in connection with adoption and related proceedings. In a very short opinion, the Court concluded that state regulation of adoption in this manner does not infringe individuals' federal constitutional due process right to procreation. Citations: MCLS §722.851-861 (2002); Doe v. Kelley, 487 NW2d 484 (Mich. Ct. App. 1992); Doe v. Kelley, 307 NW2d 438 (Mich. Ct. App. 1981). [ edit ] Minnesota There is no provision in Minnesota law on the subject of surrogacy. While the state legislature has considered surrogacy bills, it has yet to pass one. [ edit ] Mississippi There are no provisions in Mississippi law or reported or published cases dealing with the issue of surrogacy. [ edit ] Missouri Missouri has no laws directly regarding surrogacy. However, the crime of “trafficking in children” (a felony) includes payment for “delivery or offer of delivery of a child … for purposes of adoption, or for the execution of consent to adopt or waiver of consent to future adoption or consent to termination of parental rights.” A compensated surrogacy agreement might run afoul of this law. For a theory on the legitimacy of gestational surrogacy agreements (in which the surrogate mother is not the biological contributor of the egg) under Missouri law, see Yvonne M. Warlen, Note, The Renting of the Womb: An Analysis of Gestational Surrogacy Contracts Under Missouri Contract Law, 62 UMKC L. Rev. 583 (1994). Citation: § 568.175 RSMO. (2003). (2003). [ edit ] Montana There are no provisions in Montana law or reported or published cases dealing with the issue of surrogacy. [ edit ] Nebraska Nebraska law declares surrogacy contracts void and unenforceable, but may allow uncompensated agreements. Existing state law defines unenforceable surrogate contracts as “a contract by which a woman is compensated for bearing a child of a man who is not her husband,” thus leaving open the possibility of uncompensated surrogacy arrangements. Nebraska law also explicitly imposes “all the rights and obligations imposed by law” upon the biological father party to a surrogacy agreement. Because surrogacy contracts usually involve the biological father, this would leave custody jointly in the hands of the intended father and the gestational mother. Citation: RRS NEB. § 25-21,200 (2002). [ edit ] Nevada Nevada law prevents unmarried people from entering surrogacy agreements. Existing state law restricts the adopting parties of a surrogacy agreement to people “whose marriage is valid” under Nevada law. The statute defines “intended parents” as “a man and a woman, married to each other.” Given this specific language, it is unlikely that a GLBT individual or couple would be permitted to enter into an enforceable surrogacy agreement. Citation: NEV. REV. STAT. ANN. § 126.045 (2001). Domestic partnerships are legally allowed for both opposite sex and same sex couples over 18 since 1 October 2009 allowing the exact same rights, obligations, entitlements, duties and responsibilities of marriage under all areas of the Nevada statute books (except marriage, which is defined under the Nevada Constitution as "between a man and a woman" ) - meaning that LGBT people as couples or individuals have full access to surrogacy. [ edit ] New Hampshire According to existing state law, “'Intended parents,' including an 'intended father' and 'intended mother,' means people who are married to each other, and who enter a surrogacy contract with a surrogate by which they are to become the parents of the resulting child.” Given this specific language, it is unlikely that a homosexual individual or couple would be permitted to enter into an enforceable surrogacy agreement. Citation: RSA NH 168-B:1 (2002). Same sex marriage has been legal in New Hampshire since 1 January 2010 (and even previous civil unions between 1 January 2008 and 1 January 2010) puts full equality in all areas of New Hampshire statute books, that allows the exact same rights, obligations, entitlements, duties and responsibilities of marriage - meaning that LGBT people as couples or individuals have full access to surrogacy. [ edit ] New Jersey New Jersey permits only uncompensated gestational surrogacy agreements (in which the surrogate mother is not the biological contributor of the egg). Surrogacy cases in New Jersey have created a fairly well-defined common law rule that prohibits traditional surrogacy arrangements (in which the surrogate mother is the biological contributor of the egg) and allows only uncompensated gestational surrogacy arrangements. One case in 2000 addressed the rights of intended parents in a gestational surrogacy arrangement in which the surrogate mother gave birth to a child with no genetic connection to her. The intended mother's sister agreed to carry the baby, and the intended parents sought to compel the state attorney general to put their names on the birth certificate. The court found that the agreement was enforceable because it did not involve compensation and the surrogate was not subject to a binding agreement before birth. In gestational surrogacy arrangements, the intended parents must wait 72 hours after the birth before the surrogate can surrender custody. But under New Jersey law, the birth certificate does not have to be filed for five days. Thus, a two-day window exists during which intended parents can be placed on the birth certificate. In perhaps the most famous surrogacy case in the nation, Baby M , the New Jersey Supreme Court in 1988 invalidated a traditional surrogacy agreement, which provided a $10,000 fee to the surrogate mother. The Court barred the use of money in an adoption placement and further held that no one could contractually abandon their parental rights. Citations: AHW v. GHB, 772 A.2d 948 (NJ Super. 2000); In Re Baby M, 537 A.2d 1227 (NJ 1988). In a 2009 case, AGR v. DRH & SH , New Jersey Superior Court Judge Francis Schultz ruled that gestational surrogacy also violated public policy. [ 19 ] [ edit ] New Mexico New Mexico law appears to allow surrogacy agreements, but only if uncompensated. New Mexico law forbids “payment to a woman for conceiving and carrying a child” but allows payment for medical and other similar expenses incurred “by a mother or the adoptee.” Citation: NM STAT. ANN. § 32A-5-34 (2003). [ edit ] New York New York law holds surrogacy agreements void and unenforceable. Under New York law, surrogacy contracts are contrary to public policy. Case law also reflects that position. However, at least one court has recognized the rights of intended parents in an assisted reproduction situation absent a contract. In one 1994 divorce proceeding, a husband sought sole custody of the two children of the marriage on the basis that his wife was their gestational, but not genetic, mother. The wife had undergone an in vitro fertilization procedure in which she was impregnated with an anonymous donor egg fertilized with her husband's sperm. The Court followed the analysis of the California Supreme Court in a similar case, Johnson v. Calvert (see California entry for summary). Accordingly, the Court found the gestational mother to be the legal mother of the children, based on the intent of the parties regarding parentage. The Court did not mention or consider the statutory ban on surrogacy in this case. In one case in 1990, decided before the statutory ban on surrogacy agreements was passed, a married couple had entered into an extensive contract with a surrogate, including a $10,000 “surrogate fee.” The Court found the surrogate's commitment to relinquish the child she carried could not be truly voluntary because of the financial inducement. While the Court went on to find that its conclusion might be altered by a sworn statement by the surrogate that the child's best interests lie with the contracting couple, this option is probably foreclosed by the subsequent passage of the law voiding surrogacy agreements. Citations: NY CLS Dom Rel § 122 (2001); McDonald v. McDonald, 608 NYS2d 477 (NY App. Div. 1994); In the Matter of the Adoption of Paul, 550 NYS2d 815 (Fam. Ct., Kings County 1990). [ edit ] North Carolina North Carolina has no laws directly regarding surrogacy. However, other laws appear to allow surrogacy arrangements that do not include payment beyond the surrogate's medical and related expenses. State adoption law generally forbids compensation for consent to adopt or relinquishment of parental rights. However, the law provides for exceptions to this rule, among them payment for a mother's medical and related expenses during pregnancy, and allows that payment to be contingent on the relinquishment for adoption. Citation: NC GEN. STAT. §§ 48-10-102, 103 (2002). [ edit ] North Dakota According to existing state law, any surrogate agreement is void. The surrogate mother is deemed the legal mother of any child born as a result of a surrogacy, and her husband, if there is one, is considered the legal father. Citation: ND CENT. CODE § 14-18-05 (2002). [ edit ] Ohio Ohio law does not address the validity of surrogacy agreements, but their mention in other statutes indicates some degree of legislative acceptance. Ohio laws regarding artificial insemination “do not deal … with surrogate motherhood.” Ohio case law on surrogacy is unsettled. Ohio courts have addressed surrogacy arrangements several times, but the state Supreme Court has never definitively ruled whether surrogate-parenting contracts are enforceable. One 2001 case involved a man who entered into an oral agreement with his sister to carry a child for him and his same-sex partner. The sister was inseminated by an anonymous donor, but during the pregnancy began to have doubts about the arrangement. The court determined that the surrogate was the legal mother of the child for the following reasons: the child's lack of biological connection to the male couple, the lack of a written agreement and lack of certification of the verbal agreement by a family agency or court, and the fact that biological parents may be denied custody only in the case of abandonment, valid contractual relinquishment of custody, or total inability to provide care or support. The court ruled explicitly that even if a determination is made that a biological parent has forfeited his or her rights or that his or her custody would be detrimental to the child, the burden is still on the party seeking parental rights to prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that granting custody to the biological parent would still be unsuitable. The court found it possible “for a parent to contractually relinquish their rights to custody and still reacquire custody based on the non-parent's inability to show parental unsuitability." Nowhere in the decision did the court discuss the adoptive parents' sexual orientation as an issue in the decision. In fact, the judge's opinion outlines how the brother's partner might have gone about adopting the child had the surrogacy arrangement been legitimate. Thus, it seems the potential for same-sex couples in Ohio to use surrogacy arrangements exists, provided the contracts are entered into legally. Contributing some of the genetic material would also probably strengthen a case brought for custody for the intended parents. In another case, the Ohio Court of Appeals held in 1999 that genetic testing of a child conceived through a traditional surrogacy arrangement (in which the surrogate mother is the biological contributor of the egg) was required to identify the child's father. Two couples had created a written agreement under which the wife of one couple was to be inseminated by the husband of the other couple and relinquish custody of the child to the biological father and his wife after the birth. The surrogate mother reneged on the agreement, and invoked ORC Ann. 3111.37, a statute establishing that a child born from artificial insemination to a married woman is the natural child of her husband. The court held that the statute contemplated a procedure performed by a physician utilizing an anonymous sperm donor and did not apply in this case. Nevertheless, the court found genetic testing to determine paternity was in the best interest of the child in this case and referred the determination of parentage (after such testing) back to the lower court. In 1994, a lower court held that the intended parents in a gestational surrogacy agreement (in which the surrogate mother is not the biological contributor of the egg) were the natural and legal parents of the resulting child. However, the court noted that “as a matter of public policy, the state will not enforce or encourage private agreements or contracts to give up parental rights.” Because the decision came from a trial court, the language is not binding on other courts and may relate only to compensated agreements. After a complicated custody battle, in 1992 the Court of Appeals eventually denied custody to the intended mother in a traditional surrogacy agreement because she had no biological tie to the child, nor any recognizable legal tie because the surrogacy contract was an oral agreement and thus unenforceable. The court did not discuss how it would have ruled on a written contract, but concluded that the legality of surrogacy agreements in Ohio is "unsettled and open to considerable scrutiny." Citations: ORC ANN. § 3111.89 (2002); Decker v. Decker, 2001 Ohio App. LEXIS 4389 (Ohio Ct. App., 3d Dist. 2001); Turchyn v. Cornelius, 1999 Ohio App. LEXIS 4129 (Ohio Ct. App., 7th Dist. 1999); Belsito v. Clark, 644 NE2d 760 (Ct. Com. Pl., Summit County 1994); Seymour v. Stotski, 611 NE2d 454 (Ohio Ct. App., 10th Dist. 1992). [ edit ] Oklahoma Oklahoma has no laws directly addressing surrogacy, but an attorney general opinion indicated that surrogacy agreements run afoul of state law against “trafficking in children.” However, a surrogate parenting agreement that only provides compensation for medical and other basic expenses may be permitted. The state Attorney General concluded that surrogate parenting contracts that provide compensation to affect the adoption of a child violates state law prohibiting trafficking in children, which includes the “acceptance, offer or payment of compensation in connection with the transfer of legal or physical custody or adoption of a minor child.” State adoption law permits the payment of reasonable medical expenses for the birth mother and minor to be adopted, and it is possible that such reimbursement would be acceptable in the surrogacy context without violating the child trafficking law. Citations: 21 OKL. ST. ST. § 866 (2003); Office of the Attorney General of the State of Oklahoma, No. 83-182, Sept. 29, 1983; 10 OKL. ST. ST. § 7505-3.2 (2003). [ edit ] Oregon Oregon law appears to allow only uncompensated surrogacy arrangements. The statute prohibiting “buying or selling a person” has an explicit exemption for “fees for services in an adoption pursuant to a surrogacy agreement.” This appears to codify the conclusion of a 1989 opinion issued by the attorney general, which indicated that the state may invalidate any agreement in which money is exchanged for the right to adopt a child, particularly when the birth mother contests it. The case law confirms that if a surrogate mother is compensated for her consent to adoption under a surrogacy contract, the contract is unenforceable. However, it appears that a surrogacy arrangement in which the compensated surrogate mother would have carried the baby with or without pay would be upheld. In one case in 1994, the Oregon Court of Appeals upheld an uncontested surrogacy arrangement, refusing to invalidate the agreement even though payment to the surrogate mother exceeded her pregnancy-related expenses. The Court emphasized that the facts indicated the surrogate would have entered into the agreement even without compensation and that she was not seeking to withdraw her consent for the adoption of the child. However, this case was decided before the statutory provision discussed above was passed by the legislature. Citations: Office of the Attorney General of the State of Oregon, No. 8202, 46 Op. Atty. Atty. Gen. Ore. 221 (April 19, 1989); In the Matter of the Adoption of Baby A and Baby B, 877 P.2d 107 (Or. Ct. App. 1994). [ edit ] Pennsylvania The case law regarding surrogacy is ambiguous in Pennsylvania. Gestational surrogacy agreements (where there is an egg donor) are treated differently than traditional surrogacy agreements (where the birth mother's egg is used). In the former, the intended parents may petition the court to have their names appear on the child's original birth certificate. A traditional surrogacy agreement, however, requires an adoption post-birth. Due to public policy concerns around "selling" babies, it is unclear whether a traditional surrogacy agreement for compensation would be held valid. It appears that a compensated surrogacy agreement would be held unenforceable. However, an arrangement established through a legally recognized agency appears to be legal. The validity of informal arrangements is less certain. One case in 1997 did not involve a surrogacy contract, but rather a paternity dispute (apparently between a current husband and an extramarital male sexual partner) and the allocation of parental support duties. The court observed that the husband attempted to make a deal with the other man to obtain property in exchange for continued support of the child. In condemning this action as “odious and demeaning to the nature of child care and responsibility,” the court referenced a New Jersey case, In Re Baby M., which held compensated surrogacy contracts invalid under that state's laws. The court concluded, “[w]e do not tolerate purchasing children for adoption and the bargaining over parenting rights and duties … in exchange for financial consideration is reprehensible. Any agreement reached thereby would have been unenforceable.” Another 1997 case, Huddleston v. Infertility Center of America, involved a negligence action brought against a fertility clinic and did not directly relate to the validity of surrogacy arrangements. However, implicit in the decision was that state law permitted surrogacy arrangements through this particular agency. Citations: Ruth F. v. Robert B., Jr., 690 A.2d 1171 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1997); Huddleston v. Infertility Center of America, 700 A.2d 453 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1997). [ edit ] Rhode Island Rhode Island has no laws regarding surrogacy directly, but there appears to be some legislative approval for at least some forms of surrogacy.The state law prohibition on cloning has an explicit exception for the assisted reproductive technologies used in gestational surrogacy (in which the surrogate mother is not the biological contributor of the egg). Citation: RI GEN. LAWS § 23-16.4-2 (2002). [ edit ] South Carolina There are no existing provisions in South Carolina law regarding surrogacy. The limited case law indicates an acceptance of surrogacy contracts, although it only addresses those involving married, heterosexual couples. One 2003 case before a federal district court did not deal directly with the validity of a surrogacy agreement, but rather the status of the child of that agreement with regard to an insurance policy. The husband of the surrogate sought coverage for the child of the surrogacy under his insurance policy's coverage of a “natural child.” The court gave great deference to the terms of the surrogacy contract and the stipulations by the parties therein regarding the legal status of the adults and child involved. (The court found that the child of the surrogacy was not the “natural child” of the surrogate's husband, based largely on statements to that effect in the surrogacy contract.) While the court's holding does not go to the legitimacy of surrogacy arrangements in South Carolina directly, the court clearly assumed that such an arrangement was not contrary to state law when it showed such deference to its terms. Citation: Mid-South Insurance Co. v. Doe, 274 F.Supp.2d 757 (DSC 2003). [ edit ] South Dakota There are no provisions in South Dakota law or reported or published cases dealing with the issue of surrogacy. [ edit ] Tennessee Tennessee law appears to give surrogacy contracts legal consequence, but claims neither to approve nor forbid them. However, state law defines a “surrogate birth” to occur only when the surrogate is gestating a fetus for a married couple. State law defines “surrogate birth” as either an arrangement by which a surrogate agrees to carry the embryo of two married people or by which she agrees to carry a child to be parented by a married couple. The law also indicates that if such an agreement is in place, there is no need for a formal adoption proceeding. The state court system also seems disposed to granting force to reproductive agreements. In one 1992 case, the Tennessee Supreme Court held that “in disputes as to embryos, any prior agreement would be honored.” This decision did not specifically address surrogacy, but the Court's willingness to adjudicate a case involving embryos intended for surrogacy suggests a judiciary approval of such contracts in Tennessee. Citations: TENN. CODE ANN. § 36-1-102 (2002); Davis v. Davis, 842 SW2d 588 (Tenn. 1992). [ edit ] Texas Texas law explicitly allows but heavily regulates surrogacy agreements, and it appears to exclude same-sex couples. Among other constraints, existing state law requires intended parents to be married to each other. A court must validate a surrogacy contract for parental rights to attach to the intended parents upon birth of the child; a contract not validated by the court is unenforceable. Citations: TEX. FAM. CODE § 160.754; TEX. FAM. CODE § 160.762. Note: These provisions of the Family Code were added by House Bill 729 (LEXSEE 2003 Tex. HB 729) and have not yet been codified. [ edit ] Utah Surrogacy agreements are enforceable under Utah law in certain circumstances. The Utah Uniform Parentage Act permits written gestational agreements providing that the prospective gestational mother agrees to pregnancy by means of assisted reproduction, that she gives up all parental rights and duties as the parent of the child conceived through assisted reproduction, and that the intended parents (who must be married) become the child's parents. Citation: UTAH CODE ANN. Title 78 Chapter 45g-801 (2005) [ edit ] Vermont Surrogacy agreements are likely available to all individuals and couples in Vermont, but this is not entirely clear. There is no case law dealing directly with surrogacy, but at least one case has indicated an acceptance of such agreements in Vermont. In the groundbreaking 1999 case that led to the creation of civil unions in Vermont, the state itself argued that restricting marriage to different-sex couples would serve the important goal of minimizing complications in surrogacy agreements, suggesting a basic acceptance of such agreements. The Court's holding granting the state-level benefits and responsibilities of marriage to same-sex couples likely includes that acceptance of surrogacy. Citation: Baker v. State, 170 Vt. 194 (Sup. Ct. Vt. 1999). [ edit ] Virginia Virginia law explicitly approves of uncompensated surrogacy, but it appears to exclude same-sex couples from participation in these arrangements. Virginia statutes impose numerous restrictions on surrogacy contracts, including limiting formation of such agreements to a surrogate and "intended parents" defined as "a man and a woman, married to each other." Citation: VA. CODE ANN. §§ 20-156 (2002). [ edit ] Washington Washington allows uncompensated surrogacy arrangements but deems illegal and unenforceable any agreement involving any payment to the surrogate mother other than medical and legal expenses. State law specifies that compensated surrogacy arrangements are void and unenforceable as against public policy, and is punishable as a gross misdemeanor. A custody dispute between the surrogate mother and the intended parents is resolved according to a multi-pronged balancing test codified in Washington law, largely based upon the child's relationship with each parent. A parent-child relationship can be established by a valid surrogate parentage contract or an affidavit and physician's certificate wherein an egg donor or gestational surrogate sets forth her intent to be the legal parent of the child. A 1989 opinion from the attorney general confirmed this assessment of state law, and also indicated that a surrogate parenting agreement is not enforceable if the surrogate withdraws her consent to relinquish her child before court approval of the consent. Citations: RCW §§ 26.26.210-.260 (2002); RCW § 26.26.101 (2002). 1989 WL 428954 (Wash. AG). [ edit ] West Virginia West Virginia has no laws directly addressing the legality of surrogacy contracts. State law prohibiting the purchase or sale of a child specifically mentions that “fees and expenses included in any agreement in which a woman agrees to become a surrogate mother” are not prohibited by the statute, suggesting that surrogacy arrangements may be enforceable. Citation: W. VA. CODE § 48-22-803(e)(3) (2002). [ edit ] Wisconsin Wisconsin law does not directly address the legality of surrogacy contracts. In the statute pertaining to the collection of vital statistics, the law states that the surrogate mother's name is to be added to the birth certificate until “a court determines parental rights,” at which time a new birth certificate with names of the intended parents may be issued, but the statute does not lay out the factors a court should consider in making that decision. Citation: WIS. STAT. § 69.14(h) (2001). [ edit ] Wyoming There are no provisions in Wyoming law or reported or published cases dealing with the issue of surrogacy. [ 20 ] [ edit ] Ethical issues [ uredi ] Etička pitanja [ edit ] Mother-child relationship A study by the Family and Child Psychology Research Centre at City University, London , UK in 2002 concluded that surrogate mothers rarely had difficulty relinquishing rights to a surrogate child and that the intended mothers showed greater warmth to the child than mothers conceiving naturally. [ 21 ] Anthropological studies of surrogates have shown that surrogates engage in various distancing techniques throughout the surrogate pregnancy so as to ensure that they do not become emotionally attached to the baby. [ 22 ] Many surrogates intentionally try to foster the development of emotional attachment between the intended mother and the surrogate child. [ 23 ] Instead of the popular expectation that surrogates feel traumatized after relinquishment, an overwhelming majority describe feeling empowered by their surrogacy experience. [ 24 ] In fact, quantitative and qualitative studies of surrogates over the past twenty years, mostly from a psychological or social work perspective, have confirmed that the majority of surrogates are satisfied with their surrogacy experience, do not experience "bonding" with the child they birth, and feel positively about surrogacy even a decade after the birth. [ 25 ] Assessing such studies from a social constructionist perspective reveals that the expectation that surrogates are somehow "different" from the majority of women and that they necessarily suffer as a consequence of relinquishing the child have little basis in reality and are instead based on cultural conventions and gendered assumptions. [ 25 ] Many surrogates form close and intimate relationships with the intended parents. When the greatness of their efforts is acknowledged, they recall their surrogacy experience in the years to come as the most meaningful experience of their lives. [ 26 ] [ edit ] Compensated surrogacy Also variously called " Commercial surrogacy ", " paid surrogacy ", " wombs for rent ", " outsourced pregnancies " or " baby farms ", compensated surrogacy refer to a form of surrogate pregnancy in which a gestational carrier is paid to carry a child to maturity in her womb and is usually resorted to by well off infertile couples who can afford the cost involved. This procedure is legal in several countries including in India where due to excellent medical infrastructure, high international demand and ready availability of poor surrogates it is reaching industry proportions [ 27 ] . The procedure involves willing and medically fit surrogate mothers being impregnated in-vitro with the egg and sperm of couples unable to conceive on their own. Commercial surrogacy has been legal in India since 2002 and in many other countries, including the United States . But India is emerging as a leader making it into what can be called a viable industry rather than a rare fertility treatment . There is concern if this practice keeps growing the way it is, it could change from a medical necessity for infertile women to a convenience for the rich with specially the wealthy couples of the West choosing commercial surrogacy over a natural childbirth because of the pain and stress of natural childbirth causing the whole industry to be farmed out. Some bioethicists are concerned that Indian surrogates are being badly paid for their surrogacy and that they are working as surrogates in a country with a comparatively high maternal death rate. [ 28 ] [ 29 ] However high maternal death rate is found in the poorest of the poor section of the population in India who may not get access to proper medical facilities in time or from amongst many who opt not to access them because of superstition and illiteracy. Surrogate mothers in India under commercial surrogacy programs on the other hand usually are carefully chosen, cared for with amongst the best highly advanced medical, nutritional and overall care available in the field anywhere in the world [ 30 ] and medical tourism in India is already a flourishing industry. Teams of maids cook and doctors look after the surrogate mothers in the clinics which care for the women during pregnancy and delivery, and counsel them afterward. [ 31 ] Supporters of commercial surrogacy argue that opposite to the practice is based on sexist notions regarding the need to protect women from their own judgment. Bioethicist Jacob M. Appel , one such supporter of commercial surrogacy, has written that "if men could serve as surrogates...they would be admired as entrepreneurs." [ 32 ] [ edit ] Citizenship of Children born In a landmark judgment in a case which had no precedents in the country, the Gujarat State High Court in India conferred Indian citizenship on two twin babies fathered through compensated surrogacy by a German national in Anand district . Raising a lot of questions related to surrogacy, the bench observed, “We are primarily concerned with the rights of two newborn, innocent babies, much more than the rights of the biological parents, surrogate mother, or the donor of the ova . Emotional and legal relationship of the babies with the surrogate mother and the donor of the ova is also of vital importance.” After considering the case laws related to surrogacy of countries like Ukraine , Japan and the USA , the court decided the case at hand by inclining to recognize the surrogate mother as the natural mother of the children. And since the woman is Indian, the children were granted Indian citizenship and passports under the legal provisions [ 33 ] . However as India does not allow full fledged dual citizenship [ 34 ] , the children will have to convert to Overseas Citizenship of India [ 35 ] if they are also going to be taking foreign citizenship of their biological parent's country.
|
|
|
|