Remarks by Jennifer Lahl to be presented on November 19th before the European Parliament

This has always been a debate between those who call for Regulation vs. those who call for Abolishment

Most people see the inherent risk of abuse in surrogacy arrangements, especially compensation surrogacy arrangements and think the way forward is through regulation that protects all stakeholders.  But as a nurse who has researched the health risks of surrogacy – risks to both mother and child, there is no way to regulate away these risks.

It would be like passing a law that says you won’t get lung cancer from smoking. In the same way, you can’t pass laws protecting women from pre-eclampsia, gestational diabetes, pre-mature birth, placental abruption, or other serious complications, that also negatively impact the developing fetus.

The ethical and political challenge for Europe is not only maintaining laws that prohibit surrogacy (like France, Spain, Italy for example), but closing your loophole like Prime Minister Meloni did, in disallowing Italians to travel abroad to hire women as surrogates – brava to her!

I lament each time I hear people say that California’s model for regulating surrogacy is the gold standard.

Because of regulation, California is one of the most surrogate-friendly states in the US, with iron clad legal protections, which privilege the money interests – the intend parents, the fertility agencies, the lawyers, but certainly do not provide legal protections for surrogates.

California’s laws regulating surrogacy sprang from a combination of two legal cases, that led to statutes that legitimize surrogacy contracts, establish pre-birth parentage for those who “intend” to parent, and allow for compensation. These laws make the process of commercial surrogacy enforceable, which Big Fertility loves.  Anyone who rents a womb, buys a baby, is guaranteed that child. Come to California – you are guaranteed a take home baby!

Briefly the two cases:

1993 a landmark California Supreme Court case, in Johnson v. Calvert, upheld a paid gestational surrogacy contract. Mark and Crispina Calvert (Intended parents) contracted with Anna Johnson to carry their genetic embryo. Disputes arose between the parties during the pregnancy with Anna saying she bonded with the child, didn’t want to surrender the child, and that the contract was not enforceable because it was against public policy and akin to baby selling. The Calverts accused Anna of breach of contract with no legal rights to the child.  The court ruled in against Johnson because the intent of the Calvert’s to parent was paramount.

1998 in Buzzanca v. Buzzanca, Luanne and John Buzzanca entered into a surrogate contract with an embryo they had created using donor egg and donor sperm. The embryo created had no biological connection to either of them.  Six weeks before the birth, John filed for divorce and denied his paternity to the child.  The courts ruled against John, stating that intent to parent creates parenthood, even when there is no genetic connection to the child.  John and Luanne were declared legal parents, and the surrogate and the egg and sperm donor had no rights to the child. John was ordered to pay child support but was granted no visitation rights because he had abandoned his intent to parent.

The impact expanded Johnson v. Calvert (1993) to non-genetic intended parents, solidifying California’s intent-based model for modern IVF/surrogacy — still law in 2025.

In 2013 California’s law, AB 1217 codified commercial surrogacy in statutory law, giving Big Fertility the legal protections they needed to grow.  And boy did they grow! California is the epicenter of the U.S. commercial surrogacy market and is known as the “surrogacy capital of the world” because of our regulations. Contracts are legal and enforceable, intended parentage is protected which attracts both domestic and international clients. As of 2025, California accounts for an estimated 30–40% of all U.S. surrogacy arrangements, driven by high demand from LGBTQ+ couples, single parents, and foreigners (up to 44% of clients in some clinics). While exact state-level data is limited (industry reports focus on national/global figures), California’s share of the U.S. market is **$1.5–$2 billion annually in state economic activity. Projections show 20–25% year-over-year growth.[1][2]

The parlous state of commercial surrogacy in California, with child trafficking, exploitation of birth mothers, surrogate deaths, infant deaths, and appalling actors running some of the agencies, is certainly not the way forward. July 2025 the police in Arcadia California went to the home of Silvia Zhang and Guojun Xuan on an alleged child abuse investigation. They found 21 children living in this home between 2 months to 13 years. This triggered a search warrant that led to the discovery that the couple had misled surrogates pretending the couple in the home were wanting 1-2 children to build their family, but in fact had 21 children born by surrogacy, using their now defunct fertility agency – Mark Surrogacy.  It is confirmed that there is still one surrogate who is pregnant from an embryo from this couple.

Most days I feel hopelessly lost that the US will prohibit surrogacy.  Most Americans are shocked to learn that much of Europe has banned surrogacy – why would liberal progressive countries not allow surrogacy they ask.

But my reason for making such a long trip to be with you today is to address surrogacy tourism and appeal to you to act like Prime Minister Meloni.  If you don’t want surrogacy in your country, please help me in curbing the markets for babies in the U.S.

[1] https://www.acrcglobal.com/post/u-s-surrogacy-market-growth-in-2025-key-drivers-implications

[2] https://www.globenewswire.com/news-release/2025/04/23/3066143/0/en/Surrogacy-Market-Growth-Drivers-Industry-Trend-Analysis-and-Forecast-2025-2034-Rapid-Growth-Expected-in-Below-35-Segment-Driven-by-Higher-IVF-Success-Rates.html

Author Profile

CBC-Network
CBC-Network