Free market pregnancy?

New Jersey has joined a growing number of states that have legalized commercial surrogacy. On Wednesday, New Jersey Gov. Phil Murphy, a Democrat, signed the New Jersey Gestational Carrier Act, a controversial law that allows women to carry and give birth to children for money.

Advocates argue the law simply codifies necessary updates to parentage statutes in light of advances in assisted reproductive technology. Using in vitro fertilization, an increasing number of same-sex and opposite-sex couples are creating embryos using their own eggs and sperm, or purchased eggs and sperm, and having them implanted in an unrelated woman’s womb. Previous New Jersey law banned the practice, so individuals often set up surrogacy agreements in one of the other dozen states that allow commercial surrogacy. The new law, proponents argue, will provide necessary legal protections for what is already happening.

The measure requires surrogates be 21 years or older, have given birth previously, pass medical and psychological exams, and retain an attorney. The intended parent or parents can pay a surrogate for “reasonable expenses,” including medical, hospital, and legal fees, as well as living expenses, and must also pass a psychological exam and retain an attorney.

But critics—including bioethicists, pro-life advocates, former surrogates, and donor-conceived children—argue the measure exploits women and children by commodifying women’s bodies, and treating children like exchanged property.

Christian critics argue surrogacy devalues human life created in God’s image. Our culture of consumer choice has gone beyond the shopping mall and the internet to now include “the conceiving, birthing, choosing, and raising of children,” noted John Stonestreet, president of The Chuck Colson Center for Christian Worldview. “All of this is the absurd, tragic, and logical conclusion of our obsession with choice and personal autonomy, and our resistance to any limits whatsoever on personal freedom, no matter how trivial or grave the issue. … In such a world, it’s no longer clear what’s for sale and what’s not for sale.”

Surrogacy agreements almost always require the surrogate to abort an unborn baby at the intended parents’ request, if something goes wrong. Prenatal scientists increasingly find that bonding in utero has a significant impact on a baby, and that separation from the only mother a baby has known is a psychologically traumatic event. A recent study also found gestational surrogacy pregnancies carry increased risks of preterm birth, low birth rate, and delivery complications, including gestational diabetes, hypertension, placenta previa, and the need for a cesarean section. For these and other reasons, only a handful of countries in the world permit commercial surrogacy.

Former New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, a Republican, vetoed similar measures legalizing gestational surrogacy in 2012 and 2015. Lawmakers tried again this year and successfully passed the bill through both chambers in April. The bill sat on Murphy’s desk for more than six weeks before he signed it in a flurry of action late Wednesday.

New York state isn’t far behind. Last week, the state Assembly’s health and judiciary committees held a public hearing in New York City on a bill that would repeal New York’s existing ban on paid surrogacy. The so-called Child-Parent Security Act has yet to pass the Assembly and Senate, but momentum is on its side.

In early March, Washington state also legalized commercial surrogacy. This week, a Canadian lawmaker introduced legislation to amend the country’s Assisted Human Reproduction Act, a 2004 law that outlaws payment for sperm or egg donation and surrogacy.

But North American views on surrogacy differ from most of the rest of the world’s perspective. Last week, a South Korean family court ruled a non-biological surrogate who delivered a baby in the United States was the child’s legal parent, not the genetic parents in South Korea. The judge cited the maternity developed through the emotional bond of pregnancy, delivery, and feeding.

In May, three former surrogate mothers pushed the same idea during a press conference in Washington, D.C., asking the U.S. Supreme Court to clarify the rights of women and children in surrogacy contracts. All three women had sued for custody of children they carried through surrogacy arrangements. Their attorney has a long history of advocating for surrogates. Harold J. Cassidy represented surrogate mother Mary Beth Whitehouse in the famous 1988 New Jersey Supreme Court case In re Baby M, the first U.S. court ruling on surrogacy. The court invalidated surrogacy contracts as unenforceable.

Murphy’s signature this week nullifies that ruling.

Bold move

Fans booed U.S. soccer star Jaelene Hinkle on the field this week for a quiet decision she made last year.

In an interview with The 700 Club released Wednesday, Hinkle revealed she turned down an offer last June to play for the U.S. women’s national team because the team jersey was designed to celebrate LGBT pride month. Hinkle said she couldn’t wear the jersey because of her Christian faith.

“I knew in my spirit I was doing the right thing,” said Hinkle, a defender for the North Carolina Courage, currently ranked first in the National Women’s Soccer League. “I knew I was being obedient.”

Hinkle said peace trumped the disappointment of giving up a long-held dream. “I don’t question [God’s] goodness,” she said. “I know He’s good, and I know He’s faithful. And if I never get another national team call-up again, that’s part of His plan, and that’s OK.”

Commenters on social media berated Hinkle after the interview, calling her a bigot and a homophobe, and spectators booed her and waved rainbow flags during a Wednesday night match against the Portland Thorns.

“At the end of the day, I’m still going to be friends with her,” teammate Jessica McDonald said after the game. “She’s got her opinions. That’s fine. Everybody does. It hasn’t affected our team at all.” —K.C.

Gender equality and fertility

Demographers have often argued the relationship between gender equality and fertility makes a U-shaped curve. As societies become more equal, fertility rates drop as women leave the home to work. Fertility jumps back up as society implements structures (paid leave, child care, etc.) to help parents.

A New York Times editorial this week posited just that, arguing feminism is the answer to the falling U.S. birth rate. But a working paper published in Stockholm Research Reports in Demography this month pokes some holes in that argument. The study looked at gender equality and fertility in 35 countries from 1960 to 2015 and found no evidence that feminism boosted fertility. Study author Martin Kolk instead said the data showed so-called gender equality led to long-term fertility declines, an increasing problem in developing countries. —K.C.

Stable families matter

Children who enter kindergarten after experiencing significant family instability are more likely to struggle, according to a new study released this spring. Residential moves, shifts in household composition (like parents splitting up), and frequent job changes can lead to inhibited learning and disrupted classrooms. “Children need stability, but we know that they can deal with some amount of change,” said study author Stefanie Mollborn of the University of Colorado. “It’s change at a level that shakes the family system multiple times that seems to put their development at risk.” —K.C.