Hoylman, Kreuger at odds over surrogacy rights bill
BY MATT TRACY
GAY CITY NEWS
A contentious battle is
heating up in the State
Legislature over competing
bills that would legalize
surrogacy rights in New York
after a version proposed by out
gay Manhattan State Senator
Brad Hoylman and Westchester
Assemblymember Amy Paulin
stalled last year amid concerns
about women’s rights and
welfare.
Hoylman and Paulin are again
pushing their bill, which has
strong support from Governor
Andrew Cuomo, but Manhattan
State Senator Liz Krueger, out
gay Manhattan Assemblymember
Daniel O’Donnell, and Assemblymember
Didi Barrett of Dutchess
and Columbia Counties are
barreling ahead with their own
version that they say was crafted
based on further evaluation of the
previous bill and feedback from
women who voiced concerns
with last year’s proposal.
Krueger and Barrett are listed
as lead sponsors on the bills.
“The other bill laid dormant
for a very long time and no
outreach was done to women’s
groups to find out where they
would fall on this,” O’Donnell
asserted in an interview with Gay
City News on Feb. 21.
There are significant differences
between the two pieces of
legislation.
The new bill, listed as S7717
in the Senate and A9847 in the
Assembly, would not just legalize
gestational surrogacy, which
entails a woman carrying a baby
unrelated to her, but also genetic
surrogacy, which is when a woman
carries a baby conceived through
fertilization of her own egg.
Hoylman and Paulin’s version
of the bill only addresses gestational
surrogacy.
Hoylman, who has had two
children through gestational surrogacy
with his husband, David
Sigal, argues his bill contains the
“strongest legal protections” for
surrogates — and it is true that
the bill requires intended parents
to cover costs such as healthcare
and independent legal representation
for the surrogates, many
of whom become surrogates for
State Senator Liz Krueger is lead sponsor of an alternative surrogacy bill that differs from the one championed by
her out gay Senate colleague Brad Hoylman.
economic reasons.
One key point of contention
in the bill put forth by Krueger,
O’Donnell, and Barrett is a requirement
that intended parents
undergo medical and psychological
evaluations, a home study,
and background checks.
The National Center for Lesbian
Rights, GLBTQ Legal Advocates
and Defenders, Lambda
Legal, the LGBT Bar Association
of Greater New York, and the
Family Equality Council penned
a letter to Krueger, O’Donnell,
and Barrett ripping their bill
for several reasons, including
those requirements forced upon
intended parents.
They stated that the requirements
unfairly harm LGBTQ
families because “this kind of investigation
and evaluation would
be unthinkable for parents who
planned to have children through
sexual intercourse… Surrogacy is
not an adoption…”
Another key difference between
the bills involves the point
at which the intended parents officially
become the child’s legal
parents. Hoylman’s bill calls for
pre-arranged agreements stipulating
that the intended parents
gain full legal rights of the child
upon birth, but the alternative
bill imposes an eight-day
waiting period after the baby is
born during which the intended
parents and the surrogate share
responsibility for the child.
By the conclusion of that period,
the surrogate can submit a
notarized declaration that would
officially hand over full responsibility
for and authority over the
child to the intended parents.
In a phone interview with Gay
City News, Krueger defended
the provision and downplayed
worst-case scenarios, saying that
it is rare that a surrogate would
refuse to give up a child.
“The more careful and
transparent and deliberate and
informed this can be set up,
the less likely it is the surrogate
would change their mind,”
Krueger said.
When asked what would
happen if a surrogate refuses to
give up the child, Krueger was
PHOTO VIA FACEBOOK/STATE SENATOR LIZ KRUEGER
less specific, saying it would be
“a judicial issue for courts to determine
how they interpret that
contract and what they believe is
the best interest of the child.”
In phone interviews on February
21, both Krueger and Hoylman
made it abundantly clear
that they respect one another
and have a shared goal of legalizing
surrogacy in the right way.
But there are large gaps between
them on the path forward and
those divisions are becoming
more visible with the introduction
of a competing bill. Krueger
said multiple state senators who
voted for Hoylman’s proposal last
year have told her that they will
no longer support it.
Faced with fresh competition,
Hoylman is hitting back at
the alternative bill. Notably, he
blasted the eight-day window in
Krueger’s bill as a “non-starter”
and pointed to scenarios under
which the intended parents could
endure the entire process and
come out of it empty-handed and
heartbroken.
“Imagine going through a
compensated surrogacy arrangement
having a successful transfer,
the child is born, and then
the woman acting as surrogate
changes her mind and wants to
file for parental rights,” Hoylman
said. “That’s the kind of legal
heartache that we’re trying to
avoid with having clear parental
rights established.”
One factor that lingers over
both bills involves affordability.
Having children through gestational
surrogacy costs tens of
thousands of dollars for intended
parents, making it an unattainable
option for most of the lawmakers’
constituents.
O’Donnell, Krueger, and
Hoylman all acknowledged this
reality and Hoylman said he
hopes the growing movement to
implement universal healthcare
can eventually serve as a source
of relief for parties involved in
surrogacy.
For his part, Cuomo is continuing
his effort to ramp up
support for the Hoylman/ Paulin’s
bill.
Read more at gaycitynews.nyc.
Schneps Media February 27,2020 11