Below is Dr. Sharon Quick's letter to the Senators on the Government Operations, Tribal Relations, & Elections Committee. She was kind enough to share her insights with us. Dr. Quick is the Washington State Coordinator for the American Academy of Medical Ethics. Please take the time to read this letter, so that you can learn more about the destructive nature of E2SHB.
TO: Senators on Government Operations, Tribal Relations & Elections Committee
From:
Sharon Quick, MD
Washington State Coordinator, American Academy of Medical Ethics
RE: Vote NO on E2SHB 1267
Dear Senator,
Would you like to see the following website advertisement for a company in Washington?
"Based on eugenics...we could create the finest procreation condition for your baby, mainly through the efficient embryo refining, only the superior left for implanting." The site does not mention what becomes of human embryos that fail its eugenic standards, nor does it state what qualifications an embryo must meet to be worthy, but does state that selections can be based on gender.
Paid Surrogacy and Human Rights Issues
Surrogacy is not currently illegal in Washington, but surrogacy contracts are not enforced because the state does not believe a child should be forcibly removed from the woman who bore him/her because she took money prior to becoming pregnant. This bill would make Washington one of the few states that enforces surrogacy contracts, allowing purchase of a child from a woman prior to her pregnancy.
Civilized societies have long believed that there are some things that money cannot buy. While a person can donate their organs, they cannot be sold. So it has been with the womb and parental rights.
When the motive behind surrogacy changes from an altruistic one to that of financial incentive, the opportunity for significant human rights abuses is almost guaranteed. How many poor women or (illegal?) immigrants will be taken advantage of by someone with money? The bill does not adequately protect the health and well-being of a surrogate. A surrogate who becomes pregnant will have only two choices: kill the child before it is born or give the child to the person that paid her.
An amicus brief, filed in a New Jersey case by the feminists and a group in Washington that monitors genetic engineering, argues that legalizing a system that allows women, for a fee, to bear children for childless couples will lead to the exploitation of women, especially poorer ones. ''As technology develops, the 'surrogate' becomes a kind of reproductive technology laboratory,'' the brief states. ''In short, she has been dehumanized and has been reduced to a mere 'commodity' in the reproductive marketplace.''
(
http://www.nytimes.com/1987/07/31/nyregion/brief-by-feminists-opposes-surrogate-parenthood.html?pagewanted=1)
Paid Surrogacy and Bioethical Nightmares
E2SHB 1267 has no regulations about the type of embryos that can be implanted in a surrogate mother or the purpose for which a womb can be hired. It leaves open the possibility for "research" to be done via the purported benefit of intended parent(s), perhaps relatively inexpensively, and without all the legal and institutional safeguards. For a price, poor women may be enticed (perhaps unknowingly) to sell their wombs for the gestation of:
Paid Surrogacy and Bypassing of Adoption Safety Standards
E2SHB 1267 is essentially regulating gestational adoptions, yet it bypasses adoption safety standards and ignores the best interests of the child. According to current law (RCW 26.33.010), "the guiding principle [in adoption] must be determining what is in the best interest of the child;" and RCW 26.33.190 lists a number of requirements that potential parents must meet as determined by a preplacement report. Where are the criteria to ensure fit parents in E2SHB? Section 57 (2) (b) requires that the prospective parent(s) undergo a mental health evaluation, but it does not state that any competency standards have to be met. No other qualifications are listed. What is to prevent a pedophile from buying a child of the gender of his choosing?
What if the surrogate mother, after signing a contract, develops reservations about the qualifications of the prospective parents? E2SHB 1267 does not allow the contract to be broken except by abortion. The surrogate mother with a genetic contribution to the child is treated differently in this bill than any other mother with the same genetic contribution to her unborn child who is considering adoption. The surrogate mother is forced to give up the child at birth without recourse, whereas in the case of a non-surrogate mother, a hearing on a petition to relinquish the child for adoption may not be held sooner than 48 hours after the child's birth or the signing of all necessary consents to adoption, whichever is later (RCW 26.33.090), giving the mother the option to change her mind after birth.
E2SHB 1267 Ignores the Importance of Genetics in Defining Parents
Traditional surrogacy (surrogate woman has made a genetic contribution but does not intend to act as parent) and gestational surrogacy (surrogate woman has no genetic contribution to the child and does not intend to act as parent) are not distinguished legally, as both types of surrogates are forced by this bill to give up the child immediately at birth. This ignores the importance of genetic contribution in defining parents. It also fails to honor the rights of the genetic and birth mother who may have second thoughts about giving up their own child after carrying the child for nine months. One of the reasons surrogacy contracts are not enforced in most states is that there is a general understanding that it is impossible for a woman who is not yet pregnant to have all the information necessary to give informed consent to such a contract.
Sec. 1 (33) states that a "genetic parent" means a person who is the source of the egg or sperm that produced the child. However it states that the term does not include a donor. This is an oxymoron, as the genetic parents are always the gamete contributors, no matter how the embryo is conceived-natural or artificial insemination or creation of an embryo in the lab from an egg and sperm.
The majority of legal protection goes to the "presumed parent" in any legal case against him, and biological evidence is discounted in any situation where the child was born through "assisted reproduction." This is a huge loophole for custody (that doesn't necessarily relate to surrogacy) that should not be enacted. Sec. 8 could be construed to allow anyone, regardless of genetic linkage, to claim to be a parent. For example, Sec. 8 (2) states that a "person is presumed to be the parent of a child if, for the first two years of the child's life, the person resided in the same household with the child and openly held out the child as his or her own." A live-in abusive boyfriend might fit this definition, as would other outrageous scenarios.
The court is mandated to determine parentage "based on evidence of the parties' intent" (Sec. 58 (5)). This severely limits the courts from considering other long-standing and more valid measures of parentage such as genetic linkage or mother-child bonding that occurs during pregnancy or the best interests of the child.
This kind of terminology paves the way for legalizing multiple parents and creating confusion and instability for the child.
E2SHB 1267 Legalizes the Sale of Children
Selling or buying a minor child is a class C felony; the only payment allowed is that to pay for "hospital or medical expenses involved in the birth of the child, or attorneys' fees and court costs involved in effectuating transfer of child custody" (section 71). Yet all of the requirements for the surrogacy contract are directly dealing with the transfer of a child from one party to another, and compensation (Sec. 1 (7)) in excess of reasonable medical, legal, and ancillary costs is authorized in Sec. 58 (e). Specifying the time of payment does not change the intent of the payment. Thus.
E2SHB 1267 Ignores the Best Interests of Children
This bill changes mother/father terminology to presume that it does not matter, when scientific studies repeatedly show the importance of both father and mother. See the following conclusion on the American College of Pediatricians' website:
"tradition and science agree that biological ties and dual gender parenting are protective for children. The family environment in which children are reared plays a critical role in forming a secure gender identity, positive emotional well-being, and optimal academic achievement. Decades of social science research documents that children develop optimally when reared by their two biological parents in a low conflict marriage. The limited research advocating childrearing by homosexual parents has severe methodological limitations. There is significant risk of harm inherent in exposing a child to the homosexual lifestyle. Given the current body of evidence, the American College of Pediatricians believes it is inappropriate, potentially hazardous to children, and dangerously irresponsible to change the age-old prohibition on homosexual parenting, whether by adoption, foster care, or reproductive manipulation. This position is rooted in the best available science."
(
http://www.acpeds.org/Homosexual-Parenting-Is-It-Time-For-Change.html)
The vast majority of the studies that conclude that same-sex parenting is "no different" than that by opposite sex couples are severely flawed in multiple areas, and this conclusion is simply not valid. A technical report supportive of same-sex parenting published by Pediatrics is often used as "evidence" that homosexual parenting is not harmful to children. Yet this report is based on poor quality research and over half the references were inaccurately quoted. (
http://www.acpeds.org/Marriage-Rights-for-Homosexual-Couples%20Not-the-Best-for-Children.html) Unfortunately politics has prevailed over good science even in scientific organizations.
Doctors Wright & Cummings, both leaders in their field of psychology (past presidents of divisions in the American Psychological Association) and admittedly advocates of a progressive social and political agenda, state the following in their book,
Destructive Trends in Mental Health:
"...advocacy for scientific and professional concerns has been usurped by agenda-driven ideologues who show little regard for either scientific validation or professional efficacy. Although I am in agreement with many of APA's stances, I am opposed to the process that has diminished its credibility. It is no longer perceived as an authority that presents scientific evidence and professional facts. The APA has chosen ideology over science, and thus has diminished its influence on the decision makers in our society.
Let no one presume that ideology does not influence science. Within psychology today there are topics that are deemed politically incorrect, and they are neither published nor funded. Journal editors control what is accepted for publication through those chosen to conduct peer reviews. Although it can be argued that journals have the right to determine their areas of primary interest, this can be used to stifle controversy or political incorrectness even when these are important topics for scientific inquiry. Censorship exists....
An example of liberal bias affecting research interpretation and its use in advocacy is researchers who advocate that parental sexual orientation should be irrelevant in child custody decisions....much of the extant research that finds no negative effects of gay parenting on children has serious limitations....these limitations are often downplayed by advocates, who also frequently fail to consider fully the potential importance of having both male and female nurturance and role models for children...."
[Wright RH, Cummings NA, editors. Destructive Trends in Mental Health: The Well-Intentioned Path to Harm. New York, NY: Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group; 2005, p.xiv and 308.]
You also may be interested in perusing the website of Dawn Stefanowicz, author of Out From Under, a story about her childhood experience in a home with a father involved in a homosexual lifestyle. She posts letters from other adult children raised in homes with homosexual parent(s), and discusses the harmful effects on development of personal and sexual identity. These children love their parents, and often do not feel they can speak publicly until their parents are no longer living-as was the case for Dawn.
SUMMARY
E2SHB 1267 treats children as trophies to be won/bought by the highest bidder and does not protect a child's best interests. It has inadequate safeguards for surrogate mothers; lacks sophistication in addressing issues surrounding reproductive medicine; has no prohibitions against ethically abhorrent practices such as using a surrogate womb for human cloning; legalizes unequal treatment of mothers based on whether their womb is for hire; bypasses adoption safety standards; and provides a perfect set-up for human trafficking of pregnant woman. It changes mother/father terminology to presume that it does not matter, when scientific studies repeatedly show the importance of both father and mother.
Please vote NO on this harmful piece of legislation.
Thank you,
Sharon Quick, MD
Washington State Coordinator, American Academy of Medical Ethics
