All 'Mail' Couples?

I am sure that many of my readers have seen that The Daily Mail ran a story, which was then updated on September 10th and is now floating around social media. The story claims, which, if you feel so disposed you can read HERE, that there is now a shortage of surrogate mothers and that gay fathers are to blame! Their source for this claim is one of the leading surrogacy agencies, COTS (Childlessness Overcome Through Surrogacy) and their Chairwoman, Kim Cotton and a reference to Surrogacy UK.

Now, I am going to caveat this piece bearing in mind that it is based on something written in the Daily Mail. They are hardly the bastion of honest reporting and they seem to have a knack for twisting a story in order to make it sensational enough to print. I have written before about the media and their thirst for sensationalism which you can read HERE. There is a possibility that the comments made by Cotton have been misrepresented or taken out of context, this is the Daily Fail after all, but I am going to continue under the illusion that they are reporting accurately (an amusing thought I must say). I wanted to write this article for all of my readers who know that my husband and I are in our own surrogacy journey and may be concerned if they have read that Daily Mail piece.

The opening paragraph of the article claims that ‘A huge increase in gay couples wanting to have babies using surrogate mothers has forced a leading agency to turn away infertile heterosexual couples.’

I daresay that there has indeed been a rise in the number of gay couples wanting to have children. We are one of those said couples. There are many reasons why, in the past, gay couples have been unable to become parents, most of all stems from the legal system. However, the world around us is changing and always will. The laws are changing to ensure that we are all treated equally and enable us all to make the same choices. Of course, I concede that this means there are more gay people embarking on their own surrogacy journeys, which in turn means there are less incredible surrogates out there. 

My point here is the way in which this story has been reported. To me, the article reads like an attempt to rile up the masses against gay people having children and naturally, this angers me. Perhaps I am reading it wrong, but it really does read like a blame piece because it implies that it is because of gay people that heterosexual couples are missing out. 

I want to make this abundantly clear right now, that I believe no couple should get any kind of priority when it comes to finding and matching with a surrogate. Both heterosexual and homosexual couples are entitled to embark on the journey to parenthood. When push comes to shove, it is very much up to the surrogate who she feels a connection with, to then become matched and begin that journey. Gay couples cannot be blamed for this any more than anyone else can.

However, it is not just the fact that they lay the blame on gay couples that has irked me. The article also claims that due to this rise in demand, more people are now using ‘risky’ online services to find surrogates. I am intrigued to know what these risky services are since it does not actually detail them. Since the start of our journey, I have seen no evidence of anything risky or that does not follow the law. From the beginning of our journey, it was evidently clear that there were two options. We could go through an agency, where we would be matched with a surrogate and have all of the relevant formal background and medical checks. Alternatively, we could match with a surrogate independently who also requires all of the relevant formal background and medical checks as I have spoken about in my recent surrogacy journey update. You’ll notice the key difference here is how to actually match with a surrogate. We did indeed consider using an agency to assist us in our search for a surrogate but after some time, we had found ourselves talking to many different surrogates within social media groups. These groups have frequent social gatherings so that intended parents and surrogates can meet in person and get to know each other. Ultimately, we found connections with other intended parents, other parents, through surrogacy and of course, the surrogates themselves. We felt that if we found connections and friendships with all of these people, we did not really need to use an agency to do that part for us. There are a large number of surrogates out there who are fully versed in the legal and medical requirements who are also not part of an agency. Our own surrogate included.

Initially, when we first started getting to know Lisa, she was very clear that she was not looking to start another journey however she was more than happy to help educate us and make sure that we knew absolutely everything we needed to learn about surrogacy. She is not part of an agency. It was in that process of learning and talking that we actually found a very strong connection with her and a very strong friendship was developing way beyond the discussions of surrogacy. That growing connection ultimately led to Lisa deciding that she would indeed embark on another journey and would match with us. This connection and mutual friendship, for us anyway, was an absolute requirement. We did not just want to find an incubator for our child. We didn’t just want to use any woman to have a child. For us, we wanted to find someone who would be a part of our lives forever, we will be forever grateful for the gift that she is giving us; the ability to become parents. In essence, what I am getting at here, is that the notion of gay couples robbing heterosexual couples of the chance to match with a surrogate is being massively exaggerated.

Ultimately, we did not need to pay an agency to provide that connection with a surrogate and therein lies the crux of the article. It seems to me, that with more and more surrogates choosing to meet and match with Intended Parents through an independent process, it reduces the amount of money which is flowing through many of the surrogacy agencies. This notion makes me sad because if there is one thing surrogacy should NOT be about, it is money! The UK law only allows altruistic surrogacy which means a surrogate cannot charge for her services as a surrogate. She can, however, be reimbursed for any of the expenses to her and her family as a result of being a surrogate. Other countries do allow surrogates to charge a fee which I have seen is often in excess of £100,000. For us, we would absolutely not want to match with a surrogate who is only doing it for the money. This is a child’s life we are talking about, not shopping for a new car! I am not saying that a surrogate shouldn’t be paid either, we would be prepared to pay beyond the current expenses if we were legally allowed to. I just feel that allowing surrogates to charge a fee presents the risk of an increase in the number of women entering surrogacy for all the wrong reasons which in turn would mean that even more legal requirements would be needed.

Just like us, there are many others out there that are coming to the realisation that they do not necessarily need to go through an agency in order to find a surrogate and it seems to me that the Daily Mail piece is an attack on that approach. It is implying that those who do seek to match independently are not doing so in an ethical way. I can’t help but feel that this article is attempting to discredit independent surrogates. Why would they do such a thing? I will tell you why. For every independent surrogate, that is one less client for an agency to charge money to match with. I am in no way saying that this is the standpoint of the COTS agency, far from it, but it is certainly the way in which the Daily Mail has presented it. I take umbrage to the implication that independent surrogates who I now know and consider friends are doing anything that is unethical, illegal or risky! So, I will repeat this, of all the surrogates I have met and spoken with, ALL of them require all of the same medical and background checks that an agency would require. They also tirelessly educate other potential surrogates of all the relevant checks that MUST be carried out. 

Ms Cotton has been quoted as saying ‘It’s risky to go outside an agency. There are unscrupulous people who will take these couples for a ride and rip them off.’ I am certainly not naïve enough to think there are surrogates out there not carrying out all the checks or ripping people off, but I have never met one and in my experience of the process and the many social media networks I am now a part of, they are a very small minority. I dispute the assertion that it is ‘risky’ to go outside an agency for all of the reasons I have mentioned above. It is only risky if you don’t do your research and have a complete understanding of the process of surrogacy which, as I have said, is something that so many independent surrogates are enforcing in all of the social media networks I have seen. However, I remind you that I take how the Daily Mail has reported this story and how they have presented the context of these quotes with a grain of salt.

Just for clarity, at present, the law does not require proof that any of the medical or background checks are carried out. Yes, a potential surrogate could potentially forego all of the testing and so on, which would indeed be a very ‘risky’ proposition for both parties which, ultimately, does need to change. All of the checks should be made a part of the Parental Order process. The Parental Order is the legal process in which the surrogate’s names are replaced with the Intended Parents names on the child’s birth certificate. If all of the background checks and medical tests were made a requirement of the Parental Order, this would alleviate any of the ‘risks’ that the Daily Mail are stating.

Ultimately, this report started out as blaming gay couples for a shortage in surrogates, which is always going to be the case. There are always going to be more people wishing to be parents than there are surrogates to meet that demand. The report finishes in a very different place, talking about money and advertising. Really, the report actually has very little to do with gay couples becoming parents and more to do with the money involved in surrogacy. If anything at all, that is the real ‘risk’ here.

I will leave you with these final thoughts. I have found no evidence to suggest that surrogacy agencies need to be licenced to operate. I may indeed be mistaken but if there is no required license, there is no difference between an agency and an independent surrogate surely? And if there is no license requirement, who is to say an agency would be above reproach anyway? And what of outside agencies i.e. in other countries? How scrupulous would they be? Technically speaking, commercial brokering is illegal. It is an offence for a third party (i.e. not the surrogate or the intended parents) to provide matching services for profit. Furthermore, in the UK it is illegal for ANY party to profit financially from surrogacy.

And going back to where I started; The gay connection is spurious, the Daily Mail might as well say that gays are forcing heterosexual couples to compete for wedding and reception venues!