The Massachusetts House unanimously approved the “Parentage Equality” bill, H. 4672, which allows women to sell their unborn children based on intent to parent rather than biology or adoption.

On June 12, a law allowing mothers to sell their children and basing parenthood only on intent was unanimously approved by the Massachusetts House.

Both conventional and compensated surrogacy are currently permitted in Massachusetts; however, in the event of traditional surrogacy, the intended parents must officially adopt the child upon delivery, necessitating a background check. There must be a genetic connection between the kid and at least one of the intended parents. The “Parentage Equality” bill, H. 4672, would redefine parenting by basing it on a “person’s intent to be a parent of a child” rather than on biology or adoption (as a way to provide a home to a child who has lost his or her parents).

Opening the door to more abuse

The bill’s supporters contend that because the present legislation does not recognize same-sex relationships or intended parents who use egg or sperm donors as legal parents until the kid is adopted, it has negatively impacted same-sex couples and intended parents. They gripe that to protect their legal rights, these spouses must “adopt their own children.”

However, because of the rules that surround the procedure, adoption shields kids against harm. The detrimental effects on children living with non-biologically related parental figures have been studied. According to one study, “In studies across a wide range of cultures… [t]he single best predictor of child abuse is the presence of a stepparent in the home. The risk of even unintentional deaths, such as drowning, is greater in stepfamilies than in intact or single-parent families.”

Adoption procedures include background checks to keep kids out of risky homes.

Adam Stafford King was detained earlier this year in connection with a reported plot to sexually assault the son he and his partner were expecting through a surrogate. Had background checks—which are not necessary in surrogacy—been in place in 2005, Mark Newton and Peter Truong might not have hired a Russian lady to bear a boy they intended to sexually abuse. According to police, they desired a child “for the sole purpose of exploitation.” The video shows Newton beating the kid less than two weeks after his birth, and the abuse started just days after the boy’s birth. For almost six years, the guys traversed the globe, offering the youngster sexual relations with a minimum of eight men, documenting the mistreatment, and sharing the video on the “Boy Lovers Network.”

Selling biological children

The majority of commercial surrogacy regulations limit surrogacy contracts to situations where the surrogate is not related to the child she is carrying, according to The Federalist. Nonetheless, the recently proposed legislation in Massachusetts permits a biological mother to obtain monetary compensation for her biological child, even if the surrogacy agreement is signed after the mother has given birth.

Section 4B of Chapter 46 of the Massachusetts law, which deals with artificial insemination, says that “Any child born to a married woman as a result of artificial insemination with her husband’s consent, shall be considered the legitimate child of the mother and such husband.” The House voted in favor of the bill to repeal this provision. Under H. 47672, this would no longer be regarded as true.

Section 14 of the bill also specifies that an action to establish paternity of a child may be commenced during pregnancy, but it must be brought by the person giving birth, their agent, or the IV-D agency, which is outlined in chapter 119A, on the person giving birth’s behalf.

Put otherwise, a woman has the option to conceive naturally, whether through her partner or another person, and then choose to refer to the pregnancy as a “surrogate” pregnancy so that she can receive payment for the kid from a “intended parent.” She would be able to sell her biological child, quite literally.

As long as a judge allows it, the law would also permit surrogacy arrangements in which the intended father and the surrogate had intercourse. This would enable a man to pay a woman for sex and then give him custody of any child born: Prostitution meets child trafficking.

With emphasis added, The Federalist reported:

Under H. 4672, the following would be perfectly legal: a woman undergoes the physical and mental health screenings required to become a surrogate, becomes pregnant via sperm from a sperm bank, and then posts to a surrogacy forum or social media group that she is not only available as a surrogate but already pregnant.

She could then choose to “match” with the couple [no background check legally required] willing to pay the highest “payment of consideration,” essentially auctioning off her child. As long as the surrogacy agreement meets the requirements outlined in the bill, it could be validated by a court and viewed as not only permissible but legally binding. However, if that same woman became pregnant and decided to make an agreement with a couple to adopt her child, while insisting that she be paid for placing her child with them, she would be prosecuted for baby selling.

The Federalist stated that although this may seem “far-fetched,” unrelated persons had already been included on a child’s birth certificate in California. Three women were found guilty in 2011 of running an illicit baby-selling network under the guise of a surrogacy agency. The trio of ladies comprised a surrogacy facilitator and two reproductive law specialists in the legal field. They were able to get around surrogacy legislation that stipulated surrogacy contracts had to be signed before pregnancy by using their legal knowledge.

The FBI claims that they sent surrogates to Ukraine to receive embryos from unidentified donors implanted in them. The three women who served as surrogates typically waited until the second or third trimester before locating intended parents for the infants, despite their belief that the firm was real and that there was a list of parents waiting for newborns. The babies were misrepresented to those parents as being a part of legal surrogacy agreements after the intended parents withdrew. They could have the baby for $150,000 to $100,000. The surrogates received less than half of the proceeds, and the scam continued for years.

The erroneous notion that an adult has a right to a kid is the foundation for laws like the “Parentage Equality” bill in Massachusetts. Laws about parenting must prioritize the child’s rights to a safe home, to their biological parent, and to know their genetic heritage. Adults are not owed children.

The Senate will now vote on the bill.

Last year, GreatGameIndia reported that a new IVF procedure called mitochondrial donation treatment (MDT) resulted in the birth of the first UK baby with DNA from three people.