Infertility: The Limits Of Planned Parenthood

Infertility is a heart breaking reality that has existed throughout history and is something that people still face today. As technology is advancing, doctors are able to give people more options to help them achieve a pregnancy. One option that technology has allowed for is surrogate motherhood, or placing a fertilized egg into a woman to develop. Gestational surrogacy, one method of the process, implants a couple’s fertilized egg into another woman who then carries the baby to full term. This is a great and safe method for couples today, but is highly misunderstood. Surrogacy allows parents to have a child with their genetics, unlike other options. Different religious groups don’t believe it is morally correct and some pro-life campaigners

think it’s not the best option. For example, Russell Moore, an opinionated Baptist said “Surrogacy [treats] women and children essentially as objects of commerce…it exploits women’s bodies and children’s lives” (White 32). Because of the controversy and new technological advances, state laws are becoming outdated and problematic. There is no consistency or clarity among state laws regarding surrogacy. With any option regarding Planned Parenthood, there will be unavoidable controversy. States should be required to be consistent on placing limits on all aspects of Planned Parenthood. Despite the differing opinions and controversies, people who suffer from infertility should consider the option of surrogacy. Laws and policies regarding ¬surrogacy should be made consistent throughout the United States because it is a great option for infertile couples.
Surrogacy allows parents to have a child with their genetics. For parents unable to have children, there have always been different options for them to become parents. For example, adoption has always been a highly encouraged option. As technology has started to change and influence the barriers of infertility, more options have become available. Sperm donation is one of these less advanced options, but the child will lack half of its legal parents’ genetics.
As Jennifer Lahl and Christopher White, well-known pro-life supporters said, “Infertility is a relationship as much as a condition—a relationship between husband and wife, and also between generations too” (Lahl and White 20). Infertility is a serious medical condition that affects one in eight American couples (Perrine 2010). Despite the emotional and physical setbacks caused by infertility, technology allows ways for couples to get past it.
The option of adoption has been around for a long time, and can be arranged by couples who already have a child or couples who cannot have a child. Many people assume that adoption is a cheaper, faster, and overall easier process than most infertility treatments—but this is not true when compared to surrogacy. According to The American Surrogacy Center, “[Surrogacy] births…can be faster than adoption” (Katz 86). Adopting a child is a long and tedious process because of the different agencies and state laws that must be followed. Also, the emotions that are involved with adoption can be much greater than with surrogacy. Sometimes the adopted child feels distanced from its parents because it lacks their genetics.
In Vitro Fertilization (IVF) is another common infertility treatment that involves manually combining an egg and sperm in a laboratory dish and then transferring the embryo back into the uterus. This process is very complex and expensive, and doesn’t always work for every woman. Because every woman is different in how her body will react to treatments, some turn to gestational surrogacy to try and have a child of their own. As one mother said, “[Gestational] surrogacy was a desperate measure, to be sure, and one complicated by questions from all the big sectors: financial, religious, social, moral, legal, and political” (Kuczynski 2008).
There are two forms of surrogacy that women can go through: traditional and gestational. Traditional is when the carrier and the intended father are both genetically related to the resulting child. Traditional surrogacy can be achieved through artificial insemination or through IVF treatments. Gestational surrogacy is a more psychically and morally complex process. This option requires the fertilization of an egg and sperm to take place in a laboratory dish and be implanted into a woman that is not the birth mother. This process can be emotionally difficult for all parties involved, but especially for the surrogate mother that is carrying the child. Even so, “some women see surrogacy as a way to do something important in life” (Katz 86). Gestational surrogacy causes great controversy because of the differing opinions that people have regarding the morality of the process, and even the payments that are involved in some agreements. In some states, payment is legal and is required: “For $25,000—a common surrogacy fee—the arrangement comes out to less than $4 an hour [for a woman carrying a child for nine months]” (White 32). The differing agreements involving payment or no payment are only one of the various differences in laws between states in the United States.
There is no consistency or clarity among state laws allowing the option of surrogacy, traditional or gestational. As it varies from state to state, “the laws regarding surrogacy are a jumble of inconsistent public policies, free-market contracts, civil interventions and criminal sanctions” (Williams 10). The main reason that states have no consistency throughout their laws regarding surrogacy is the result of quick advancements in technology. The law making process is a long and complex one; it takes time. As Patricia Williams said in her article “Womb Wars, “Hence, what laws are in place have not nearly kept up with the explosive technological revolution in assisted reproduction” (Williams 10). Even though courts cannot keep up with these fast advancements, that is not an excuse for lacking legislation. As a lawyer, Jeffrey Place, said about the issue, “Courts should make genetics the primary determinant of maternal rights. Such a determinant would provide the stability of a clear definition” (Place 907).
There have been a few efforts to achieve a national uniformity regarding assisted reproduction, some focusing just on gestational surrogacy agreements. The Uniform Parentage Act, which was created in 1973, had a purpose of creating a national uniformity among states regarding the definitions of parenting. Article 8 of this act, passed in 2002, “allows for validation and enforcement of gestational agreements” (James 864). Because some states do not condone this process, the Uniform Law Commissioners made this article optional for states to follow it or not. But even with this law, there is still no national consistency.
Each state has its own ideas and policies regarding the practice of surrogacy, including the type of process and compensation to the carrier. In some states, there are actually no laws at all about the issue: “Many states do not have any legislation regarding gestational contracts. In such states, court ruling are more likely to vary depending on the case law in that state, the political environment and the ethical beliefs of the individual judge seeing the case” (James 863). In such states, the court rulings vary in results, causing uncertainty and no consistency for parents wanting to be involved in the practice. Most states have definite laws regarding other options of Planned Parenthood, such as adoption and abortion. These practiced laws can influence the court’s opinion about a gestational agreement: “In states lacking legislation, some courts will default to the statues of adoption law” (James 863). Law makers need to realize that gestational surrogacy is becoming a more popular option for couples, and create more accurate legislation to deal with it.
With surrogacy’s growing popularity, there needs to be clear and consistent laws for all 50 states in the United States regarding this issue. Gestational surrogacy’s growing popularity can be seen through data trends: “According to recent data from the American Society for Reproductive Medicine, more than a thousand children were born through surrogacy in 2011…an almost 100 percent increase from the 530 babies reported born in 2004” (Lahl and White 20). Whether or not there needs to be a consistent law practiced by all states is not the main issue, though it would be the best outcome. Looking back through history, making all states agree on a morally-affected issue is not easy; for example, slavery was a state-by-state option until the Civil War. Abortion is still an issue that has no national consistency. It is going to take major change, determination, and cooperation to create a national agreement regarding surrogacy.
Limits shouldn’t be set on only select options of Planned Parenthood.

There are many different services available through the organization of Planned Parenthood. Some of these services include the birth control pill, abortion, IVF treatments, and counseling. Most states have laws regarding parental consent of minors to use these services, but like surrogacy, it varies from state to state. For example, Connecticut has no legislation that restricts services of Planned Parenthood or gestational surrogacy. But states such as Texas allow services like abortion, contraceptives, and surrogacy, but only if certain restrictions are met. The District of Columbia is a state that brings their opinion of “parent” into question; as a state, they allow all services of Planned Parenthood without parental consent to minors, including abortion, but does not allow any type of surrogacy agreement and even “imposes criminal penalties” (Hinson 2011). Despite different opinions, this doesn’t seem to be very ideal or fair: “To try and criminalize surrogacy is a bit like trying to criminalize contraception or abortion, in that it comes too close to criminalizing sexuality, libido, or intimacy” (Williams 11). Setting a national standard to be used as a basis for law making regarding Planned Parenthood practices would be a tremendous improvement for people wanting to partake in these services.
Attempting to create a national uniformity regarding parenting practies is going to take a lot of time and will create controversy. Despite what efforts have already been done, “The judicial determination of the legal meaning of ‘mother’ does not resolve the policy disputes that revolve around surrogacy” (Place 907). The issue of nationally legalizing surrogacy is just as difficult as nationally outlawing abortion; different religious groups, physicians, and the public as a whole have various opinions that prevent an easy

agreement.
Surrogacy, both traditional and gestational is a great option for infertile couples wanting a child with their genetics. Because of the moral controversies regarding this practice, laws and policies regarding the issue vary from state-to-state and need to be made consistent throughout the United States. Surrogacy allows infertile couples to conceive a child with their own genetics, unlike adoption or sperm donation. Each state has a variation of laws regarding the practice of surrogacy and the compensation and legality that goes along with it; some states have no legislation regarding it at all. There needs to be a national standard of laws set to be adopted by all states to reduce confusion and controversy. Planned Parenthood is an organization that offers services dealing with parenting, such as birth control, abortion, and IVF treatments. All states have control over setting limits on each individual service, so the laws are confusing across the United States. Some states allow certain services, such as abortion, but do not allow others, such as surrogacy. States should not be allowed to set limits on only select options of Planned Parenthood; setting limits should have to be an all or nothing option.