In Part 1 of this two-part series on surrogacy, we looked at the horrific effects of surrogacy on the babies born to it. Here in Part 2, we explore the exploitative ways in which women are used as nothing more than rented wombs, whose health, mental and physical, is of no consequence.
There are few aspects of life that have managed to escape the tentacles of commercialisation and profiteering. Sold to us as ‘progress’, the reality is that most of these newly created industries have instead been doing nothing more than commoditising us by stealth. Case in point: the ‘childcare industry’. Fifty years ago, the majority of mothers stayed home to look after their children while husbands went out to work, mirroring what their own parents had done before them. Those previous generations would no doubt be astonished to hear that today there is an industry tailored around the task of caring for children, worth £6.7 billion annually. Women have been convinced that it is normal to farm out the care of their children to strangers while they earn money to pay for it, and while conveniently propping up the coffers of the Inland Revenue. Ruthless corporations are on constant patrol for new and lucrative opportunities, no matter the impact on our lives. It is, therefore, not surprising that the very essence of our continued existence — reproduction — has fallen prey to such commoditisation, not least in the form of surrogacy.
Surrogacy is on the rise, and is now a thriving industry, worth around $14 billion in 2023, and expected to reach a whopping $129 billion by 2032. Of course, the women who carry the babies, and who thus take the lion’s share of the risk, are not the ones reaping enormous financial rewards. That lucrative benefit falls upon corporations, including agencies who peddle women’s wombs for hire and broker deals for wealthy buyers, and the fertility industry, which facilitates the pregnancies. The eye-watering profits made by such companies are built upon the exploitation of women, many of whom are the poorest and most vulnerable in society.
Wealth seems so often to breed entitlement in those on whom it is bestowed. The wealthy get what the wealthy want. Fast cars, designer clothes, and expensive jewellery are all within their reach. Sadly, now so too are babies, thanks to surrogacy, a practice that turns tiny human beings into luxury goods, and the mothers who birth them into living incubators. Those who wish to make use of other women’s wombs, and those involved in eliciting huge financial gain from it, will of course espouse the supposed aspect of altruism in surrogacy arrangements, and insist that it is all about helping those unfortunate people who are unable to carry their own child to fulfil dreams of parenthood. The reality, however, is that no matter how much flowery language is employed to describe it, surrogacy is nothing more than human trafficking. It is the buying and selling of babies, and the commoditisation of economically-challenged women’s wombs.
Post-Pretty Woman, prostitution enjoyed a glow-up, and is now often jauntily labelled as ‘sex work’. Many proponents claim that such ‘work’ is empowering for women, not degrading or exploitative, and similar principles have been applied to surrogacy. Today, in a world where we are all encouraged to ‘be kind’, it has become acceptable for wealthy couples of all persuasions to expect women who are poorer than themselves to accept much-needed cash in exchange for handing over the babies they bear. Modern society insists that it is neither cruel nor unfair to exploit the financial desperation of a woman, so long as the wealthy buyers achieve their dreams of parenthood, be they heterosexual, homosexual, or ‘trans’.
The attitudes of Marty and Melinda Rangers, a Californian couple who made “a small fortune in the real estate business” before embarking on buying two babies, perfectly illustrates the arrogance of so-called ‘commissioning parents’. In their first surrogacy arrangement, despite an extensive contract between the couple and the woman whose womb they had hired, the element of trust was clearly lacking, as “for extra peace of mind, Melinda liked to check her [the surrogate’s] activities on social media”. This boundary-crossing snooping led to Melinda catching sight of a video in which the surrogate was tagged, where she appeared to be doing a shot of tequila.
Unbelievably, and without any trace of shame, based on this one social media post, the couple asked the woman to terminate the pregnancy, despite the fact that she was already 20 weeks pregnant. The surrogate, who was no doubt alarmed and panicked to have been spied upon, explained to Marty and Melinda that her shot glass had contained water only, but the couple were not placated. They callously ended this almost-viable child’s life, and cast aside its mother, before subsequently hiring two further women, to birth a girl and a boy, respectively. One can only imagine the trauma the initial surrogate faced, forced to terminate her pregnancy, and unable to defend herself against such blatant overreach — some might say stalking — into her personal life. Her financial stability, too, would undoubtably be rocked by the incomplete transaction, given the fact that most women enter these arrangements for this very reason.
Describing the detailed contracts that were drawn up between themselves and their surrogates, via the agencies engaged, it becomes clear just how proprietary Marty and Melinda felt over the women whose wombs they had rented. The contracts included rules surrounding the women’s diets, travel arrangements, and sexual activity, to name just a few. They also had a dispute with their second surrogate, who refused a Covid vaccine that they wished her to have. Marty asserts that the woman’s vaccine refusal led to the child of this arrangement being delivered via C-section at six months, after she allegedly contracted Covid. (The Covid propaganda train just keeps on trucking!) Whilst I have huge doubts about Covid being responsible for the necessity of an early delivery, the irony is not lost on me that this child was born at around 24 weeks — just four weeks later than the unfortunate child of the first surrogacy arrangement. This speaks so clearly to the fact that the buyers felt anything but parental attachment to this child, growing in another woman’s womb, but supposedly belonging to them. At 20 weeks, that child was so close to being able to survive outside the womb, but to the buyers, he or she was simply potentially faulty goods.
The Rangers do not reveal the socio-economic circumstances of the women they exploited to achieve their baby dreams in their account to the publication. But it is safe to assume that all three were in a far poorer financial position than the Rangers. And it is this disparity of power and wealth dynamics that should leave no room for doubt that surrogacy is an exploitative industry, and one that should be banned wholesale, worldwide.
The rules and laws surrounding surrogacy vary widely across the world, with many countries leaving the practice completely unregulated, including Mexico, Colombia, Argentina, Kazakhstan, Nigeria and Ghana. So, it is unsurprising that these countries are hotbeds for wealthy Westerners looking to buy their own little newborns. Like the sweatshops of such countries, churning out designer clothes that retail for thousands, while the staff in the factories earn pennies a day, the women carrying babies for the wealthy are paid a fraction of their worth for a task that is frankly impossible to quantify. The toll of surrogacy on the babies is itself a tragedy; more on this can be found in Part 1.
But the full toil of the mothers, the real mothers, the ones who carry the children, cannot be overstated. They endure the risk, stress, indignity, and anxiety of becoming pregnant through artificial means. They then carry the precious cargo for nine months, adjusting their lives accordingly, and allowing their bodies to be significantly changed, potentially forever. They birth the baby, enduring labour and all the risks thereby associated, and then must sacrifice the reward that would naturally await a birthing mother: the joy of holding, nursing, and nurturing their newborn child. Many who support this atrocity are keen to assert that these women are not forced to perform this task, and that they have agency in their own decision-making. Surrogacy, the supporters insist, is a two-way arrangement, which both parties benefit from equally. Yet the burden on a woman’s physical and mental health as she undergoes surrogacy is incalculable, and no amount of money can truly compensate for the risk and trauma she will so often experience.
A Canadian study published in September 2024 found that those acting as surrogates, so-called ‘gestational carriers’, are at three times higher risk of serious health conditions than women carrying their own children, including the risk of conditions such as postpartum haemorrhage and pre-eclampsia. Even if potential surrogates are made aware of this risk, it is likely that many would proceed, given that their motives are so often linked with their poor financial situations. Indeed, the study acknowledged that women who act as surrogates are more likely to be “living in a lower-income area”. Can it ever truly be said that a woman is giving informed consent when the risks to her own health are so great, and the reason is financial necessity? Agencies looking to recruit women to surrogacy, such as the UK-based Brilliant Beginnings, rarely mention these increased risks on their glossy websites. Instead, they show stock images of beautiful, happy pregnant women, and use phrases to tug on the natural kindness and giving nature that many women possess. “A surrogate is an extraordinary woman who carries a baby for someone else. When it comes to the gifts a person can give, it’s a phenomenal one”, says Brilliant Beginnings. And "What you are doing, or about to do is one of the most wonderful experiences, and we’re thrilled that you’re considering doing it with us", assures My Surrogacy Journey.
The language is deliberately loaded with implied obligation. To act as a surrogate is kindness squared. In fact, language surrounding surrogacy is routinely used as smoke and mirrors to detract from the reality that the whole process is simply human trafficking. Those carrying babies are reduced to ‘gestational carriers’, removing the emotional ties and implications inbuilt to the word ‘mother’. And those buying babies are termed “intended parents”, since 'baby buyer' would have horribly negative implications. Nobody likes a party pooper, eh?
Even in so-called altruistic surrogacy arrangements, between friends or family, where financial disproportionality may not be present between ‘intended parent’ and ‘gestational carrier’, there is another, equally exploitative emotion at play. Many women who have agreed to participate in such arrangements have reported feeling too guilty to back out, such as this woman who agreed to act as a surrogate for her friends. On realising the extent of the medical intervention required, however, she was horrified, and then regretted agreeing in the first place. But too fearful and guilt-ridden that her friends would be disappointed, she went ahead. She ended up with long-term health issues from the pregnancy, and with the friends distancing themselves from her once they had their hands on the children.
Another altruistic surrogate, Marie Anne Isabelle, shared her similar experience with Stop Surrogacy Now UK after acting as a surrogate for a family member on the agreement that she would have ongoing contact with the baby after birth. This arrangement, however, was not honoured by the family members, who proceeded to abandon the surrogate, and even to fight a court battle to stop her from having contact with the child. Marie Anne felt “lied to, manipulated and exploited” for the use of her uterus.
Reddit, too, has many posts by women who are or have been actively pressured by friends and families into agreeing to surrogacy, as if it were no more than agreeing to give someone a lift to the airport for an early morning flight. The tactics employed by those pursuing their friends’ and family members’ agreement range from telling extended family that it has already been agreed when it has not, to "posting passive-aggressive things on Facebook about 'Knowing who her true friends are' and 'Fairweather friends' etc".
Such manipulative behaviour appears to be rife amongst those seeking surrogacy arrangements, whether altruistically or through a purchasing arrangement, which perhaps speaks volumes about the entitled nature of one who pursues this route in the first place. There are many things in life we may want but are not available to us, for a myriad of reasons. Having a baby is not the right of every person. It is a privilege.
And, unlike luxury cars, trendy electronic gadgets, or expensive jewellery, and much to the chagrin of those wishing to purchase them, babies are living, breathing human beings, who yearn for their mothers and suffer terribly when they are ripped from them moments after birth. And the mothers, for that is what ‘gestational carriers’ are, in many cases, suffer equally from handing over the child they have bonded with for nine long months, and who do so only because they desperately need cash.
Celebrities, unsurprisingly, are often the most vocal proponents of surrogacy. Many have chosen this route themselves, some because they are same-sex couples, and others because they are presumably unwilling to give up their figures to birth their own babies. A quick turn on the horrifically shallow celebrity publication carousel will paint the picture of beautiful stories. What we don’t see, however, behind the glossy, professionally shot photographs of a Kardashian or a Hilton, are the women who endured the pregnancies and who laboured to bring those babies into the world. Their place, it seems, is firmly behind the scenes. No matter how lucrative their contracts, nothing could compensate for the immense sense of loss they must surely feel upon handing over the precious newborn.
We must speak up to stop surrogacy, or rather, the buying and selling of human babies who simply need their mothers. Surrogacy is horribly immoral — one might say, a cruel and unusual punishment, for mother and baby, despite what Hollywood glitterati might say.
