India: Surrogacy (Regulation) Bill approved by the Lok Sabha, but exploitation loopholes persist Print E-mail
 December 20, 2018

LS passes Bill banning commercial surrogacy

 Set of baby and parent icons on textured backgrounds   

The Lok Sabha on Wednesday passed a Bill banning commercial surrogacy with penal provisions of jail term of up to 10 years and fine of up to 10 lakh.

The Bill, which will become law once the Rajya Sabha approves it, allows only close Indian relatives to be surrogate mothers and purely for "altruistic" reasons. It states an Indian infertile couple, married for five years or more, can go in for 'altruistic surrogacy' where the surrogate mother will not be paid any compensation except medical expenses and insurance.

'Historic legislation'
Union Health Minister J.P. Nadda termed the proposed legislation historic and thanked the members for a "high-quality" debate, despite noisy protests from the Congress, the TDP and the AIADMK. While the Congress raised the issue of a JPC probe into the Rafale deal, AIADMK members were protesting against the delay in constituting a Cauvery Water Board.

Opening the debate, Mr. Nadda said India had become a hub of commercial surrogacy and surrogate mothers were being exploited. The Minister claimed that the Bill had the support of every section of society, besides political parties, the Supreme Court and the Law Commission.

Dr. Kakoli Ghosh Dastidar of the Trinamool Congress, while supporting the Bill, suggested ways to improve it. "The hon. Supreme Court has recently decriminalised Section 377 and the LGBT community has been accepted to be a part of the mainstream. So, we have same- sex couples now. But, in this Bill, there is no mention of them," she said.

The Trinamool MP also called for stopping "fashion surrogacy", alleging that some celebrities were opting for it as they did not want their figures destroyed. Supriya Sule of the NCP urged the government to expand its scope as "the Bill is a good Bill but not modern enough."

BJD's Bhartruhari Mahtab pointed out that it does not define who is a close relative.

Replying to the debate, Mr. Nadda said the definition of a close relative will be clearly given in the rules of the Bill. He, however, made it clear that only a defined mother and family can avail of surrogacy and it won't be permitted for live-in partners or single parents.
~~~~~~~~~~~~
 Friday December 21, 2018

Editorial:

Womb on hire

Bill defines what surrogacy must really be all about


IN an attempt to regulate surrogacy, the Lok Sabha on Wednesday passed a Bill to bring in intelligible laws to insulate it against exploitation. The service has been micro-contained to benefit only, and only, infertile Indian and NRI couples who have been married for five years and have failed to conceive even after medical intervention. The larger circle of foreigners, Persons of Indian Origin, Overseas Citizens of India, single, divorced persons, widows and members of the LGBT community has been firmly kept away. Introduced by the Health Minister, the Bill ticks all the boxes, clarifying who is eligible for the service, and who can be a 'one-time' surrogate: a married Indian woman, aged 25 to 35, with a child of her own, and only a 'close relative' (to be defined by National Surrogacy Board once it is law).

For long, a need was felt to monitor surrogacy, whirling uncomfortably out of hand, mainly due to obscure laws, the ease of a made-to-order baby and the boggling figures that established it as an industry worth $2 billion. There have been cases of abandonment of babies, but what made it worse was the largely altruistic sentiment giving in to a fad, propagated by the Aamir Khans and Karan Johars and other affluent couples who 'engineered' a no-fuss way of having a baby: buy one. The legislation has to it a soft side, vital in such-like matters as surrogacy and adoption, allowing the surrogate child the same rights as a biological child and ensuring that a baby is not abandoned. A couple with a mentally challenged child can go for surrogacy. The registration of surrogacy clinics will be binding too.

The extreme downside to surrogacy was the commercial angle that overrode the moral considerations. Monetary allurement has now been pulled out of the equation. Heading the GoM drafting the Bill in 2016, Sushma Swaraj had said: 'Surrogacy can't be a fashion or a hobby for actors who don't want their wives to undergo labour or who already have children. It must have a purpose.' The presumptuous belief that money can buy love may be in currency still, but surely, it can't now buy a baby.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
 Monday December 24, 2018

What is altruistic surrogacy?

By Anindita Majumdar

India has to be wary of the kind of exploitation it is fostering

What is an altruistic surrogacy arrangement? According to the new Surrogacy (Regulation) Bill, approved by the Lok Sabha last week, it includes contracting a 'close relative' as a surrogate by a heterosexual married couple who have been childless for five years of their marriage. This line, in gist, separates altruism from the commercial tinge that surrogacy carries with it.

How is an act of selflessness translated into thinking about a pregnancy that is aimed towards relinquishing the child to a close relative? In the U.K., laws on surrogacy allow only altruistic arrangements where the surrogate can be paid only 'reasonable expenses'. The fluidity in defining reasonable expenses means that this should ideally include payment for medical treatment, and in-vitro fertilisation (IVF) but may include other 'expenses'. In most of Australia, altruistic surrogacy entails restricted ­ in different parts of the world, varying levels of legal restrictions, or complete bans are practised ­ pre-approved payments to the surrogate, including for diet during the pregnancy, and/or for the medical treatment. However, altruism also entails the provision that the surrogate is the legal mother of the child, which can be transferred to the parents through a legal process, including adoption. In many countries in Europe, the act of gestation defines motherhood, even though the egg used for the pregnancy through IVF may belong to the couple entering the arrangement.

Role of the surrogate

As per the new Surrogacy Bill, the surrogate in India continues to fulfil her role as a gestate. In keeping with the insistence on gestational surrogacy, which makes the use of IVF and other assisted reproductive technologies mandatory, the current Bill is faithful to the Indian Council of Medical Research's Draft Assisted Reproductive Technology (Regulation) Bill, 2010. The latter has governed the practice of surrogacy till the Surrogacy Bill of 2016 banning commercial surrogacy comes into effect. Motherhood did not belong to the surrogate; she was trained to think of herself as a gestate, as research by Amrita Pande suggests, and the relinquishment of the child was an absolutely essential clause within the draft bills on commercial surrogacy, and in practice in the surrogacy contract.

The commercial surrogacy arrangement in India was an exchange of money for services: and yet, clinics and surrogacy agents went to great lengths to transform the commercial element of the surrogacy arrangement, primarily identified as the surrogate's fees, into gift-giving, and sacrifice. That motherhood could be for sale is a matter of distress and shock.

In that sense, altruistic surrogacy is not very different from its opposite commercial variant. Unlike the U.K., altruism in India is being defined through the tie of kinship, not through the exchange of payment for 'services rendered'. Here, kinship and family hide the commercial element entailed in seeking a surrogate from among close relatives. Thus, much of the criticism against the Surrogacy Bill in Parliament points toward the lack of definition that the category of the 'close relative' carries.

A parallel

Let's look at the Transplantation of Human Organs Act (THOA), 1994, as a parallel to the conversation on altruism and its linkages with commercial surrogacy. The Act prescribes that organ donors are allowed to donate their organs before death only to 'near relatives'. Donating organs to 'strangers' or not near relatives before death is not allowed, and may be approved of only through the authorisation committee. The category of the 'near relative' appears again in a similar vein to the 'close relative'. But unlike the Surrogacy Bill, the THOA identifies 'near relatives' as 'spouse, son, daughter, father, mother, brother or sister'. It's a closed group of relatives ­ within the structure of the nuclear family unit ­ members who may not be eligible to be surrogates, unfortunately.

In my research, IVF specialists found the mother and sister of the infertile woman to be perfect as gestational carriers. In 2004, in Gujarat, Nayana Patel, who later became famous for her surrogacy clinic in Anand, facilitated the surrogate pregnancy of a 43-year-old woman seeking to help her childless daughter and son-in-law to have a child of their own. Yet, the women belonging to the father-to-be's family, such as his sister and mother as surrogates, carried associations with incest (even though gestational surrogacy is facilitated through technological interventions).

Word of caution
By banning commercial surrogacy in favour of its altruistic avatar, the identification of 'close relatives' will take on a murky turn. Just like in the case of organ donation, wherein 'strangers' were dressed up as 'near relatives', in altruistic surrogacy too, similar negotiations may be entered into. In an overtly patriarchal society, women are always at the receiving end of ostracism and exploitation. In facilitating altruistic surrogacy among close kin, we have to be wary of the kind of exploitation we are fostering.

Despite exempting gay couples, single men and women, and live-in couples from seeking surrogacy, not clearly defining the regulative mechanisms within altruistic surrogacy, and the very regressive approval for couples with differently-abled children to opt for surrogacy, the Bill does seek certain important changes. The push towards adoption is very welcome, as is the waiting period of five years. The popularity of IVF and other assisted reproductive technologies stems from a problematic conceptualisation of infertility itself, pushing couples to opt for invasive intervention within a year of unprotected coitus. Of importance now is to go back to understanding why and how the desire for children is socially mediated to help couples seeking surrogates, and vice versa.

Anindita Majumdar
is Assistant Professor, Department of Liberal Arts, Indian Institute of Technology Hyderabad. She is the author of the book, 'Surrogacy: Oxford India Short Introductions'