Surrogacy and Gay Rights

This speech was delivered on a virtual parliamentary briefing held by Senator Ronan Mullen’s office in June 2024, by Not All Gays co-founder, Annaïg.

Thank you for granting me the opportunity to address you today on the pressing issues pertaining specifically to the proposed surrogacy legislation, as outlined in the Health (Assisted Human Reproduction) Bill 2022. I stand before you as a concerned advocate for both women's rights and gay rights, deeply troubled by the potential exploitation inherent in the legalisation of surrogacy, both domestically and internationally.

While the fight for equality and freedom of choice is paramount, we must scrutinise the ethical and moral implications of surrogacy, especially commercialised surrogacy. The presumption that access to reproductive technologies should be extended under the banner of gay rights overshadows the serious and complex concerns surrounding surrogacy practices. It is alarming that these issues have not been adequately addressed in the proposed Bill, due to a consultation process heavily weighted in favour of surrogacy.

First and foremost, we must confront the reality that surrogacy commodifies women's bodies and turns babies into products to be purchased. This commodification is not a 'gay rights' issue; rather, it is a fundamental human rights issue. Opposition to surrogacy is not ‘anti-LGBTQIA+’; it is a stance against the exploitation and commercialisation of human life. As a same-sex attracted individual, I understand the struggles faced by our community in achieving equal rights, particularly in starting a family. However, leveraging our fight for equality to justify the commercialisation of surrogacy is both inappropriate and disingenuous.

Statistics indicate that only 25-33% of couples who commission a surrogate are in same-sex relationships. This fact undermines the argument that surrogacy is a pressing issue for the LGBTQ+ community. Using gay rights as a vehicle to advance surrogacy legislation undermines decades of positive activism and risks alienating many within our community who do not support such surrogacy. 

In both houses of the oireachtas, we heard claims that opposing surrogacy is ‘anti-choice’. This deliberate comparison to views on abortion is nothing short of insulting. I firmly believe that women should have access to reproductive care, including abortions where necessary. I voted yes in 2018, on the basis that I know women should have the right to bodily autonomy and to have control of her reproductive decisions. In the instance of abortion, it is a woman making the decision about her own body, her own health, her own life. In the case of surrogacy, it is wealthy couples asking another woman to pause her own life, to take hundreds of hormonal injections, put her body and indeed her life at risk, with the promise of a monthly payment which as been washed of it’s reality by dubbing this 2000-4000 a month salary as ‘reasonable expenses’. 

Furthermore, the proposed Bill does not sufficiently address the likelihood of women from vulnerable backgrounds, or those in coercive and controlling relationships, entering surrogacy arrangements unwillingly. While the Government claims it will not allow commercial surrogacy within Ireland, it paradoxically provides a pathway for recognising such arrangements, both past and future, without sufficient checks and controls. This inconsistency is deeply troubling.

Several LGBTQ+ organisations have advocated for more lenient provisions in the Bill, arguing that same-sex couples must be entitled to commission a surrogate. In July 2022, LGBT Ireland and Irish Gay Dads published proposed amendments to the Bill, suggesting various elements were discriminatory towards a variety of minorities. In Part 7 of their document, under the section pertaining to Section 50, “permitted surrogacy”, they oppose the criminalisation of intending parents who do enter into surrogacy arrangements that do not meet the criteria such as age, location, etc. of the surrogate. I would ask, why are we legislating at all if some people can choose to ignore the criteria list? I'd suggest that if you cannot meet the already liberal criteria set out in the proposed legislation, then you do not have the right to commission a surrogate. 

Not all in the extended LGBTQ+ community believe we have the right to treat another woman’s body as an incubator or a purchasable service merely to serve our desire to have a family. No one, regardless of sexual orientation, should be entitled to purchase a child. The ethical issues surrounding surrogacy, particularly the rights and well-being of the surrogate mother and the child, remain unresolved. As a lesbian, who would love nothing more than to be able to be a mother someday, I had to come to terms with the very simple fact that I am same-sex attracted and will therefore never have the ability to procreate with my partner. I have spent much time crying and distraught about this fact, but as adults in same-sex relationships we must accept the fact that two sperm cannot create a child, neither can two oocytes. Does this entitle us to request a woman in a country that is in a much more precarious financial state than our own to provide us with a child? Absolutely not. 

In addition to these concerns, we must consider the troubling fact that many countries allowing for international surrogacy harbour strong prejudices against same-sex individuals or impose severe criminal punishments for homosexuality. For instance, Kenya allows international surrogacy, yet same-sex relationships are criminalised with severe penalties. It is paradoxical and morally questionable that a country refusing to recognise same-sex couples domestically would permit the commodification of women and the sale of babies to gay couples abroad. How can this be framed as a gay right when it directly contradicts the principles of equality and non-discrimination we strive for?

Moreover, I must address a common argument made by pro-surrogacy LGBT organisations and individuals who compare gay men accessing surrogacy to lesbian couples accessing sperm donation. This comparison is deeply insulting. Equating semen in a cup to the complex and risk-laden processes of embryo transfers, pregnancy, labour, childbirth, and postnatal recovery is profoundly disrespectful. It ignores the immense physical, emotional, and health-related burdens placed on women who act as surrogates. Pregnancy and childbirth carry significant risks, including complications that can affect a woman's health and well-being long-term. This false equivalence minimises the sacrifices and potential dangers involved in surrogacy, further highlighting the exploitation inherent in these arrangements.

Additionally, we at Not All Gays find it an abhorrent weaponization of gay people’s genuine struggles for acceptance and equality for public representatives and NGOs to flagrantly use the terms "far right" or "anti-LGBT" as a means to shut down any and all opposition to surrogacy. This tactic is not only intellectually dishonest, but also deeply divisive. It stifles legitimate debate and silences diverse perspectives within our community. Such accusations are harmful and undermine the integrity of our discourse, making it difficult to have meaningful and constructive discussions on this critical issue.

Finally, this Bill seems to focus on the desires of intending parents, rather than the safety and well-being of the surrogate mother and the child. As a young woman, I deeply sympathise with anyone affected by infertility, especially those who have experienced traumatic health conditions, treatments or surgeries. I understand the longing to be a mother, and it is painful. But how can we legislate to turn human beings into services and goods, as long as we can afford it? Not all gays believe we should. 

Thank you for your attention to this matter.

Annaïg Birdy