Issue


Uniform Parentage Act

Key Points

  • The UPA treats children born through surrogacy as second-class, denying them the same safety checks—like background checks and home studies—required for adopted children placed with unrelated adults in non-surrogacy contexts.  
  • The UPA creates a system that carves out special treatment of adults using surrogacy that bypasses most of the critical screening factors for awarding custody in Title 23, and the Adoption and Safe Families Act.
  • The UPA legalizes genetic surrogacy for profit, unlike current law, which limits surrogates using their own eggs to expense-only payments. Incentivizing the separation of a mother and her baby is not ethical and will lead to more coerced separations.
  • This bill exploits both women and children, treating them as commodities to be bought rather than humans with inherent dignity. 
  • The UPA allows for paid surrogacy arrangements using natural conception (paid intercourse for pregnancy).

SUMMARY

House Bill 350 redefines parentage to be established based on intent rather than on biology. While attempting to streamline the current surrogacy process, HB 350 denies protections to children conceived via surrogacy, and it expands gestational and genetic surrogacy for commercial purposes. The Uniform Parentage Act even allows for paid surrogacy arrangements using natural conception (i.e., paid intercourse for pregnancy). See Section 9823(c).

Status Quo on Surrogacy in Pennsylvania:
Currently, case law and judicial oversight determine how surrogacy operates in Pennsylvania. Gestational surrogacy (where a surrogate is impregnated using a donor egg unrelated to her) and genetic surrogacy (where a surrogate mother using her own egg is impregnated) are treated differently.

In cases of gestational surrogacy, which is the most common, a couple or individual who intend to be the parents of the baby they contracted via surrogacy will submit an order to a judge and ask to become the baby’s legal parents and to be placed on the baby’s birth certificate in place of the surrogate mother. Currently, judges in Pennsylvania can approve this parentage request and as part of the process, they can call a hearing to further examine the couple as an important layer of protection for babies created through surrogacy. Additionally, surrogacy lawyers in Pennsylvania encourage intended parents, especially in cases where one or both of the individuals is not related to the baby, to go through a confirmatory adoption to ensure parentage is clearly established. This ensures another level of protection for children created through surrogacy, as adoptions require crucial safety checks like home visits and background checks.

In cases of genetic surrogacy, the baby will be biologically related to the surrogate mother and parentage cannot be established before the baby is born. The couple or individual who want to obtain this child must formally adopt the baby after the baby is born. Women who go through genetic surrogacy are also currently prohibited from being paid for anything besides her expenses, based on the same laws that prohibit parents from putting their child up for adoption for profit.

What Does HB 350 Claim to Fix?
Proponents of HB 350 claim that, given the lack of legislation on surrogacy and the fact that judges can use individual discretion to hold hearings to establish parentage, we need uniformity for our surrogacy laws.

What Would HB 350 Actually Do?
HB 350’s “solution” is to automatically establish parentage on the basis of stated intent and does not require judicial oversight, which at least provided some protections to children conceived through surrogacy. This bill goes in the wrong direction, and instead of uniformly creating higher standards to protect the child, it treats children born through surrogacy as second-class, denying them the same safety checks—like background checks and home studies—required for adopted children placed with unrelated adults in non-surrogacy contexts. We must ensure that children have safe homes and HB 350 sacrifices children’s need for safe, loving homes in the name of ease and expediency for adults. Statistically the most dangerous person in a child’s life is a non-biologically related adult in the home. This certainly does not mean that is true for every non-biologically related adult in the home – however, it is why we have such stringent and thorough adoption laws.

In cases of genetic surrogacy where the surrogate is using her own egg and is therefore biologically related to the child, a court order would still be required, but unlike the status quo, the UPA would allow parentage to be established prior to birth and without an adoption. The UPA allows genetic surrogates to be paid for profit, above and beyond covering their expenses. See Section 9823(c) line 21-25. This is a radical departure from the status quo and would, in effect, allow women to sell their own biological children through surrogacy.

HB 350’s Post-conception validation for genetic surrogacy can be abused. 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 (intrauterine insemination), and then “match” with the highest bidder before validating a contract with them. Currently, a pre-birth order is not allowed because the surrogate cannot terminate her parental rights until 72 hours after the child’s birth.

The Uniform Parentage Act even allows for paid surrogacy arrangements using natural conception (i.e., paid intercourse for pregnancy). Subchapter C Section 9823(c) allows for surrogacy contract (including a for-profit surrogacy contract) 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.” By stipulating that “unless the genetic surrogacy agreement provides otherwise,” the bill permits paid intercourse for pregnancy.

TAKE ACTION

Take Action: Tell Your Legislators to Oppose the Uniform Parentage Act
Act Now

ARTICLES

Article: Bucks Independence (8/13/25, Cheryl Lynn Allen, Patience Sunne) Surrogacy bill puts children in harm’s way.

Article: HealthDay (7/29/25, Mundell). Surrogate moms without prior mental illness were 43% more likely to develop a mental illness for the first time compared to moms who conceived and carried their own baby. The study was published in JAMA Network Open.

Article: Broad & Liberty (6/17/25, Cheryl Lynn Allen) Pennsylvania must reject the Uniform Parentage Act to protect children’s rights.

Related Articles

Taxpayer Funded Abortions in Pennsylvania

Taxpayer Funded Abortions in Pennsylvania

Headline: Obama Administration sending $160 million to PA for healthcare coverage that includes abortion. What do Sen. Casey and other "pro-life" Democrat members of Congress who voted for Obamacare say now? http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/69384

read more
A Supreme Blunder

A Supreme Blunder

In a split 5-4 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on Monday that the University of California’s Hastings College of the Law could legally remove official recognition to a Christian organization called the Christian Legal Society because of its prohibition of gays...

read more
School Superintendent to Parents: Get Lost!

School Superintendent to Parents: Get Lost!

Provincetown, MA elementary school to offer condoms to 1-6 graders, and parents have NO SAY. Watch this CNN story for details. http://bit.ly/bEQS6o This brave new world will arrive in PA if HB 1163 becomes law. Take at stand!

read more
Imagine this parental nightmare!

Imagine this parental nightmare!

Read this story, http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/06/22/graphic-sex-ed-class/ and then imagine it happening in a Pennsylvania classroom. Then imagine that it was mandated by law, and neither schools nor parents had a say. Then realize that it will all happen if HB 1163...

read more
The Kids are Alright.  Really?

The Kids are Alright. Really?

In the ongoing redefining of family, more single women are opting for a "donor daddy" -- maintaining their singleness while gaining a prized "possession," namely, a child. But at what price? In this Wall St. Journal article, Bradford Wilcox writes that the kids are...

read more
Another Battle in the Fight Against Abortion

Another Battle in the Fight Against Abortion

Friends, I’d like to draw your attention to an article from The New York Times’ website regarding an issue that could be coming up for debate in the U.S. Senate as quickly as this summer: whether privately-financed abortions should be allowed in military hospitals....

read more
Fighting Back

Fighting Back

On a road trip with my son Wesley in Western PA last week, I pulled off an exit off Interstate 80 for a break, and came across the scene in the attached photograph. It's a billboard declaring that "pornography pollutes" situated in a lot adjacent to a porn shop. Kudos...

read more
Why would PA lawmakers want to mandate failed sex-ed here?

Why would PA lawmakers want to mandate failed sex-ed here?

From Dr. New: “Starting in 1999, the British government launched its Teenage Pregnancy Strategy program whose goal was to cut the number of teen pregnancies in half by promoting comprehensive sexual education and birth control. Since 1999, some £300 million ($454 million in U.S. dollars) was spent on this initiative

Unfortunately, the British teen-abortion rate, has climbed steadily since then. In fact, in 2009, the London Daily Mail reported that teen-pregnancy rates in England are now higher than they were in 1995 and pregnancies among girls under 16, below the age of sexual consent, are also at the highest level since 1998.”

read more

Get Email Updates

Request Help