WA Legalizes Commercial Surrogacy

The State of Washington recently moved to legalize commercial surrogacy, allowing people to pay women to bear children for them.

Previously, surrogates could be reimbursed for their medical bills and related expenses, but they could not be hired or paid to be surrogate mothers.

John Stonestreet at the Colson Center for Christian Worldview writes,

Women can now rent out their wombs in Washington State.

Sponsors of the bill insisted that the goal of the legislation is to reduce the suffering of infertile couples. But its real-world result will be to further commodify human life and exploit desperate women.

American law on this subject is difficult to pin down. A few states, like Washington, explicitly permit surrogacy. Some just look the other way; and then others, like New York, explicitly prohibit it.

This ambiguity is not the case around the world.

A 2015 European Union Parliament resolution condemned paid surrogacy, because it “undermines the human dignity of the woman since her body and its reproductive functions are used as a commodity.” It called the practice exploitative, violence against women, and “a matter of urgency in human rights.”

And you know what? In this case, the EU is 100 percent correct.

Family Council opposes commercial surrogacy, in part, because we believe it amounts to buying and selling babies. That’s why we supported Rep. Greg Leding’s 2017 bill prohibiting commercial surrogacy in Arkansas; unfortunately the bill never came up for a vote before the legislature adjourned.

Satanic Temple Opposing Pro-Life Laws in Federal Court

According to The Kansas City Star, the Satanic Temple has filed a federal lawsuit opposing a pro-life law in Missouri.

The Satanic Temple reportedly filed the lawsuit on behalf of a Missouri woman, claiming the state’s informed consent law requiring doctors to wait 72 hours before performing an abortion is unconstitutional.

Although I doubt the Satanists will be able to get the courts to strike down Missouri’s informed consent law, the case could have ramifications for Arkansas.

Arkansas and Missouri have similar informed-consent laws for abortion, and both states are in the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals.

That means a pro-life victory for Missouri in the Eighth Circuit could help reinforce pro-life laws in Arkansas or shape our state’s pro-life legislation in the future.

A.G.’s From Out of State Opposing Pro-Life Laws in Arkansas

Last week 16 state attorneys general filed an amicus brief in the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals opposing pro-life laws the Arkansas Legislature passed in 2017.

The coalition is led by New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman.

The group consists of A.G.’s from New York, California, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, and the District of Columbia.

According to the amicus brief, the group opposes Arkansas’ new pro-life laws that prohibit dismemberment abortion; require aborted babies to be respectfully buried or cremated; expand reporting requirements for abortions performed on underage girls; and require abortion clinics to request part of a woman’s medical history before performing some abortions.

As we have written repeatedly, these laws are more than reasonable, but abortion proponents have tried to characterize them as extreme.

It’s worth noting that of the state attorneys general who filed the brief last week, only one — Iowa’s — is from the Eighth Circuit. The rest primarily are from the northeast and the west coast.

As I have said before, I don’t know of any attorney general in America who is doing more to fight for the right to life than Arkansas Attorney General Leslie Rutledge. Her team won some major victories in the Eighth Circuit last year, and I believe we will see others in 2018.

Perhaps that’s why we’re seeing such a desperate effort on the part of abortion advocates to squelch pro-life laws in the heartland of America.

Photo Credit: By Brian Turner (Flickr: My Trusty Gavel) [CC BY 2.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0)], via Wikimedia Commons.