To End The Demand

The Daily Mail is being reassuringly anti-capitalist when Zoe Hardy writes:

A senior United Nations (UN) official has called for a universal ban on the 'exploitative, unethical and cruel' practice of surrogate motherhood.

In a report, set to be presented to the UN General Assembly in October, Reem Alsalem—the UN's special rapporteur on violence against women and girls—said the practice exposes women to 'serious human rights violations'.

According to the report, in 2023 the global surrogacy market was valued at over £11 billion and is projected to reach £73.75 billion by 2033.

But surrogate mothers often only receive a small fraction of the payment made by commissioning parents, with the majority of funds going to agencies.

And, unlike in adoption where prospective parents have to be screened to ensure they are suitable to adopt a child, very few background checks are required.

In the first-of-its-kind report Ms Alsalem concluded that UN member states should work towards adopting an 'international legally binding instrument prohibiting all forms of surrogacy', as is the case with prostitution.

British campaigners today welcomed the findings, arguing the practice has long been 'deeply coercive'.

Some European countries prohibit the practice of surrogacy, including Spain and Italy.

But 'altruistic' surrogacy, whereby a woman gives birth to a baby on behalf of another woman or couple but no money changes hands, excluding for expenses, is legal in countries including Belgium, the Netherlands, the UK, Canada, Brazil and Colombia.

Commercial surrogacy is however permitted in some US states.

In February this year, Emily in Paris actress Lily Collins and her partner Charlie McDowell welcomed their first daughter, named Tove, via surrogate— splitting reaction along predictable lines.

Kim Kardashian has also previously praised her experience with surrogacy, with Lorena—who carried the A lister's third child, Chicago—making her public debut on Keeping Up with the Kardashians back in 2018.

In the report, Ms Alsalem said: 'The practice of surrogacy is characterised by exploitation and violence against women and children, including girls.

'It reinforces patriarchal norms by commodifying and objectifying women's bodies and exposing surrogate mothers and children to serious human rights violations.'

She added that new guidelines on surrogacy should be modelled on the Nordic model for prostitution—penalising buyers, clinics and agencies, in a bid to end the demand for surrogacy.

'The advertising of surrogacy services and agencies must be prohibited,' she said.

Instead, support strategies should be put in place for women already carrying a pregnancy for someone else.

The report also found that surrogate pregnancies lead to more complications often necessitating a caesarean delivery which puts both the mother and baby at risk.

From birth, surrogate children are also at higher risk of developing mental health issues, as many are immediately separated from the woman who carried them, resulting in disrupted attachment and ultimately leaving the child 'in limbo', it claimed.

British campaign groups have welcomed the findings, agreeing with the UN report's conclusions.

Helen Gibson, founder of Surrogacy Concern said: 'Surrogacy is exploitative, unethical and cruel to the child who bonds with their mother in utero, irrespective of the egg used in the pregnancy.

'We urge the British Government to take up the UN's recommendation, and ban surrogacy for Britons travelling abroad, and at home.'

Lexi Ellingsworth, co-founder of Stop Surrogacy Now, added: 'We welcome this report from the UN Special Rapporteur.

'We have long understood the deeply coercive nature of surrogacy, even under the so-called 'altruistic' model in the UK.

'The narrative around this controversial practice needs to change and move away from that which agencies and beneficiaries would have the public believe, and instead fully reflect the reality for women and girls.'

Under the 'altruistic' system in the UK, surrogates can be paid between £1,200 and £15,000—anything more than this the court has to authorise.

Currently, no court has ever refused to authorise a payment above the 'reasonable expense', arguing it could ultimately jeopardise the wellbeing of the child.