Uniform Parentage Act

Key Points

• Coming Soon!

SUMMARY

House Bill 350 redefines parentage on the basis of intent, removes biological parents, and redefines  parents as anyone who ‘intends’ to parent. HB 350 would expand commercial and genetic surrogacy  and even allows for post-conception validation of surrogacy contracts and potentially paid surrogacy  arrangements using natural conception (i.e., paid intercourse.) This bill potentially exploits both  women and children, treating them as commodities to be bought rather than humans with inherent  dignity. Children are deemed to be nothing more than personal property. 

This bill would allow someone who cannot biologically be the second parent of a child (e.g., two  mothers or two fathers) to be the parent and thus have full parentage rights over a child to whom they  are not related without going through the adoption process and its important screening protections. 

• The bill establishes parentage on the basis of intent. Rather than recognizing the natural  biological bond between a parent and child, this bill allows unrelated adults to be listed on  children’s birth certificates simply because they intend to parent the child. This violates a child’s  right to know who their parents are. Even in cases of adoption, biological parents are sealed  until the child is 18 years of age. The Uniform Parentage Act would make it so that the  information is never recorded in the first place. 
• Children lose access to their family history. By establishing parentage on the basis of intent  and removing biological parents from birth certificates and records, the bill severs children  from their family history. Research shows that donor-conceived children struggle with the  same identity questions that many adoptees wrestle with. Additionally, they deal with a lack of  access to family medical histories and the possibility of living in close proximity to unknown  half-siblings, thus complicating relationships and exposing them to the risk of accidental  incest. 
• The bill removes screening process protections. Currently, it is up to the discretion of  individual judges to decide whether or not, in cases of surrogacy, parentage can be established  on the basis of intent. This gives them the freedom to step in when they feel the situation may  not be in the best interest of the child and so deny this parentage. In this case, those paying  for the surrogacy must go through a traditional adoption process once the baby is born, with  all the best practices and screenings to ensure safety for the child. HB 350 removes this step  and automatically allows parentage based on intent without needing a judge to sign off. This  removes protections for children and could allow bad actors who would never pass an  adoption screening to buy children essentially. 
• Post-conception validation. Subchapter C Section 9824(b) says that with the agreement of  all parties, the court may validate a genetic surrogacy agreement after assisted reproduction  has occurred, as long as it is before the birth of the child. Under this bill, a woman could  potentially undergo the necessary screenings, become pregnant via IUI, and then “match” with the highest bidder before validating a contract with them. Note that this is a radical change  when currently, a pre-birth order is not allowed because the surrogate cannot terminate her  parental rights until 72 hours after the child’s birth and traditional surrogates cannot be  compensated.

• Potential for commercial genetic surrogacy using natural conception. Subchapter C  Section 9823(c) allows for the possibility of a surrogacy contract (including a commercial  surrogacy contract) to potentially be honored by the courts even if the child was conceived via  intercourse instead of ART. “Unless the genetic surrogacy agreement provides otherwise, if the child was  not conceived by assisted reproduction, the genetic surrogate is not entitled to any non expense-related  compensation paid for serving as a genetic surrogate.” This allows a woman to accept money in  exchange for a sexual relationship, as long as she becomes pregnant and relinquishes parental  rights. In other words, a surrogacy agreement could be considered valid in cases where a  woman agrees to conceive the child naturally with the intended father – that is, by having sex  with him. By stipulating that “unless the genetic surrogacy agreement provides otherwise,” the  bill leaves open the possibility of a surrogate being paid beyond expense-related compensation  in this scenario. 
• The bill allows for commercial surrogacy. No child should ever be exchanged for money.  By legalizing commercial surrogacy, this bill would allow children to be treated as products to  be commissioned and acquired. 
• The bill allows for commercial genetic surrogacy. In addition to legalizing commercial  gestational surrogacy, the bill would also allow commercial genetic surrogacy. This would mean  that women can accept money in exchange for their biological children. Under normal  circumstances, this would be punishable as baby-selling. Under this bill, it would be treated as  a valid contractual arrangement.