Regarding SF 2965/HF 3448

*The proposed legislation is necessary to bring gender equity to existing Minnesota Law that already affirms third-party reproduction*

Since 1982, medical science has mastered the process of in vitro fertilization. SF 2965/HF 3448 recognizes this medical advance and updates our statutes to apply to these new donor options. In this way, our law appropriately addresses female infertility as well as male infertility. The result is third-party reproduction legislation that is gender neutral.

The proposed law REQUIRES that the gestational carrier NOT use her own egg so that she is NOT genetically related to the child. The law also requires that one or both of the intended parents be genetically related to the child. Under these circumstances, the child is the intended parents' child, NOT the gestational carrier's child. As you well know, one cannot sell something that does not belong to him or her. The child is the intended parents' genetice child, and they are simply reasonably compensating the carrier for her very real time, effort, pain, and health risks associated with the pregnancy and delivery. Anything less would be unfair to the carrier. Just as parents are not "buying" their child from a daycare provider when they compensate the provider for her very real services in caring for their child, parents are not "buying" their child when they reasonably compensate a gestational carrier.

The current law is outdated because it does not contemplate egg donation or gestational carriers (medical procedures and reproductive possibilities that were created after our existing statute was passed). The current law is also gender biased because it only benefits those families experiencing male infertility and not female infertility. We should update our law to be consistent with current medical practices and to promote gender equity for infertile women.

There have been several claims regarding this leglisation made by the Minnesota Family Council and the Catholic church....here are answers and information regarding those claims:

This is “baby selling!”
No it is not. The legislation requires that the intended parents be genetically related to the child and that the surrogate not use her own egg so she is NOT genetically related to the child. A person cannot buy something that already belongs to him or her. The surrogate is being reasonably compensated for her time, very real health risks, and pain. Nobody is selling anybody a baby. It is like saying that when you drop your newborn child off at the daycare provider’s house for the day, you are “buying” your child when you pick her up at the end of the day and pay the daycare provider for her services. Furthermore, just as it is unreasonable to expect a daycare provider to watch your child without reasonable compensation, it is unreasonable to expect a gestational carrier to go through an entire pregnancy without reasonable compensation. If we didn’t pay daycare providers, very few would provide such services. The same is true for gestational carriers.

This will allow to create “designer babies!”
No it wont. Designer babies already exist for those who want them. Whether choosing a sperm donor or an egg donor, parents have the ability to select certain looks and qualities in the donor they choose to use. This ability has existed for years with sperm donors, and it already exists today for egg donors. The legislation will have no effect on this ability. It simply establishes legal parentage for the intended parents. In fact, when intended parents use their own sperm and egg to have their own genetically related child with the kind assistance of a gestational carrier, there is no designing going on at all. The parents receive the same child they would have had even if they had not used a surrogate.

This bill is “far out there!”
No is isnt. The terms of the legislation are virtually identical to a statute that was passed in Illinois in 2005. That law has worked in Illinois for more than three years. The content of this legislation has also been approved without any dissenting votes by the American Bar Association, the Minnesota State Bar Association Family Law Section, and the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers. In addition, 36 out of 50 states currently allow compensated surrogacy, whether implicitly or expressly. In fact, this law puts Minnesota in the mainstream of currently accepted practice and/or legislation in this area.

Please contact your local senators representatives and tell them to support this legislation.