Surrogacy Bill useless without ART Bill: Committee to Rajya Sabha

NEW DELHI: India's bill to regulate surrogacy has elements far removed from ground realities and certain provisions would need to be recast for it to serve its intended purpose, according to a report by the parliamentary standing committee on health. The committee, which has raised several issues with the bill, has “strongly” recommended that the Assisted Reproduction Technologies (ART) Bill be brought forth before it.

The committee, which the Rajya Sabha directed in January to prepare a report on the Surrogacy (Regulation) Bill, tabled its findings on Thursday. The Union Cabinet had approved the bill last August.

According to the committee, a mere enactment of the Surrogacy (Regulation) Bill would not serve the purpose of controlling commercialisation of surrogacy facilities across the country because surrogacy procedures cannot be conducted without assisted reproduction techniques.

The committee observed that the ART Bill, 2008, has been lying with the government since 2014 after having been revised twice. This bill also included provisions on regulation of surrogacy facilities, it stated in its report.

"The committee fails to comprehend the reasons behind bringing a fresh bill specifically on surrogacy, when a detailed, comprehensive and all-encompassing Bill on ART services had already been drafted by the Department," the committee stated.

A SCATHING REVIEW
The committee, led by Samajwadi Party MP Ram Gopal Yadav, has almost overturned the bill entirely with its observations and recommendations on conditions like the ban on commercial surrogacy and limits on those eligible for surrogates.

The report has found fault with the bill’s decision to regulate surrogacy by restricting it to altruism within the family of the couple exploring the option.

The bill aims to control exploitation and safeguard interests of poor women who become surrogates for money, but the potential for exploitation is linked to lack of regulatory oversight and legal protection to these women, according to the report.

The committee said that expecting a close relative to be altruistic enough to become a surrogate and endure all the hardships associated with it was tantamount to another form of exploitation. Limiting the practice of surrogacy to close relatives is “non-pragmatic” and “unworkable” and it also has no connect with the object to stop exploitation of surrogates envisaged in the proposed legislation, it said.

"Permitting women to provide reproductive labour for free to another person but preventing them from being paid for their reproductive labour is grossly unfair and arbitrary," the report stated.

"Based on the analysis of the facts…the committee is convinced that the altruistic surrogacy model as proposed in the Bill is based more on moralistic assumptions than on any scientific criteria and all kinds of value judgments have been injected into it in a paternalistic manner.”

At the same time, it observed that surrogacy could not be a way out for women living in poverty and should not be allowed as a profession—it supported the provision that restricts a woman from becoming a surrogate more than once.

The committee also objected to the bill restricting surrogacy to legally married couples, claiming it overlooks a large section of society like widows, divorced women and live-in couples. This was indicative of the fact that the bill was not in consonance with the present day modern social milieu and was “too narrow” in its understanding.

"If all these categories are banned, then why have surrogacy at all," it said.

Making those who wish to opt for a surrogate wait for at least five years plausibly violated the right to reproductive autonomy and an individual’s right to exercise choice, the committee added.