Friday, March 11, 2011

WA Senate to Consider Selling Babies

Print Friendly Version of this pagePrint Get a PDF version of this webpagePDF
Tuesday, March 15, the Washington State Senate will consider HB 1267 with a public hearing at 1:30 PM in Senate Hearing Room 2.

If you can attend the hearing, please do.

Here's why.

HB 1267 will allow the sale of babies before they are conceived.

Most states, including Washington State, do not enforce surrogacy agreements because they do not want to put themselves between a biological mother and her child or in a position where they would be forced to take the child away and give it to someone else.

Often a mother who considers surrogacy, changes her mind following birth, that's why there is only a few hundred surrogacies in the US each year.

This bill will provide for binding, enforceable contracts between a couple or individual and the surrogate mother in exchange for money---in advance.

We strongly oppose this bill because children are not chattel.

We also oppose it because it is a Trojan Horse of sorts. While the homosexual activists in the legislature are presenting the bill as a "common sense, clarification" bill, it is much more than that. Representatives Jamie Pederson, Moeller, Liias and others are driving this bill as part of their vision for the homosexual agenda. Please notice the list of 53 names of sponsorship on the bill.

Fortunately there are pro-life, pro-family and pro-marriage legislators in Olympia. Although they are in the minority, they stand strong and consistent on these important social issues.

Senator Dan Swecker, a long time personal friend and proven friend to advocates of Judeo-Christian values, has asked me and others to forward his letter asking for help in this matter. Click here for text of letter.

If you can attend the hearing, please do. Your presence will make an important statement. If you cannot attend, please take a moment and call or email your State Senator.

God bless you.

Be Vigilant. Be Discerning. Be Prayerful. Be Active. Be Blessed.

Gary Randall
Faith and Freedom

Click here to add these blogs to your email inbox.


  1. ::sigh:: The changes in this bill are designed to protect the surrogate and the intended parents and prevent 'baby mills'.

    In this bill only women who have previous had at least one child (not as a surrogate) are eligible to enter surrogacy contracts and they can only be a surrogate at max twice.

    And although she can contractually waive her right to keep the child she can also just as easily have it in the surrogacy contract that she can void the contract at any time. Sounds like a good job for these 'pregnancy centers' that have been in the news - provide attorneys for the surrogates that negotiate just such kinds of clauses in the contract.

    And realize that reproductive technology has changed a great deal - many surrogates are now hosting implanted embryos and have no genetic ties to the baby. I can see it becoming fairly standard that if the surrogate is also the egg donor or was impregnated with artificial insemination that her contract would have a clause that gave her 'right of refusal' if it were on her genetic offspring, while those that really just hosting someone else's child would not insist on such a clause.

    As it stands without the law we have women that are basically becoming professional 'surrogates', there are no standards of how they should be compensated, what health protections they should have both before and after the birth, and the intended parents, many who are the real genetic parents of the child, have no clear legal recourse if the surrogate suddenly wants to keep a child that is genetically theirs.

    Interestingly considering how many surrogacy agreements are much easier (and less expensive) than this legislation would require it will probably reduce the number of surrogacies if passed. This folds surrogacy under the already RCW prohibiting child selling and limits exactly what can and can't be paid for just like it already does for adoption. Again, this legislation puts LIMITS on surrogacy, limits that don't currently exist.

    But go have a fun day anyway - the capitol is pretty, sort of like a toy version of the DC one. ;)

  2. The bill removes the current prohibition on paid surrogacy agreements.
    It removes current language that makes all surrogacy contracts void.
    It permits open ended lawsuits (no financial limits) against paid surrogate mothers who fail to perform under the contract in some cases.
    It establishes assumed parental status at the time of birth on bases other than biological relationships.

    None of these sound like good ideas to me.

  3. This is one more incremental bite by gays to redefine marriage and family.

  4. Just to clarify:

    Only surrogacy contracts for compensation are void currently void in Washington state, you can still be a surrogate you just can't be compensated. (But there are also no guarantees of healthcare pre and post delivery for the surrogate, no guarantee of legal representation, and more for surrogacy contracts.

    It protects the surrogate from lawsuits because the contract has been written with the input of her own lawyer. Again, surrogacy contracts are not void in Washington state currently only one for compensation as per RCW 26.25.240.

    And while the proposed legislation does allow the contract to designate the intended parents, the contract can easily modify that to include the will of the surrogate, particularly if she is the egg donor. Current legislation and precedence would already make the genetic parents the eventual parents, but only after a legal battle. With the ability of the contract to designate the parents, this could protect all those involved, the gestational woman, and both genetic contributors whom ever they might be.

    I do wonder if people are confusing directed adoptions with surrogacy. An unwed mother can not be a surrogate - the contract must be entered into before the pregnancy. A minor can't be a surrogate, someone can't make it a profession to be a surrogate since they are limited to two surrogacy. And this legislation would not allow a woman's first child to be as a surrogate.

    Women who are surrogates do so deliberately with the intent from before the baby is conceived of it not being theirs. This legislation protects them, makes sure that their health is protected during and after their gestation, and clarifies what their legal rights are, as well as making it possible for the contracting people to have some defined legal expectations.

    Oh and as to the gay comment by 7:50am, get real. Despite what evening TV dramas would have you think the vast majority of surrogacies are between married heterosexual people because the woman can't bear children for a multitude of medical reasons. Same sex couples can already adopt in this state and most are raising children from a previous marriage. And even if the contracting couple were same sex if it was a 'gestational surrogacy' where the surrogate was not the egg donor she would again not make a successful legal claim to the child but only after a lengthy court battle.

    Allowing women to be compensated and contracted with legal exceptions and rights defined makes it better for them, the people contracting them and most importantly for the child themselves so that they can start life with the parents the are going to have rather than in a legal limbo for who knows how long.

    Let me know how the hearings go.

  5. We have laws in this country that prohibit the selling of humans for money, whether someone is in dire finacial straits or not. Just because other states or countries allow it does not not mean it isn't wrong on the face of it; for over 200 years this country has fought against slavery and now some want
    to codify it. Shame on us!

    Craig in Lacey


Faith and Freedom welcomes your comment posts. Remember, keep it short, keep it on message and relevant, and identify your town.