What: TESTIFY Judiciary and Public Safety: Bill 20-32, the Surrogacy Parenting Agreement Act of 2013
When: Thursday, June 20, 2013 at 11:30AM
Where: Council of the District of Columbia- Room 412; 1350 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20004
“Would the adoption advocates PLEASE come out in full force in DC tomorrow at the surrogacy hearing. Please, we need to hear from you!”
This request for help came form Jennifer Lahl the President The Center for Bioethics and Culture Network
Yes, it is last minute, and no, surrogacy is not adoption, but they sure are related and we do know what issues the children created via surrogacy will endure.
Surrogacy Parenting Agreement Act of 2013
The Committee on the Judiciary and Public Safety will convene a public hearing to receive comments on the following legislation:
- Bill 20-32, the Surrogacy Parenting Agreement Act of 2013
The Committee invites the public to testify.
Individuals and representatives of organizations who wish to testify should contact Tawanna Shuford at 724-7808 or tshuford@dccouncil.us, and furnish their name, address, telephone number, and organizational affiliation, if any, by 5:00 p.m. on Tuesday, June 4, 2013. (opps.. yes, last minute!) Witnesses should bring 15 copies of their testimony. Testimony may be limited to 3 minutes for individuals and 5 minutes for those representing organizations or groups.
If you are unable to testify at the public hearing, written statements are encouraged and will be made part of the official record.
The following we can all do:
Written statements should be submitted by 5:00 p.m. on Monday, July 1, 2013 to Ms. Shuford, Committee on the judiciary and Public Safety, Room 109, 1350 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Washington, D.C., 20004, or via email at tshuford@dccouncil.us.
The issue as I see with the DC Surrogacy Bill #20-32 is that there is an allowed prevision allows for anonymous donors. These children that grow up as a result of surrogacy contracts will not feel “desired and wanted”; they will feel created, purchased, bought and sold for the needs of others. Also, like we see with many adoptees, the desire and normal need to know one’s genetic history and who they came form is completely thwarted by anonymous donors and surrogacy as a whole.
That, and, you know, that we are fostering the continued exploitation of humans for their reproductive purposes and the selling of children and body parts as a commodity.
Watch The Surrogacy Hearing Live
at this link: http://dccouncil.us/granicus/
As someone who prior to the adoption research did the third party reproduction research, you bring something that hits home for me. First let me say that unlike the adoption advoacy community which is made up of people who have had their life touched by adoption, Jennifer Lahl and her far right wing group has not had their lives touched by third party reproduction. No, these people are self righteous extremists who have little to no understanding of infertility. Jennifer’s belief is that all woman should have their babies between the ages of 20-24 and that they should do what she did and put off her education until they are done making babies. To make matters worse IMO she has exploited donor conceived children who were lied to about their conception for her causes gain.
For most of these donor conceived children the issues they face are not that they were unwanted but that they were lied to and have identity issues. Alana S. Newman who was a donor conceived child is someone who was not told about her conception until she was older, she is a big opponent of third party conception and has a website called anonymousus. Unlike Jennifer Lahl she has a personal connection to this and unlike Jennifer she has empathy for the infertility community. Back in February when I was still newly diagnosed with being sterile, I came upon her website and sent her a rather rude note (because I love to overreact to stuff that pisses me off). I didn’t expect a reply back but wouldn’t you know it she did reply. Not only did she reply but we engaged in a civil discussion where she sent me a bunch of websites that show how environmental factors are contributing to infertility (unlike Jennifer who didn’t respond to any of my emails). She couldn’t have been a nicer more empathetic person in our emails back and forth. While I find her position extreme, I do respect and understand where she is coming from unlike the other far right wing positions out there.
While its very unlikely my wife and I would pursue third party reproduction. If we did we were planning to use full disclosure with the child from day 1. If they wanted to find their bio dad they would have had my full support and even my help. For me full disclosure needs to be in place from day 1 and the parents need to set the example that there is no shame in the child’s creation story and that the story belongs to them only.
Again for me this sense of entitlement for infertiles goes back to society looking down upon the childless. Most of this comes from the far religious right (not all of them though) who believe if god wanted infertiles to have a baby they would. As if god wants all those who get cancer to suffer and die.
If we really want to help avoid these issues it goes back to not looking down on the childless (not by choice) and support them to limit the sense of entitlement for children.