Guest Column: “There Is No Mama”

A recent video exposed the injustice at the heart of same-sex marriage and commercial surrogacy. In it, a man bouncing a baby on his lap asks, “Who do you want? Dada or Pop?” The baby answered, “Mama!” To which, both the man and his unseen partner behind the camera laughed and said, “There is no Mama.” They continue to badger the child, who then begins to cry.  

The most obvious evil portrayed in the video is the relentless teasing of a baby. The deeper evil, however, is not that the men were mean. In fact, being mean was only the insult added to the injury of forcing their farcical arrangement on a baby and calling it a family. 

Because, and everyone knows this including these two men suppressing the truth by their wickedness, there is a mama. She is not included in the video, nor is she in the life of the baby she carried and who needs her, but she exists. She’s been cut out of her child’s life, presumably by her own choice. The baby, however, did not make a choice. And now two men who have appropriated the title of “parents” are badgering the baby into affirming their lifestyle choice. 

Perhaps, the infant is only doing what infants often do, babbling out those syllables that are often among the first learned by young ones across times and places and culture. But of course, these syllables always refer to the same person. They are, in the end, a primal cry of children for a particular someone who should always be there for them. 

Anyone who has spent time around babies understands what is playing out in this scene. For little ones, mama is the world. In fact, according to childhood policy expert Dr. Dan Wuori, kids often say “Dada” before “Mama” not because the mom doesn’t matter as much but because she matters so much more. In their tiny, growing minds, they recognize “Dad” as a distinct person before they realize that “Mom” isn’t part of themselves. This innate and beautiful bond is intentionally broken when we pretend that a man can replace a mom, or whenever a child is acquired through surrogacy. 

Just as tragic is the embrace of same-sex “marriage” or such reproductive technologies by individuals, governments, medical authorities, and Christians, while failing to even take a cursory glance to consider what is best for the child. Any ethical concerns around in vitro fertilization and surrogacy have been deferred in order to protect the feelings and desires of adults. In fact, both in policy and in public discourse, we’ve lost the ability to even discern the difference between couples who suffer with infertility and same-sex couples who have chosen inherently sterile relationships but then demand children. As a result, what children need is tossed aside in the name of adult desires. Children become commodities in the marketplace of consumer-driven reproductive technologies. 

As Katy Faust, founder of the children’s rights group Them Before Us and the Greater Than campaign, said to the Colson Center: 

We’ve been sounding the alarm about surrogacy for years. The mother loss, the commodification, the fact that children often go home with unrelated adults, increasing risk of abuse and neglect. But videos like this do something that arguments and studies never can. They spark righteous rage that leads people to come out of the closet as defenders of the natural family. It is more and more clear that gay marriage didn’t just have to do with what takes place “in the privacy of the bedroom.” It impacts children. And when we see those children cry on camera, it motivates us to action. 

It should, at least. The word “natural” is accurate. Having chosen unnatural relationships, to quote Paul, these two dads now demand that even a baby must affirm what is unnatural. Even if they had not made that demand in such a cruel way in a video shared for social media clicks, great harm has been done to this child. And a culture that affirms their choice is complicit in that harm.  

Babies need their mamas. There are few things more obvious than that. Denying that reality is a tragedy. Harming children should be a crime.

Copyright 2026 by the Colson Center for Christian Worldview. Reprinted from BreakPoint.org with permission.

Florida Lawmakers Add Surrogacy Ban to Foreign Interference Measure

Last week, Florida lawmakers amended a foreign interference bill to prohibit commercial surrogacy contracts with citizens of certain countries.

In commercial surrogacy, corporate agencies hire women to carry children for paying customers — some of whom may be foreign nationals.

Florida’s H.B. 905 is intended to stop China, Russia, Iran, North Korea, Cuba, Venezuela, and Syria from interfering in business or politics in the Sunshine State. The measure reportedly would prevent state and local governments from contracting with individuals and businesses closely associated with those countries when it comes to matters like critical infrastructure or information technology.

On March 3, the Florida House of Representatives amended the bill to address commercial surrogacy contracts as well. The amendment effectively prevents, for example, a Russian or Chinese citizen from signing a commercial surrogacy contract with someone in Florida.

Arkansas U.S. Senator Tom Cotton and Florida U.S. Sen. Rick Scott recently urged the U.S. Department of Justice to investigate surrogacy centers operated by foreign nationals.

In a letter to U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi, the senators wrote,

“Recent reports have uncovered more than 107 Chinese-owned surrogacy agencies operating in Southern California alone. These agencies cater almost exclusively to wealthy Chinese clients, and some are affiliated with Chinese state-owned entities. Chinese nationals pay women living in the United States more than $50,000 to serve as surrogates. The children are born on United States soil and granted automatic citizenship. And in most cases, the infants are promptly flown to China and raised there under the direct influence of the Chinese Communist Party.”

We have written many times about how commercial surrogacy is a largely unregulated industry that exploits women and hurts children.

Unlike many other countries, the United States has relatively few restrictions on surrogacy — and that’s a problem.

Last year The Wall Street Journal uncovered how Chinese billionaires are taking advantage of America’s surrogacy industry to create what some call “mega-families” with dozens or even hundreds of children.

The Wall Street Journal also has written about allegations of financial fraud among commercial surrogacy businesses.

In December, The New York Times and NBC News both reported about investigations into a surrogacy agency that abruptly shutdown, causing clients to lose an estimated $2 – $5 million total.

News outlets have reported that a sex offender convicted of crimes involving children was able to obtain a child through surrogacy in Pennsylvania as a result of lax state regulations.

And The New Yorker reported last month that a wealthy couple in Los Angeles allegedly used a surrogacy agency they operated to hire dozens of women across the U.S. to carry more than 20 children for them. According to the magazine, the children were removed from the home and placed in foster care after one of them was hospitalized with injuries “consistent with ‘those sustained during a car accident or from being shaken.’”

Stories like these underscore why social commentators and policymakers worldwide have raised concerns about commercial surrogacy.

It’s bad when commercial surrogacy goes wrong — but it’s important to remember that surrogacy never “goes right” either.

Commercial surrogacy deliberately deprives children of their biological mothers or fathers.

It treats pregnancy like a “service” that can be purchased.

It treats women like commodities, and it treats children like products that can be made to order and sold for profit.

Commercial surrogacy also relies heavily on in vitro fertilization and other reproductive technologies that have serious problems of their own.

Human beings are not products that can be made to order, bought, and sold. That’s why it’s essential for policymakers to enact real restrictions on commercial surrogacy contracts and agencies.

Articles appearing on this website are written with the aid of Family Council’s researchers and writers.

Pro-Life Advocate Speaks Out Against Surrogacy

Pro-life advocate Dr. Abby Johnson recently posted a statement on social media opposing surrogacy, calling it “child abuse.”

Dr. Johnson was a Planned Parenthood clinic director until 2009, but she became pro-life after witnessing an ultrasound-guided abortion. Today she is a pro-life author and speaker and an advocate for women and unborn children.

In a statement posted last week, Dr. Johnson criticized gestational surrogacy, saying:

Two men can’t make a baby. Two women can’t make a baby. Two men or two women paying for surrogacy is child abuse, because it purposely separates that child from their God-given right to a mom and dad. Children aren’t pets.

They’re human beings with rights.

We have written many times about how surrogacy — especially commercial surrogacy — exploits women and hurts children.

In commercial surrogacy arrangements, corporate agencies hire women to carry children for paying customers.

Unlike many other countries, the United States has relatively few regulations when it comes to surrogacy — and that’s a problem.

Last year, news outlets reported that a sex offender convicted of crimes involving children was able to obtain a child through surrogacy in Pennsylvania as a result of lax state regulations.

The New Yorker reported last week that a wealthy couple in Los Angeles allegedly used a surrogacy agency they operated to hire dozens of women across the U.S. to carry more than 20 children for them. According to the magazine, the children were removed from the home and placed in foster care after one of them was hospitalized with injuries “consistent with ‘those sustained during a car accident or from being shaken.'”

Last year The Wall Street Journal uncovered how Chinese billionaires are exploiting America’s surrogacy industry to create what some call “mega-families” with dozens or even hundreds of children.

The Wall Street Journal also has written about allegations of financial fraud among commercial surrogacy businesses.

In December, The New York Times and NBC News both reported about investigations into a surrogacy agency that abruptly shutdown, causing clients to lose an estimated $2 – $5 million total.

Stories like these underscore why social commentators and policymakers worldwide have raised concerns about commercial surrogacy and how it financially pressures women.

It’s bad when commercial surrogacy goes wrong — but it’s important to remember that surrogacy never “goes right” either.

Commercial surrogacy deliberately deprives children of their biological mothers or fathers.

It treats pregnancy like a “service” that can be purchased.

It treats women like commodities, and it treats children like products that can be made to order and sold for profit.

Commercial surrogacy also relies heavily on in vitro fertilization and other reproductive technologies that have serious problems of their own.

Family Council has opposed commercial surrogacy in Arkansas, but unfortunately, Arkansas’ commercial surrogacy laws are very lax.

Since 2017, Family Council has supported legislation to prohibit commercial surrogacy in Arkansas. So far, those restrictions have not passed.

Human beings are not products that can be made to order, bought, and sold. That’s why Family Council opposes commercial surrogacy — and why we will continue to oppose it.

Articles appearing on this website are written with the aid of Family Council’s researchers and writers.