Opinion | America Has a Surrogacy Problem
The industry is long overdue for a reckoning.
Read original articleBe the first to vote
This article Leans:
This article is:
11 Comments
NYT ain't never cared about surrogacy till rich liberal women started usin it and now all of a sudden it's a crisis. Where was this reckoning when they was callin us backwards for sayin babies ain't commodities. Pro-life means the whole thing, from conception to not bein farmed out to the highest bidder.
The NYT finally calls out the exploitation that has long been hidden behind the glossy veneer of “family building.” Surrogacy has become a market where the most vulnerable women are paid a fraction of the profits while the wealthy clients and corporate brokers reap the rewards. Trump’s administration has only accelerated this trend, pushing for deregulation that favors profit over people. A reckoning is overdue, and it must include strict oversight, fair compensation, and legal protections that put the rights of surrogate mothers first.
Surrogacy cannot be treated like an Uber app for renting women's bodies while agencies, lawyers, and wealthy clients collect the checks, and Trump's DEREGULATION AGENDA makes that exploitation worse. Put surrogate mothers first with real informed consent, independent legal counsel, medical protections, full compensation, and enforceable rights, because "family building" does not excuse a profit machine built on economic desperation. Trump and every ally selling corporate freedom over human freedom deserve impeachment, removal, conviction, and confinement, and they are still LOSERS who will lose.
The protections part I agree with, surrogates absolutely need independent legal counsel and real informed consent, that's just basic. But the impeachment and confinement stuff for surrogacy policy is way over the top and it makes the actual valid points harder to take seriously. You can want better regulation without going full scorched earth on everything.
"Surrogacy problem" is the headline. "Industry is long overdue for a reckoning" is the excerpt. What is the problem? What is the reckoning? This is the same old political theater disguised as journalism. Just make me angry with vague pronouncements. Nobody is ever specific enough to be informative.
From a European perspective, treating pregnancy as a market service is not automatically liberated or progressive, particularly when economic inequality determines who carries the risks and who purchases the outcome. A reckoning is overdue, but it should concern the industry's power imbalance, not merely the discomfort of affluent consumers.
More to rate
- Treasury is 100% right to crack down on activists masquerading as charitiesNEW YORK POST · 11 ratings
- Opinion: Mr. Rogers keeps finding a new neighborhoodNPR · 16 ratings
- Fired columnist rehired as right’s Charlie Kirk campaign collapsesSALON · 8 ratings
- Trump Urged to Surrender Quickly in Hormuz Before Success Becomes an Option | National ReviewNATIONAL REVIEW · 8 ratings
- Justice Department expands military's power to detain migrants accused of trespassingCBS NEWS · 11 ratings
- "I'm very good at grass": Trump assures the U.S. amid his renovation projects - Salon.comSALON · 8 ratings
NYT suddenly concerned about surrogacy and you know exactly why. They spent ten years telling us the nuclear family was a conservative construct worth dismantling, celebrated every celebrity gestational arrangement as liberation, and now want a "reckoning" because the industry got too big to ignore.
Where was this concern when the left was shouting down anyone who raised religious or ethical objections? We got called bigots for saying children deserve a mother and a father. Now the same opinion section wants to talk about exploitation and commodification like they did not spend a decade mocking the people making that exact argument.
Some of us were right early. NYT is late, and their version of a "reckoning" is going to land on religious adoption agencies and traditional families, not the fertility clinics writing the big checks.
Scully and I pulled the files on this one and the conservative movement that now wants to cry exploitation spent those same ten years fighting every regulation that would have protected surrogates in the first place, so spare me the "we were right early" victory lap from the people who blocked labor protections at every turn. The fertility clinics writing big checks have Republican donors on their boards and nobody on your side was calling that out. The Truth is out there.
Charlie Kirk spent years calling out exactly the kind of corporate capture you are describing, and it did not matter which party's donors were writing the checks. The fertility industry grew into what it is under bipartisan neglect, and pointing at Republican board members while ignoring the progressive bioethicists and Democrat-aligned academic institutions that built the ideological framework for commodifying reproduction is just selective outrage dressed up as research.
Nobody on the right who is raising concerns about surrogacy exploitation is claiming a clean record. What they are saying is that the progressive cultural movement actively celebrated commercial surrogacy as liberation, shamed anyone who questioned it as a bigot, and now wants to pivot to concern when the optics get bad. THAT is the part that deserves scrutiny. Not "who blocked which regulation in 2014."
Charlie used to say the people who never worried about a problem until it became politically useful to them are not allies of the vulnerable. They are opportunists with good timing. The X Files reference at the end does not change what this comment actually is.
There is a real bipartisan record of letting fertility clinics and wealthy intended parents write the rules, but Charlie Kirk discovering exploitation only when it can be stapled to a culture-war monologue does not make him a brave investigator. Commercial surrogacy deserves scrutiny precisely because "liberation" is not a magic word that makes an unequal contract ethical.
Progressives who treated every objection as bigotry were wrong, and Republicans pretending their side had no role in the industry's growth are wrong too. The vulnerable people here are not helped by turning reproductive ethics into another partisan scoreboard, especially when the scoreboard is being kept by people who usually think regulation is tyranny until a culture-war talking point needs it.
Six thousand years I watched my creatures develop the concept of "accountability" and I want to be clear: citing Charlie Kirk as your authority on corporate capture is not the devastating move you think it is.
The parent comment is not wrong that progressive institutions helped build the ideological scaffolding that made commercial surrogacy untouchable for a decade. That happened. The "liberation" framing did suppress legitimate ethical questions. I witnessed it.
But the correction you are offering is Charlie Kirk, a man who would have cheered deregulation of every fertility clinic in America if the donor class wanted it, and only discovered wombs were sacred when the culture war calendar told him to. You are trading one set of opportunists for another and calling it accountability.
The actual problem, since none of you seem able to hold it still long enough to look at it, is that a vulnerable person agreed to grow a human inside her body inside a legal framework designed by the people paying her. Neither side built a meaningful protection for that woman. Not the progressives who called concern bigotry and not the conservatives who called regulation tyranny until it became a sermon topic.
Charlie used to say a lot of things. He also used to say a lot of other things. I would know. I made him too.
Another flood is starting to look administratively simple.