Most of us have some experience with the concept of pregnancy via surrogacy, whether it be personal or through news stories, such as Bill and Giuliana Rancic’s recent struggle as their surrogate experienced a miscarriage.   What we don’t often hear about or talk about is the bigger issue of how surrogacy should be used to produce children. Should it be limited to married, heterosexual couples? Should it be used only when no other means are possible for a couple due to fertility issues?     Should surrogates be paid for their efforts or only compensated for medical bills and expenses? Does it matter if the surrogacy involves only embryos that came from the designated parents versus using donor material? Should couples using a surrogate be allowed to have implanted embryos removed if the surrogate becomes pregnant with multiples?

These are a few of the many questions that came into play recently as Louisiana sought to pass a bill legislating surrogate births. As often as we hear about surrogacy most of us don’t realize how much surrogacy law varies from state to state. According to The Council for Responsible Genetics, only six states have actual surrogacy legislation that is “valid and enforceable”–of these, three have minimal restrictions, two require that the surrogate not be compensated and a third only allows surrogacy for married heterosexual couples. Several states are unclear on the issue, but have courts favorable to supporting surrogacy. A few states actually prohibit pregnancy by surrogate; most notably, in the District of Columbia surrogates face jail time and a $10,000 fine, while in Michigan surrogates face jail time of up to five years along with a $50,000 fine. Louisiana is one of five states where surrogacy is currently “void and unenforceable,” meaning people can face difficult legal battles if complications arise.

This is why Rep. Joe Lopinto (R-Metairie) sponsored legislation allowing couples and a woman to enter into a contractual surrogacy relationship in Louisiana. He and others wanted to make it safer, legally speaking, for the people of Louisiana to turn to surrogacy as a viable pregnancy option. Per The Times-Picayune, “Lopinto initially introduced a bill that was far more permissive of surrogacy arrangements, but he amended the legislation to reflect concerns of the conservative Christian community.” The original bill would have allowed unregulated surrogacy, but several changes were made to try and alleviate moral/ethical concerns in order to get the bill approved–a similar bill was vetoed last year.

The proposed bill would not apply to same-sex couples.

The revised bill only allows surrogacy contracts to be made between a married heterosexual couple and a woman between the ages of 24 and 35 years old who has previously given birth. No other arrangements would be allowed. Also, per The Times-Picayune, “…couples would not be able to pay a woman for carrying a child to term, which is a common practice. Lopinto’s original legislation would have allowed couples to provide a surrogate’s living expenses while she was pregnant.” Further, “…new language in the legislation would prohibit couples who need to use a donor egg or sperm on top of a surrogate to have a child from setting up a legal contract.” The Louisiana Family Forum, a faith-based organization, initially dropped its objections to the bill following these amendments but later pressed Jindal to veto it.

Other groups felt the bill was unacceptable from the start. In her piece, Women are Mothers Not Breeders, The Center for Bioethics and Culture Network President Jennifer Lahl opposes the legislation. She quotes Jindal’s statement from a year ago when he vetoed previous legislation:   Creating a state sanctioned regulatory structure for contracts pertaining to the birth of children has a profound impact on the traditional beginnings of the family and is an important topic worthy of heightened scrutiny and consensus. Further, Lahl believes surrogacy is harmful to families and exploits women by reducing them to ‘breeders’.

Gov. Jindal

This issue hits close to home for the bill’s sponsors. Lopinto and his wife struggled with fertility issues and eventually were able to have a child via in-vitro fertilization. Co-sponsor Senator Gary Smith (D-Norco) and his wife also dealt with fertility issues and eventually had two children via surrogacy, going outside Louisiana to a state with a legal framework for the surrogacy arrangement. These men both feel that Louisiana needs a similar framework to protect the rights of all parties involved in surrogacy contracts. Personally, I am a conservative and a Christian who does not oppose surrogacy. My oldest sister is unable to have children herself and if she chose to use a surrogate to have children, I would support her. I do not believe having a child via a surrogate undermines the “traditional beginnings of the family,” no more than I would think so of adoption. I also do not think the bill reduces women to being “breeders”; carrying a child for someone who cannot is incredibly generous and is a loving choice made by the surrogate, not forced upon her.

While the libertarian in me mostly wants people to be left alone, I do not think it is a good idea to leave states without a legal framework for surrogacy. The lack of a framework leaves the prospective parents and the surrogate in a vulnerable position and is the reason many go outside their own state to arrange surrogacy contracts. Generally, I am a fan of Governor Jindal; I have heard him speak many times at political events and admire his straightforward demeanor. However, this is one area where I don’t entirely agree–surrogacy is a legitimate way to have a child and all parties involved should be protected.