Michigan Lifts Ban on Surrogacy Agreements

Alex Kamer feels fortunate; unlike many, she didn't endure a legal struggle to secure rights over her biological children. Together with her husband, Alan Kamer, they expanded their family through surrogacy, welcoming a son last June. However, living in Michigan, they faced challenges due to a 1988 state law prohibiting surrogacy contracts and paid surrogacy, leaving parents uncertain about their legal status post-birth.

For over three decades, Michigan, unique in retaining such a law, imposed severe penalties for violations, potentially including imprisonment. Couples desiring surrogacy services couldn't financially compensate surrogates and had to request a judicial prebirth order to establish parental rights, which judges could deny. Without timely approval, families often navigated complex legal processes, including potentially adopting their own biological children.

Describing surrogacy as an emotionally and financially taxing journey, Kamer, 32, spoke of the additional stress experienced in Michigan, uncertain if their names would appear on their son's birth certificate.

This scenario changed when Governor Gretchen Whitmer recently signed legislation abolishing the surrogacy contract ban. The new laws also strengthen safeguards for surrogates, broaden in vitro fertilization access, and protect LGBTQ+ parents. These Democratic-led measures thrust Michigan into the broader national conversation on reproductive healthcare regulation, a debate extending beyond abortion and expected to be a crucial issue in the upcoming 2024 presidential election.

For Stephanie Jones, 41, founder of the Michigan Fertility Alliance, these laws represent years of advocacy. Following a life-threatening ectopic pregnancy in 2018, she realized surrogacy was her only option for biological children, confronting the state's restrictive surrogacy laws. To circumvent Michigan's limitations, her second child was born via surrogacy in another state, a route accessible mainly to those with financial means.

In Kamer's case, a heart condition prevented her from safely carrying a pregnancy. Their first son was born through out-of-state surrogacy, and for their second son, they secured a prebirth order, allowing them to leave a Michigan hospital as parents, despite initial bureaucratic hurdles.

The new laws, passed mainly along party lines, met opposition. Critics, including Republican Senator Thomas Albert, argued the laws commodify surrogacy and primarily benefit same-sex couples, deviating from “natural order.” Right to Life Michigan, an anti-abortion group, opposed the laws, suggesting they exploit vulnerable women by turning surrogacy into a commercial transaction.

Michigan's original 1988 ban was partly a reaction to the “Baby M” case and the presence of a large surrogate clinic in the state. The recent repeal, while narrow, reflects Governor Whitmer's ongoing commitment to reproductive rights, especially following the Roe vs. Wade reversal.

Both Jones and Kamer view reproductive freedoms, encompassing both abortion and fertility treatment access, as interconnected. They emphasize the importance of comprehensive care, including the right to decide about one's body and family.

This shift in Michigan's legislation marks a step towards broader reproductive rights, reflecting ongoing national debates and emphasizing the need for choices in family planning and women's bodily autonomy.