Articles Tagged with “egg donor”

icelander-flag-large-300x216In just a few short weeks, the Supreme Court of Iceland will rule on its first surrogacy case involving two women who wish to be recognized as the legal parents of their child born via gestational surrogacy. A U.S. surrogate carried the same-sex couple’s child, which was created using donor egg and sperm. The baby was born in 2013 and received a US passport and citizenship. The intended mothers established their legal parentage in the U.S., but things became complicated when the mothers tried to return to Iceland with the child. Surrogacy is illegal in Iceland, and when the mothers tried to register their child as an Icelandic citizen and themselves as the child’s legal parents, the National Registry of Iceland rejected the registration attempt. Although the child eventually received Icelandic citizenship and an identity number, the mothers sued the National Registry and the Icelandic State because they were only granted a fostering agreement rather than legal parentage.

This decision will have a great impact in Iceland because it will affect many couples and individuals who wish to have children through gestational surrogacy. This case also shows that in many countries, the laws are a bit lagging on how to address surrogacy. Make sure to stay tuned for a follow up blog post about the Supreme Court of Iceland’s decision.

The attorneys of Harden Jackson Law are devoted to servicing clients throughout the Indianapolis area and the state of Indiana in all areas family law, including divorce, custody, child support, property division, paternity, post-divorce modifications, prenuptial and postnuptial agreements, simple wills, adoption, surrogacy and other areas of assisted reproductive technology law. For more information, please contact us at 317.569.0770 or www.hardenjacksonlaw.com.

Spain
Last month, the Supreme Court of Spain issued a landmark ruling that recognizes the right to paid maternity leave for parents of children born through surrogacy. Although gestational surrogacy is illegal in Spain, the Court held that the need to take care of children outweighs any legal barriers set forth by Spain’s surrogacy ban. The decision also extends various rights to mothers of children born through surrogacy, such as a reduced workday for nursing mothers and the right to take one year of unpaid leave after the maternity leave. Spaniards who seek to build their family through surrogacy must go abroad, and two such scenarios, one involving a surrogacy arrangement in the United States and the other in India, set this case in motion.  In October, Spain’s congress also voted to equalize paternity and maternity leave, awarding fathers the same sixteen weeks of paid maternity leave that mothers receive.

The decision comes at a time when the issue of maternity benefits is in the spotlight in the United States.  A New Jersey woman is suing her former employer, Verizon Network Solutions, for denying her paid maternity leave when she had children through surrogacy in 2013. Various arguments exist for both sides of the issue. For example, some posit that since mothers of children born to a gestational surrogate did not give birth, they do not need time to recover physically. This argument is often used to justify the denial of extended paternity leave for fathers. On the other hand, proponents of maternity benefits for mothers of children born through surrogacy contend that a new mom needs time to bond with the baby, especially when she did not carry the child.

Although the Verizon lawsuit is one of the first of its kind (there was a federal lawsuit to claim benefits for paid leave by a woman who had children through surrogacy in 2011, but the case was ultimately dismissed), this issue is likely to become more prevalent as gestational surrogacy continues to grow as a family-building option. Stay tuned to our blog for more discussions on emerging reproductive law issues.

Phone App
The London Sperm Bank just launched the United Kingdom’s first sperm donor app, nicknamed by news outlets as the “Tinder for Sperm Donors.”  Individuals can use the app to search for sperm donors and order sperm on their phones. The free app , considered the first of its kind, displays donor profiles that describe physical characteristics, medical history, the sperm bank’s staff impressions, and other information (check out this Cosmopolitan article for some examples). Users can set preferences for characteristics such as eye color, hair color, education, and personality, and receive an alert when a donor matching their criteria is available. In contrast to dating apps like Tinder, donor profiles are anonymous and do not contain photos. Donors are vetted by the London Sperm Bank and pay a fee to be listed on the app.

The app has been approved by the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (“HFEA”); the UK’s regulating entity that oversees IVF research, clinics, and procedures. However, the app has also generated some ethical debate. A representative of the Comment on Reproductive Ethics group stated that the app constitutes “trivialisation of parenthood,” equating it to “reproduction via mobile phone.” Meanwhile, the London Sperm Bank issued a statement assuring that “Ordering sperm from an online catalogue or an app does not trivialise treatment, and every step meets the requirements of the HFEA.” Additionally, the scientific director of the London Sperm bank stated “you make all the transactions online, like you do anything else these days. This allows a woman who wants to get a sperm donor to gain control in the privacy of her own home and to choose and decide in her own time.”

We are curious to see the impact of the app and whether other sperm banks follow suit. Has this app revolutionized gamete donation as we know it? Only time will tell. Stay tuned to our blog for more updates on the app as it gains traction among individuals seeking sperm donors.

8-10-09-193-thumb-667x1000-60849As gestational surrogacy continues to increase in the United States, so do opportunities to observe its trends and outcomes. Many states presently permit gestational surrogacy, although the laws vary by state and are rapidly evolving. Researchers from the University of Iowa Hospital and Clinics, Division of Reproductive Endocrinology and Infertility compiled information regarding the below trends arising from the continued practice of gestational surrogacy in the United States:

  • In the past 15 years, the number of gestational carrier cycles has grown by more than 470%.
  • Almost 70% of fertility clinics throughout the country now offer gestational surrogacy.

Donor eggs.jpeg
Denmark’s parliament has decided to nearly triple the pay that women who donate eggs may receive. There has been a shortage in available donor eggs, which has led some women to go abroad in search of egg donors, where the cost is far greater. This decision is expected to increase the number of donor eggs, which will make it easier for Danish citizens to have children.

The parliament’s decision seems to follow a trend of easing restrictions on egg donation. As in Kamakahi v. ASRM et al., where limits on compensation to egg donors were struck down, Denmark’s parliament chose to change an overly restrictive limit on compensation. In Kamakahi, the overturned guidelines stated that payments exceeding $10,000 were “not appropriate.”

Earlier this year, the parties in Kamakahi reached a settlement after four years of litigation. The terms of the settlement include the removal of the language stating that “[t]otal payments to donors in excess of $5,000 require justification and sums above $10,000 are not appropriate. “The ASRM has also agreed not to make any future dollar amount recommendations for donor compensation. Although the settlement did not result in a monetary award for the class members, they are permitted to file an individual lawsuit to recover damages.

embryo.jpgLast summer, we blogged about Kamakahi v. ASRM et al., the egg donor price-fixing class action lawsuit. Two former egg donors initiated the federal claim in 2011. The lawsuit alleged that price guidelines followed by fertility clinics violated antitrust laws by limiting the amount of compensation women can receive for their eggs. The guidelines stated that in regard to compensation for egg donors, justification is required for sums of $5,000 or more, and total payments exceeding $10,000 are “not appropriate.” The plaintiffs further contended that by agreeing to the guidelines created by the American Society for Reproductive Medicine (“ASRM”) and the Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology (“SART”), the fertility industry conspired to restrain trade and fix prices.

Earlier this year, the parties reached a settlement after four years of litigation.The terms of the settlement include the removal of the language stating that “[t]otal payments to donors in excess of $5,000 require justification and sums above $10,000 are not appropriate.”The ASRM has also agreed not to make any future dollar amount recommendations for donor compensation. Although the settlement did not result in a monetary award for the class members, they are permitted to file an individual lawsuit to recover damages. The ASRM will also provide $5,000 to each of the four named plaintiffs (Lindsay Kamakahi, Chelsea Kimmel, Justine Levy, and Kristin Wells).

The attorneys of Harden Jackson Law are devoted to servicing clients in all areas of family law, including divorce, custody, child support, property division, paternity, post-divorce modifications, prenuptial and postnuptial agreements, simple wills, adoption, surrogacy, and other areas of reproductive law. For more information, please contact us at 317.569.0770 or www.hardenjacksonlaw.com.

egg donation.jpgKamakahi v. ASRM et al., a putative class action lawsuit filed in 2011, has been making headlines lately. Two former egg donors brought the federal lawsuit, alleging that price guidelines followed by fertility clinics violate antitrust laws by limiting the amount of compensation women can receive for their eggs. The plaintiffs further contend that by agreeing to the guidelines created by the American Society for Reproductive Medicine (ASRM) and the Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology (SART), the fertility industry conspired to restrain trade and fix prices. The guidelines presently state that in regard to compensation for egg donors, “sums of $5,000 or more require justification,” and “sums above $10,000 are not appropriate.” The Northern District of California permitted the case to move forward earlier this year, and it will likely reach the trial stage next year. Below is a summary of the general arguments supporting each side of the lawsuit.

Arguments Supporting Kamakahi

• The pricing guidelines set by the ASRM and the SART, where 90% of the U.S.’s fertility clinics are members, constitute illegal price-fixing. Women are deprived of a free market to compensate them for donating their eggs, permitting fertility clinics to generate large profits for themselves.

sperm.jpgWith donor situations becoming more prevalent in the media: through the internet, television (MTV’s Generation Cryo series) and on the big screen (Vince Vaughn’s Delivery Man), it makes one contemplate which person’s rights are more important to protect in dealing with such an intimate set of circumstances. Should the donor’s rights to remain anonymous prevail over his or her potential offspring’s rights to know their biological identity? For example, you have a sperm or egg donor that is explicit that they want their identity to remain anonymous. Their reasons for donating might be financially motivated or morally motivated. Either way, they are contributing their healthy sperm or ovum to individuals or couples that otherwise would not have been able to conceive. These donors remain anonymous for possibly a number of reasons: they don’t want to be financially responsible, don’t want to have a relationship, etc.

Fast forward to years later perhaps the donor’s offspring has an interest in finding that ‘anonymous’ donor. Maybe their reasons are for fulfillment of health history or genetic illnesses, curiosity about looks, or maybe even to form a relationship. Situations have arisen that could tip in favor of the donor offspring obtaining identifying information about the donor. For example, this story: A man and woman meet in college, marry and have 3 children. Both spouses are children of lesbian mothers who each conceived with donor sperm (in different states and through different sperm banks). One spouse has found the identity of their donor, but the other has had no desire. After some hesitation, the one partner is convinced to also find the identity of their donor. Surprise! Both of them are from the same donor and are half siblings! Reasons such as genetic illnesses and incest relationships are extremely important and could warrant an offspring finding their donor. This is becoming more of an issue that needs to be contemplated. However, making such donors known could possibly deter a person from wanting to donate again or ever.

Remember, these suggestions are not meant to be legal advice. You should consult an experienced assisted reproductive technology law attorney to discuss the specifics of your situation

673264_85522744.jpgTwenty years ago there weren’t many options other than adoption, sperm donation, and traditional surrogacy for couples who had issues with infertility. Today, there are numerous alternatives to choose from when making a decision to build a family. Since the law is having a difficult time keeping up with the emerging technology, it is important for these families to understand the legal implications when dealing with the different options with assisted reproduction technology.

Donor eggs can be used and fertilized with the intended father’s sperm through in-vitro fertilization (IVF) if the intended mother is incapable of utilizing her eggs. The resulting embryo is then transferred into the intended mother (or surrogate) and carried to term.

Embryo adoption occurs when intended parents make use of a cryo-preserved embryo (already fertilized) that was donated by another couple. The donated embryo(s) may be transferred to the intended mother or to a gestational carrier.

1161454_67402672.jpgAssisted reproductive technology (ART) is a general term referring to the third party techniques or medical methods used to achieve pregnancy without insemination by sexual intercourse. The technology is used for a variety of reasons, but the ultimate goal is for individuals and couples to have a child when they otherwise would not been able to do so. The term is used in medical and legal fields and encompasses a number of different subjects and processes.

For any prospective parent, the jargon can be overwhelming, being inundated with unusual abbreviations and complex terminology. To be able to better understand the legal implications and responsibilities in donor agreements and surrogacy contracts, it is important to have a basic understanding of some of the more common terms and procedures. Below are common terms and their definitions to help prospective parents navigate through the ART journey.

  • ASSISTED REPRODUCTIVE TECHNOLOGY (ART) – A group of treatment methods used to improve fertility, which involves collecting the eggs and putting them in direct contact with sperm.