Surrogacy, Surrogacy and more Surrogacy on this Happy Friday Morning! Too bad it is gloomy outside here in Southern California, but it could always be worse. Welcome to today’s updates. Have an awesome weekend!
New York – Greenwich doctor uses wrong sperm to produce twins for one of his patients – oh, and it is his sperm!
“Hundreds of women have trusted him with their bodies, and their dreams of motherhood. Many depend on him as their doctor today.
But for nearly seven years, none of Dr. Ben D. Ramaley’s patients have known that the prominent obstetrician/gynecologist had been accused of an almost unimaginable act – substituting his own sperm for that of a patient’s husband during an artificial insemination procedure.
The allegation was made against the veteran Greenwich doctor in a 2005 medical malpractice lawsuit – which was quickly settled, then sealed, the very court documents shredded. The suit was filed by a couple when a DNA test revealed that the husband was not the biological father of their twin girls, born after an insemination procedure performed by Ramaley.” Ouch is all I can say!
Nevada – Nevada group sues to stop anti-abortion petition. “The Nevada Personhood initiative violates state law by misleading voters about the true outcomes of the constitutional amendment, according to the lawsuit filed by the American Civil Liberties Union and Planned Parenthood.
“It utterly fails not only to mention it will ban all abortions– even in the case of rape and incest– that it will prevent much fertility treatment and birth control, but that it conflicts with a prior vote of the Nevada electorate and it conflicts with the U.S. Supreme Court,” said Lee Rowland of the ACLU of Nevada. “Voters need to understand what a monumental change they would be making should they vote for this initiative.”
The petition filed by conservative Las Vegas activist Richard Ziser seeks to add a single sentence to the state constitution: “In the great state of Nevada, the term ‘person’ applies to every human being.”
Supporters contend the amendment would grant due process rights to “everyone possessing a human genome,” according to a five-paragraph description on the petition.
It’s that description of effect that abortion-rights advocates claim is misleading and against state law governing initiative petitions. The description does not use the word “abortion,” although it refers to the “unborn.”
Ziser said the lawsuit has been filed because opponents disagree with what it would accomplish, not because its outcome is unclear.”
Australia – The Queensland Opposition has moved to exclude same-sex couples from new surrogacy laws. “The State Government is legislating to decriminalise altruistic or non-commercial surrogacy and the laws have been framed to include same-sex couples.
Opposition Leader Lawrence Springborg has introduced a Private Member’s Bill to rival the Government’s legislation.
“The Bill makes it clear that the only form of surrogacy which will be legal will be non-commercial and for heterosexual couples only,” he said.
“Same-sex and single and commercial surrogacy arrangements will remain illegal.”
UK – Couple in embryo court battle to stop the destruction of stored embryos. “They took the action after narrowly falling outside new rules which relax the upper age limit at which a woman can have an embryo implanted.
From 1 October an age limit of 55 was removed, but the woman involved had reached that age days earlier.
That means continued retention of their embryos is currently illegal
However, the couple have been granted an injunction guaranteeing nothing is done with them until the legal challenge is decided.
They are also seeking permission to be allowed to transport the embryos to the Republic of Ireland should they fail to ensure their retention within the United Kingdom.”
India/Germany – Things that make you go hmmmm……India continues to sound VERY RISKY for me. German twins in surrogacy row are Indians, says High Court. “In a historic judgment, the Gujarat High Court held that children born to surrogate mothers on Indian soil are Indians, if there is any dispute regarding their citizenship in cases of foreign nationals.
Jan Balaz, a freelance writer and his wife Susanne Lohle, both Germans, could not have kids, so they came to India and entered into a surrogacy agreement with Martha Khristi, who delivered twins last April âs” Nikolas and Leonard. Their birth was registered in Anand municipality. The babies could never be German citizens, as the laws there prohibit surrogacy. The couple settled down in UK and wanted a visa for the kids from British embassy. They had already got Indian passports.
However, the passports were withdrawn by the Centre on the ground that the parents were not Indian nationals and therefore the kids were not Indians. Balaz approached the High Court, and there was a debate on the twins’ citizenship. Ultimately, the High Court took a middle path in the absence of any law, and ordered the Centre to issue identity certificates, just like the Japanese baby Manjiâ’s case, and on basis of this the couple was allowed to take their babies to UK.
A division Bench of Chief Justice KS Radhakrishnan and Justice AS Dave asked the Centre to give passport to babies for obtaining British visa. The Centre was willing, but surrogacy laws and citizenship were not clear.
Finally, the court considered the Citizenship Act and held: â€œEven if the children are described as illegitimate children, they are born in this country to an Indian national and hence, they are entitled to get citizenship by birth, as one of their parent is an Indian.”