UN expert says surrogacy should be eradicated – Why this is misguided
In a recent presentation and report to the United Nations General Assembly, the UN Special Rapporteur on violence against women and girls recommended the eradication of all surrogacy. As the author of this post and the creator of the original video on the subject, I write from two positions: a lawyer who has specialised in surrogacy for more than 26 years, and a parent whose daughter was born via altruistic surrogacy and known egg donation. I want to explain why the Special Rapporteur’s conclusions are deeply flawed, why sweeping prohibition is both unjust and impractical, and why the constructive solution is careful regulation grounded in human rights law — not eradication.
What the Special Rapporteur said
The Special Rapporteur’s report paints surrogacy as “characterized by exploitation and violence against women and children, including girls,” arguing that it commodifies and objectifies women’s bodies and exposes surrogates and children to serious human rights violations. She concluded that surrogacy should be abolished worldwide — a position supported at an anti‑surrogacy event hosted with backing from the Catholic Church.
“The practice of surrogacy is characterized by exploitation and violence against women and children, including girls. It reinforces patriarchal norms by commodifying and objectifying women’s bodies and exposing surrogate mothers and children to serious human rights violations.”
Those are strong allegations. I expect those making them to have exhaustively engaged with the full spectrum of evidence, experiences and legal frameworks. Sadly, that is not what happened.
Who the Rapporteur listened to — and who she didn’t
In preparation for her report the Special Rapporteur invited submissions from civil society and held closed-door meetings to gather further information. Many of the written submissions were from anti‑surrogacy advocates. I was privileged to prepare the submission from the Fertility Society of Australia and New Zealand.
At one of the closed sessions I attended, most participants were anti‑surrogacy activists. As far as I can tell, I was the only practising surrogacy lawyer and the only parent through surrogacy present. The Rapporteur did not speak to any fertility specialists who have undertaken surrogacy cases, to any surrogates themselves, nor to any persons born through surrogacy — many of whom are now adults. The lived experience of surrogates, intended parents and their children was largely absent from the process.
My story — and the reality for many families
To be candid: my family’s surrogacy experience was an altruistic journey done with known egg donation. It was a difficult medical journey, but it was not coercive, abusive or transactional in the way the report suggests. Our surrogate and donor offered to help and were not pressured. When our daughter was born, I held her immediately. The court made an order recognising my husband and me as her parents with the surrogate’s consent, removing the temporary legal fiction that named the birth mother as parent. From early on my daughter has been told, in an age‑appropriate way, about how she was born. Both the surrogate and the egg donor remain part of our family’s life. There was much love in that room and much love since. There was no trafficking, no violence and no exploitation.
That personal account was submitted and spoken about, but it was not reflected in the Rapporteur’s conclusions. The selective listening raises concerns about the representativeness of the evidence base used to justify a global ban.
Why blanket prohibition is neither necessary nor effective
Prohibitionist approaches to surrogacy fail for two practical reasons: they do not eliminate demand and they push the practice underground where there is no oversight. Australia has direct experience of this. In 1988 Queensland legislated a ban on all surrogacy — commercial, altruistic, gestational, traditional — and attempted to apply that prohibition extraterritorially to residents. It did not work. Surrogacy continued, underground, and the ban created more legal and social complications for families and surrogates alike.
History teaches that prohibition is a blunt instrument that seldom prevents the activity it targets — it merely displaces it, removing safeguards, oversight and legal protections that mitigate harm. If the concern is exploitation or human trafficking, the right answer is regulation, monitoring and access to independent legal advice and counselling for every party, not eradication that makes the vulnerable less visible and less protected.
What the evidence and international law say
The Rapporteur’s report largely ignored — or was unaware of — important international jurisprudence and contemporary professional guidance that support regulated access to assisted reproductive technologies (ART), including surrogacy.
- European Court of Human Rights and Inter‑American Court of Human Rights decisions recognise rights to access assisted reproductive technologies in the context of the right to found a family.
- The Inter‑American Court and the Supreme Court of Mexico have recognised access to surrogacy as part of reproductive rights in certain contexts.
- The International Federation of Fertility Societies (IFFS) issued the Tokyo Declaration (April 2024), which states that access to fertility education, reproductive care and related practices should be available to everyone who wishes to form a family that includes children — while insisting that access must never involve exploitation or human trafficking.
- Since 2011 the Hague Conference on Private International Law has worked on an international instrument to address cross‑border surrogacy arrangements. That work involves UNICEF, International Social Services and the International Academy of Family Lawyers and is the right forum to develop practical, internationally applicable rules that protect children and all parties involved.
These authorities show that the consensus among many legal and medical experts is not for blanket abolition but for rules that preserve rights, protect children and mitigate risks of exploitation.
Yogyakarta principles and the right to found a family
The Special Rapporteur’s proposed position would have severe discriminatory consequences. One striking example: her interim law recommendations appeared to deny recognition of parentage to people not genetically related to a child, and suggested that children born via surrogacy who are left without their birth mother might be treated as unaccompanied minors for placement pending adoption — with priority given to adoption rather than recognition of intended parents.
Under that approach, a single woman who survived cancers that robbed her fertility would, in effect, be denied the right to become a parent through surrogacy. That runs contrary to the Yogyakarta Principles and rulings reiterating that everyone has the right to found a family without discrimination based on sexual orientation, gender identity or other protected characteristics. Laws and policies should recognise diverse family forms and take measures to ensure equality of access to adoption and assisted procreation.
Professional guidance: regulation, safeguards and independent advice
Where surrogacy is permitted, the best practice framework emphasises:
- Independent judicial oversight and court orders that confirm parentage with informed consent from all parties.
- Independent legal advice and counselling for surrogates, intended parents and donors, provided in a language and at a level each person understands.
- Robust screening for vulnerabilities and coercion, and protections that prohibit exploitation and trafficking.
- Clear limits against commercialisation where jurisdictions choose altruistic models, and transparency around reimbursements and expenses.
- Continuity of relationships where intended parents, surrogates and donors wish to maintain contact, with the child’s best interests as paramount.
Those are the practical, targeted tools that reduce risk — they are the opposite of the Rapporteur’s one‑size‑fits‑all eradication approach.
What leading human rights and health organisations have said
“There are risks of abuse in surrogacy. The solution to this problem is not to ban surrogacy, but for surrogacy to be practiced under a framework based in international human rights law incorporating the rights of the child, surrogates and potential surrogates and people seeking to become parents through use of surrogacy and other forms of assisted reproduction.”
That statement, issued by organisations working at the intersection of women’s health and human rights, summarises the balanced approach most experts advocate: acknowledge risks, then regulate to manage them. Banning removes the ability to manage and mitigate real risks.
Why the Hague should lead on an international instrument
International surrogacy arrangements often raise complex questions of parentage, nationality and child protection. For a durable and coherent global response we need an international instrument developed through the Hague Conference on Private International Law, not an ad hoc push for eradication from a UN official using a selectively curated evidence base.
The Hague’s work — informed by years of study, input from child protection agencies, family lawyers, reproductive specialists and international organisations — is the right vehicle to produce practical rules that respect human rights, protect children, and provide certainty for families and surrogates across borders.
Conclusion: regulation, not eradication
Surrogacy touches lives in deeply personal ways. For many families — including mine — it has been a route to parenthood marked by consent, compassion and lifelong bonds. That reality cannot be dismissed because some advocates and a Special Rapporteur prefer a prohibitionist stance.
Eradication is a blunt tool that will not stop demand; it will expose intended parents, surrogates and children to increased risk by driving the practice underground and removing legal protections. It will deny reproductive choices to cancer survivors, LGBTQ+ people, and others whose only path to biological parenthood may be through surrogacy.
Instead, policy should focus on:
- Developing robust regulatory frameworks grounded in international human rights law.
- Ensuring independent legal counsel, psychological support and informed consent for everyone involved.
- Protecting against exploitation and trafficking through clear prohibitions and enforcement mechanisms.
- Engaging with all stakeholders — including fertility specialists, surrogates, intended parents and people born through surrogacy — to craft balanced law and policy.
- Supporting the Hague Conference’s international work so cross‑border issues are coherently addressed.
Surrogacy requires careful law-making and compassionate implementation, not ideology. If our legal and medical communities, together with human rights bodies, focus on safeguarding rights and preventing abuse, we can protect surrogates, children and intended parents without resorting to an impractical and discriminatory ban.
Thank you for reading. I’m Stephen Page from Page Provan. If you’re interested in further discussion about surrogacy law, international developments, or how to protect the rights of everyone involved, I welcome your questions and engagement.
