Australia needs to legalise surrogacy.

Australia needs to rectify its surrogacy laws, which is currently more confusing
than attempting a cryptic crossword after a few vinos.
For a country that has previously been successful in implementing effective
laws, it is ludicrous that laws for something so complex and personal are still
stuck in a mixed bag of legislation, neglected and collecting dust in a desolate
corner of our parliament.
On the surface, surrogacy is considered a crime everywhere in Australia, except
the Northern territory under special circumstances. Australians risk jail time if
they are caught paying another woman to carry their child.
In many cases, the desire to have a biologically related child is so strong that
these people may ask an Australian woman to be a surrogate- that is, if they can
find an altruistic surrogate that would do so for free. Yes, such is our weird
approach that altruistic surrogacy is legal, yet compensation to the woman for 9
months of discomfort is illegal.
But lets face it. In reality, theres no such thing as a free lunch is there? So after
crossing altruistic surrogacy off the list, what do these people do?
They are simply driven to travel to developing countries, such as Thailand and
India, where commercial surrogacy is legal, and terribly managed surrogacy
clinics are in abundance in the disguise of legitimate IVF organisations.
Yes, this avenue allows hundreds of Australians- infertile couples, same gender
couples and single men and women alike to flout the surrogacy ban behind
closed doors. Not a single one of these people have been prosecuted.
This is why Australia needs to legalise and regulate surrogacy laws, as well as
provide perspicuous and reasonable guidelines for all people looking to enter
this.
Australia needs to spare some thought for surrogate women under the control of
these atrocious clinics. The act of banning surrogacy at home not only drives it
underground, but it is also indirectly condoning and supporting the exploitation
of these foreign impoverished, vulnerable surrogates.
Greedy, corrupted officials running these organisations solely concentrate on the
profits that roll in from the crowd of infertile Australians that flock to them every
year, paying little to no attention to the welfare and basic human rights of the
surrogate women.
I want you to hear the story of Premila Vaghela, a 30 year old Indian surrogate.

She is virtually penniless, and in her severely financially strained condition, she
had decided to become a surrogate mother out of desperation to give her own
two children an education and a better life. She drags herself out of her home to
a surrogacy clinic in India.
Without having sufficient literacy and knowledge about the legal complications of
surrogacy, she signs an ambiguous contract with the clinic.
The contract robs her of authority over her own body, coercing her to a
mandatory abortion should any complications arise during the pregnancy, or if
the child has any defects- thus, she assumes all medical, financial and
psychological risks and exempting the genetic parents, the doctors, lawyers and
all the other officials from all liabilities.
She undergoes the implantation operation and is taken to live here, in a dark,
dirty and dangerous house with at least 10 other surrogates. (powerpoint
photos)
She is routinely fed only a diet of protein powder, biscuits and some dried
supplements each day, and lives trapped in a claustrophobic room. Her
movements are heavily restricted, and the sweltering heat does nothing to
alleviate the constant discomfort of her growing stomach.
During the third trimester of her pregnancy, she develops complications with the
pregnancy, and collapses during the wait in hospital for an examination. Of
course, the doctors are heartlessly instructed by clinic officials to prioritise the
infants life.
After all, she has fulfilled the task she has been contracted for. The 8 month old
foetus survives, and is born prematurely, at the sacrifice of its surrogate mother.
She was very precious to us Now we cannot do anything about it, says
Premilas sister, as the family are then left to mourn the loss of their beloved
mother, sister, and sole breadwinner.
These foreign surrogacy clinics are endangering the health of multiple women
overseas. Premilas story is one out of the many deaths of the poor surrogates
that remain unreported and unknown.
In a research conducted by Mr. Ranjana Kumari, the director of Social research in
Delhi, a woman was found to have been given a dangerous number of 25 cycles
of IVF treatment. Another was even forced to carry 4 embryos in her womb to
maximise the chances of pregnancy, which is against the international practice
of one, or at the very most two.
Would you, or would anyone, as a parent, have a clear conscience, knowing that
the joy of having a child was at the expense of another womans suffering?

We find it unethical to even buy eggs from chickens that are kept this way! Isnt
it hypocritical for Australians who have babies gestating in foreign surrogates to
reach for a carton of free range eggs at the shops?
There is absolutely no logic in the Australian government forcing its own people
offshore, further patronising these selfish clinics in India that are clearly
exploiting the meaningful gesture of surrogacy.
If surrogacy were allowed here, an Australian surrogate will be able to retain the
choice to change her mind and abort or keep the baby under the law. At the very
least, shell be provided with access to one of the worlds leading health care
systems, and adequate maternal nutrition.
Furthermore, such legislation would enable surrogacy to be undertaken openly
by trained, registered health professionals under licensed and heavily monitored
premises. This will ensure her safety and health, as well as that of the child.
Sadly, this ideal condition seems light years away from our current surrogacy
conditions.
Infertile Australians cant even legally have their biological children born by
surrogates on home ground, let alone have their children in an ethical, moral
fashion.
The way to remove the incentive to [abuse] the foreign baby-making industry
is to open the discussion about legal surrogacy here, says surrogacy law
researcher, Jenny Millbank. We have the resources and the morals to treat
surrogate mothers with better respect at home. Australia needs to legalise
surrogacy.

Australia needs to protect the rights of these surrogate children, as well as

provide enforce stringent laws on surrogacy, should any domestic disputes arise.
Entering a surrogacy arrangement isnt solely all about the innate desire to have
children. We must not overlook the attachment obligations and
responsibilities for biological parents and surrogate mothers involved.
The tragic story of baby Gammy which was propelled into the porous media
spotlight, is a prime example which illustrates the negligence on the
Australian governments part regarding such complicated matters like
these.
Gammy, is one of the two Australian twins that were born to impoverished Thai
surrogate mother, Pattaramon Chanbua. He was diagnosed with Down
syndrome and a hole in his heart at birth.
Because of these conditions, his biological parents, Wendy and David Farnell,
who live in Western Australia, had cruelly rejected Gammy, heartlessly
abandoning him outside the surrogacy clinic before returning home with
his healthy twin sister.

Was it correct of the Farnells to abandon their biological son, all because of an
extra chromosome that he carries? Does having down syndrome and
congenital diseases make him any less related to David and Wendy
Farnell?
First of all, the absence of regulation in surrogacy clinics in Thailand is to the
advantage of the callous actions of this Australian couple.
Second of all, in the wake of the callous actions of these Australians, Ms Chanbua
now willingly carries the difficult burden in caring for Gammy, on top of her
already starving family of 2 young mouths to feed. However, bear in mind
that at the start of this procedure, Ms Chanbua was only promised a total
payment of $16,000 dollars for her childrens education, not an extra
physical and emotional strain of caring for someone elses sick and
unwanted baby.
Worst of all, there is no regulation that legally binds the Farnells responsibilities
in ensuring Gammy receives the best care and a warm, loving home.
In fact, 39 year old David Farnell, was once jailed for 3 years in 1997 for
sexually assaulting 2 young girls. He appeared in court in 1982 and 1983,
only to be charged with an additional 3 counts of procuring a female under
the age of 13 to indecently deal with him. In short, he was a paedophile.
And now, hes
While it is unfair to place a judgement upon David Farnells parenting based on
the crimes he committed nearly two decades ago, it is however,
reasonable to expect a stringent background and criminal check for any
Australian parent for eligibility to engage in a surrogacy arrangement.
If there can be such strict adoptive parent guidelines implemented for adoption,
which requires the pristine health and criminal record of the adoptive
parents, I certainly do not understand why it isnt an option to extend
these similar guidelines for surrogate arrangements here in Australia.
And, if youre wondering about the legal citizenship that Gammy has as a
result of this legal limbo, according to professor Millbank, In the absence
of Australian parentage, the child would, in some circumstances, such as
birth in India or Thailand, be both stateless and parentless.
It is absurdity that an innocent child, of no fault of his own, should suffer for the
underhanded action of his biological parents, who have obviously
unethically abused the leniency of foreign surrogacy systems.
Surely introducing a regulated industry would generate stringent and suitable
contracts that clearly outline these rights and responsibilities. Legalising
surrogacy in Australia would have prevented this injustice and heartache
inflicted upon Ms Chanbua and baby Gammy in the very first place.
It would also at least ensure that basic, proper records are kept, which are
imperative for the later welfare of the surrogate child.

Openness and transparency in respect to ones ancestry have constantly been

emphasised in Australia. Once again, if adopted children in Australia now
have the right to know where they come from, and who their biological
parents are, then why shouldnt surrogate children have the right to know
who carried and nurtured them for the first and most critical 9 months of
their life?
According to Surrogacy Australia Secretary, Sam Everingham, many intended
parents would far prefer to engage in surrogacy at home to make the
process less stressful and easier to retain ties with the surrogate mum.