#dnaEdit | Surrogacy Bill seeks to undermine rights, aspirations of large sections of people

Heterosexual, married, childless. That, in sum, is the narrow contour within which the new proposed surrogacy law will operate. In allowing only “altruistic surrogacy” and placing a complete ban on commercial surrogacy, the Surrogacy (Regulation) Bill, 2016, maybe well-intentioned enough in its aim to end the exploitation of women but, in excluding large sections of society and overlooking their needs, it is also regressive and restricted in worldview.

The bill, passed by the Union cabinet this week, keeps out single people, live-in couples, same-sex partners as well as foreigners and even NRIs and PIOs. It also lays down that only couples who have been married for five years and have no adopted or other children can opt for a surrogate baby. The exception is couples who have a physically challenged child or one with a life-threatening disease. Given the thrust on “altruistic surrogacy”, the only women allowed to be surrogate mothers are those who are close relatives of the couple, are married and have a child.

It’s all about the Indian “ethos”, is how External Affairs Minister Sushma Swaraj, who headed the group of ministers looking into the bill, puts it. Given the many instances of poor women being exploited, not being paid what they had been promised and the impact on their health, there is indeed urgent need to regularise the business of surrogacy. Strict controls and the monitoring of unscrupulous middlemen and their like are essential. The misuse of the unregulated rent-a-womb business must be stemmed but more thought needs to be given to the implications of a complete ban, which would take away the opportunity from many to use the wonders of medical technology to become parents. Many activists have also argued that a blanket ban would deprive needy women the chance to earn money they would never otherwise make.

The government’s concept of Indian “ethos” as demonstrated by this bill is disturbing and reflective of an antediluvian mindset that seeks to undermine the rights and aspirations of large swathes of its people and mainstreams just one section — the heterosexual, married couple, who it assumes, lives as an extension of a large family where sisters-in-law and others will happily loan their womb so they can become parents. In fact, its focus on “altruistic surrogacy” only through close relatives overlooks the emotional complications arising from the fraught bond between the child, the biological mother and the birthing mother, who could be an aunt or a cousin. It would be all in the family, but is that really so desirable? There are no ethical issues here, Swaraj said, because the child would know who the “biological mother is because it is a close relative”, precisely the ethical dilemma that should be avoided. The minister also blithely dismissed celebrity couples for opting for surrogacy because the women couldn’t undergo labour pains, ignoring that they not be well enough and other such possibilities.
It is this simplistic view that negates single men and women, homosexuals and live-in couples, sweeping them all in one stroke to the margins of society. While the rights of the LGBT community continue to be debated, the Supreme Court itself has validated live-in couples and ruled that they will be considered married and their children “legitimate”.

As it stands, the bill, which will be introduced in Parliament soon, is deeply flawed. It is aimed at shutting surrogacy shops but the fear is that such a draconian legislation will drive the business underground instead. There needs to be debate and introspection on its various provisions, their impact, the many negatives — and yes the positives too.