The AFA Blog

Live in the Mount Rushmore State? Better not need a donor.

by Steven Snyder, Esq.

"Fertility is an apolitical condition.  It affects those who share political beliefs with independents, liberals, and conservatives alike.  Treating infertility is about creating new families, a quintessentially universal dream that cuts across all political, religious, and social demographics.  Those who succeed in having the children they so desperately want generally become more conscious role models and more involved members of both their communities and society as a whole.  Allowing those who struggle with infertility to exercise their procreative liberty through all medical and social options available to them has only positive benefits for our society and our national stability.

Fertility comes in all shapes and sizes.  Infertility is caused equally by female factor, male factor, and undetermined reasons.  It is caused by genetic anomalies, physiology, disease, and, in all liklihood, our environment.  Sometimes infertility can be successfully treated with medications or straightforward medical procedures using the affected parent(s)' own reproductive components (egg, sperm, and uterus).  Sometimes successful treatment requires the voluntary cooperation and support of third parties who willingly and happily provide one or more of those missing components.  These third parties, these "reproductive saviors," come in the form of sperm donors, egg donors, and gestational carriers.  These people know the value of having a family, and they choose to help those who cannot realize this dream without assistance.

Clearly, the medical and social options to treat infertility have outdistanced the legislative infrastructure that is necessary to support the intended parentage of the children who result from the various treatments.  Although most states have statutes that automatically establish parentage when sperm donors are used, thereby offering a simple solution to male infertility through sperm donation, few states have similar statutory support for egg donation or gestational surrogacy.  Furthermore, the existing sperm donor statutes only apply to a very narrowly defined traditional family, one that no longer necessarily dominates our social structure.  Our current legal framework for fertility clearly discriminates against women who suffer from infertility and non-traditional families, whether intentionlly or inadvertently.  Our overall social and political objective should be to correct this imbalance and facilitate equal opportunity for infertile women and non-traditional families to have children.  It is simply the socially responsible thing to do.

When the Baby M decision was issued by the New Jersey Supreme Court in 1987, surrogacy was virtually unknown, and it typically involved a genetically-related carrier, also known as a traditional surrogate.  This combination startled society and lawmakers, and, in the next five years, approximately ten states passed legislation that banned or restricted such arrangements.  Then the medical advances eliminated the surrogate's genetic relationship through IVF, and the California Supreme Court issued its decision in Johnson v. Calvert in 1992 affirming the legal parentage of the intended parents in a gestational surrogacy dispute.  Since then, society has generally accepted surrogacy, and every state that has passed legislation relating to surrogacy has either distinguished it from adoption and/or baby-selling or expressly allowed it.  Things were moving in the right direction.

That brings me back to the apolitical nature of infertility.  Infertiliity legislation should be continuing to move forward in all states to facilitate family building of all varieties, including surrogacy.  Unfortunately, that is not the case.  The fiscal conservatives who have been brought into power are also social conservative who oppose infertility treatment in general and surrogacy specifically.  This is nowhere more evident than in South Dakota (see below) where extremely regressive and onerous legislation to criminalize surrogacy has been introduced.  Physicians, agencies, and persons who participate in "commercial" surrogacy are guilty of felonies, and individuals who participate in non-commercial surrogacy are subject to fines of at least $30,000.  The law says the resulting child is placed with the surrogate as the parent unless the surrogate is unfit, and if the surrogate does not want the child, the child may be placed for adoption.

This proposed legislation is out of place in intent, content, and time.  It ignores the reality and general social acceptance of surrogacy, and it abridges various constitutional rights by trying to inappropriately legislate parentage against the parties' intent.  This will not be the last ill-advised and regressive social policy that comes out of the numerous conservative state legislatures that have been placed in power.  Those who experience infertility should be prepared to make themselves heard to protect and further the rights of the infertile by strenuously lobbying against and soundly defeating such legislation.  They shoud make themselves heard whether they are fiscal conservatives, liberals, or independents.  If this is not done, the rights of many to build stable families will be unfairly and inappropriately impaired."

___________________

State of South Dakota 

EIGHTY-SIXTH SESSION

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY, 2011

592S0685

HOUSE BILL NO. 1218

Introduced by: Representatives Hunt, Bolin, Brunner, Cronin, Feickert, Gosch, Greenfield,

Hansen (Jon), Hickey, Hubbel, Jensen, Kirschman, Kloucek, Kopp,

Munsterman, Nelson (Stace), Russell, Steele, Van Gerpen, Venner, and Wick

and Senators Novstrup (Al), Kraus, and Schlekeway

1 FOR AN ACT ENTITLED, An Act to prohibit surrogate mother contracts, to prohibit

2 enforcement of such arrangements, and to establish standards to award custody of children

3 born as a result of such arrangements.

4 BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF SOUTH DAKOTA:

5 Section 1. The Legislature finds that:

6 (1) The enforcement of surrogacy agreements and contracts is contrary to the best

7 interests of children, to the State policy that custody of children should be determined

8 based upon the best interests of the children, that such arrangements are exploitive

9 of women, that such arrangements are contrary to a mother’s interest in her

10 relationship with her child, and contrary to the State’s interest in protecting the

11 relationship between a mother and her child; and

12 (2) That surrogacy arrangements and contracts, whether written or oral, are in direct

13 conflict with numerous public policies of the State of South Dakota, including: the

14 State’s policy prohibiting offers of money or payment of money in connection with

- 2 - HB 1218

1 an adoption; the State’s policy against trafficking 1 in children; the State’s policy that

2 no surrender of a mother’s parental rights or waiver of her constitutional right to her

3 relationship with her child will be enforced if made prior to the birth of her child; and

4 (3) That surrogacy agreements and contracts are in direct conflict with, and are designed

5 to terminate and destroy, the mother’s parental rights, her relationship with her child,

6 and her fundamental liberty and interest in that relationship, contrary to the

7 established public policy and laws of the State of South Dakota.

8 Section 2. Terms used in this Act mean:

9 (1) "Surrogacy," an arrangement, whether or not embodied in a contract, written or oral,

10 entered into by two or more persons, including the mother, sometimes referred to as

11 the "surrogate" or "gestational carrier" or "surrogate uterus", and an intended rearing

12 parent or parents, who agree, prior to insemination, or in the case of an implanted

13 embryo, prior to embryo transfer or embryo implantation, to participate in the

14 creation of a child, with the intention that the child will be reared as the child of one

15 or more of the intended parents, other than the mother;

16 (2) "Commercial surrogacy," a surrogacy arrangement involving the payment, or

17 agreement to pay, money or any valuable consideration to a broker/intermediary, or

18 the payment, or agreement to pay, money or any valuable consideration (other than

19 payment or reimbursement of medical and hospital expenses currently allowable

20 under adoption law) to a mother;

21 (3) "Broker/intermediary," a person, or an agency, association, corporation, partnership,

22 institution, society or organization, which knowingly seeks to introduce or to match

23 a prospective mother with a prospective biological father, or other intended parent,

24 for the purpose of initiating, assisting, or facilitating a surrogacy arrangement;

- 3 - HB 1218

1 (4) "Intended parent," a person, whether male or female, whether or not genetically

2 related to the child born as a result of a surrogacy arrangement, who is intended to

3 be the person or one of the persons who would raise the child following birth;

4 (5) "Mother," the woman who carries and gives birth to the child, whether or not she is

5 genetically related to the child.

6 Section 3. No physician, licensed by the State of South Dakota, or agent or employee of such

7 a physician shall assist in the process of insemination or embryo transfer or implantation that

8 is in connection with, or is in any way associated with, a surrogacy arrangement. A physician

9 or other person who knowingly or in reckless disregard violates this section is guilty of a Class

10 6 felony. The prosecutor who prosecutes such violation, and the court before whom the violation

11 is brought, shall, separately and independently of each other, report such violation and

12 conviction to the Board of Medical and Osteopathic Examiners.

13 Section 4. Other than the mother and the intended parents, any person, agency, association,

14 corporation, partnership, institution, society or organization, their agents and employees, which

15 engage in, promote, profit from, solicit a woman for, or otherwise assist in, commercial

16 surrogacy arrangements in the State of South Dakota, is guilty of a Class 5 felony.

17 Section 5. Any person or entity who acts as a broker/intermediary in connection with a

18 surrogacy arrangement, whether or not the person is paid or receives other consideration, is

19 guilty of a Class 6 felony.

20 Section 6. Any person, agency, association, corporation, partnership, institution, society or

21 organization, and their agents and employees, who offers, gives, or receives any money or other

22 consideration or thing of value in connection or association with a surrogacy arrangement is

23 guilty of a Class 6 felony.

24 Section 7. A surrogacy contract or arrangement, whether entered into in South Dakota, or in some other state,

- 4 - HB 1218

1 is unenforceable in South Dakota. A custody dispute concerning a child

2 born as a result of a surrogacy arrangement shall be resolved under South Dakota law.

3 Section 8. The mother of a child born as the result of a surrogacy arrangement has the right

4 to primary physical custody of the child following birth. If the child is in her custody following

5 birth, the mother shall keep the custody of the child if she so chooses, before and during the

6 pendency of any legal action to determine custody, unless there is proof by clear and convincing

7 evidence, that she is unfit or she poses a substantial harm to the child. If the child is not in her

8 custody following birth, the mother may exercise her right to take custody of the child, by

9 notifying the person or entity in whose custody the child then resides, in writing, anytime within

10 one hundred twenty days of the date of the child’s birth. Upon proof that such intention was

11 delivered to one or more persons in whose custody the child then resides, the court shall enter

12 an order awarding pendente lite custody to the mother. Any claim that the mother is unfit or

13 otherwise presents a likelihood that she will harm the child can only be made after the child is

14 placed with the mother, and all proof of such allegations shall be established by clear and

15 convincing evidence.

16 Section 9. At a final hearing to determine placement of the child born as a result of a

17 surrogacy arrangement, there is a legal presumption that custody of the child should be placed

18 with the mother. This presumption may be overcome by a demonstration, based on clear and

19 convincing evidence, that the mother fails to meet minimal parenting standards necessary to

20 satisfy the basic needs and welfare of the child. Such determinations may not be based on

21 consideration of economic or social class.

22 Section 10. The intended parent in a surrogacy arrangement which is not a commercial

23 surrogacy arrangement and who is not in violation of the provisions of any of sections 3, 4, 5

24 and 6 of this Act is not guilty of a crime, but is subject to civil penalties of not less than thirty

- 5 - HB 1218

1 thousand dollars and not more than fifty thousand dollars for a first offense, and not less than

2 fifty thousand dollars and not more than eighty thousand dollars for a second offense. An

3 intended parent who is guilty of a third offense is guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor.

4 Section 11. The intended parent or parents has a duty to provide financial support for a child

5 born as a result of a surrogacy arrangement, whether or not the intended parent has custody of

6 the child. There is a presumption that the noncustodial parent of the child born as a result of a

7 surrogacy arrangement should be given parenting time or visitation, unless it is demonstrated

8 that such visitation would be contrary to the best interests of the child. The parenting time

9 should be liberal, based on the facts of the particular case, consistent with the child’s best

10 interests.

11 Section 12. If a surrogacy arrangement is repudiated by either party, the mother is entitled

12 to have all medical and hospital expenses, including prenatal care, and the medical and hospital

13 expenses of the child incurred during child birth and for treatment for any condition of the child

14 immediately following birth, paid for by the intended parent or parents, even though the

15 surrogacy arrangement is unenforceable and the mother has custody of any child born as a result

16 of the surrogacy arrangement.

17 Section 13. If neither the intended rearing parent or parents, nor the mother are willing or

18 able to assume custody of the child, the child shall be placed for adoption in accordance with

19 statute. Until such time as adoption of the child is final, both the intended rearing parent or

20 parents and the mother are obligated consistent with their respective financial abilities, to pay

21 financial support for the child.

22 Section 14. In disputed multi-state surrogacy arrangements within the jurisdiction of the

23 South Dakota courts, South Dakota law applies.

Steven H. Snyder, Esq., is the founding and principal partner of STEVEN H. SNYDER & ASSOCIATES, ATTORNEYS AT LAW in Maple Grove, Minnesota.  Mr. Snyder is Chair of the Reproductive & Genetic Technology Committee of the Family Law Section of the American Bar Association and  chair of the legal advisory group for the American Fertility Association.

Photo: CBS News

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The right to say goodbye. A legislative update.

  
 
by Corey Whelan

One of the most well read and vastly circulated blogs that The AFA has ever published appeared on this page last April, entitled "Old Gay Bones".  This piece relayed a tragic situation experienced by all too many LGBT families, that of not being allowed to visit, or comfort, a relative in a hospital.  No matter if that relative is a mom or a dad, or a grand dad, or a loving partner.  No matter if that relative is merely sick or silently dying, the spouses, children, loved ones of these individuals were often kept away from the bedsides of those who needed them most.  Who sometimes, needed them for the very last time.  

I must say, kudos to President Obama for being able to push this one through.  As of this week, patients at hospitals nationwide will now be allowed to decide who can visit them, and who is authorized to make decisions on their behalf.  New federal regulations that were put into effect this past Tuesday have made sexual orientation, gender identity or family makeup superfluous to the more significant issues at hand in these situations - those most human of issues.  Who do we need?  Who do we love? Who do we want to be with us, when we die?

Hospitals must now inform patients and their attending friends and families of their rights to visitors of their choosing.

For more on this story, click here.

 

 

Legal Update: Prop 8

by Richard B. Vaughn, Esq.

On Tuesday (1/4/11) the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals issued a ruling in the Prop 8 case. In short, the Ninth Circuit denied Imperial County's attempt to intervene in the case and also asked the California Supreme Court to clarify whether, under California law, the group that placed Prop 8 on the California voter ballot has a legal right to appeal the Federal District Court’s ruling that Prop 8 is unconstitutional.

In May 2009, two same-sex couples filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California challenging the constitutionality of Prop 8’s passage. The case was heard before Judge Vaughn Walker. Judge Walker permitted Prop 8's official supporters to intervene in the case as defendants. He also permitted the City and County of San Francisco to intervene as plaintiffs to represent their unique governmental interest in marriage equality. On the eve of trial, Imperial County also filed a motion asking to intervene in the case as a defendant.  Judge Walker ruled in August 2010 that Prop 8 violates the due process and equal protection clauses of the U.S. Constitution and also ruled that Imperial County did not have the right to intervene as a defendant.

California's Governor and Attorney General decided not to appeal that ruling because they agreed that Prop 8 was unconstitutional. The supporters of Prop 8 and Imperial County both filed appeals with the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals (which ruled this week).

The Ninth Circuit upheld Judge Walker's decision not to allow Imperial County or its Deputy Clerk to intervene in the case. In addition, the Ninth Circuit made clear in today's ruling that if the supporters of Prop 8 do not have the legal right to appeal Judge Walker's decision, then the appeal is over.

Therefore, the Ninth Circuit has asked the California Supreme Court to first help clarify whether California law gives Prop 8's supporters the right to pursue an appeal when the state's official representatives have made a considered decision not to appeal.  Ultimately, the Ninth Circuit must decide whether the Prop 8 supporters have a right to appeal under federal law as well, but the state law analysis must come first. (The California Supreme Court does not have to answer this question, but it most likely will and one question is how long it would take to do so.  If the California Supreme Court elects not to answer this question, the Ninth Circuit will reach it’s own conclusions about California law.)

If the Prop 8 supporters do not have the right under state law to appeal, then the Ninth Circuit will likely hold that the Prop 8 supporters do not have standing under federal law and would dismiss the federal appeal; and Judge Walker's ruling would stand - meaning same-sex couples would once again be able to marry in California.

Alternatively, if the Prop 8 supporters do not have the right under state law to appeal, the Ninth Circuit would still have to decide whether Prop 8's supporters meet all of the other criteria to have standing under federal law. If the Ninth Circuit determined the Prop 8 supporters did not have standing under federal law, then the appeal is over. If it ultimately holds that the Prop 8 supporters have standing under federal law, then the Ninth Circuit could reach the merits of Judge Walker's ruling that Prop 8 is unconstitutional.

Richard Vaughn is Managing Attorney of National Fertility Law Center. He and his partner, Thomas Woelfel, were married under California law in 2008 and are the proud parents, through egg donation and surrogacy, of twin boys Aiden & Austin.

 

Vote!

by Ken Mosesian

November 2nd is Election Day. The day that Americans go to the polls - if they haven't already cast their ballots by mail - and vote for the people we'd like to represent us, as well as the many ballot measures that are also up for consideration. 

In a time of unprecedented apathy and anger, voting is all the more important. There are too many issues, particularly for those who are contemplating assisted reproduction, adoption or other family building options, for anyone to stay home. 

Although it is easy to say that "all politicians are alike", we know that not to be the case. There will be consequences for our lives depending upon who gets elected. Candidates hold vastly different views on issues from stem cell research to IVF to marriage equality.

And as we learned in races from 2000, 2004 and 2008, your vote does matter. A few hundred votes can change the outcome of an election.

Young men and women throughout the history of this country have fought, bled and died for our right to vote. Some will lose their lives today. So on Tuesday the 2nd of November, do the most patriotic thing possible: vote.  

 

ASRM 2010: Just Say NO

by Merry Armentrout

ASRM leaders took advantage of this year's gathering in Colorado to sound off about the state's proposed Amendment 62.  If passed, Amendment 62 would give legal rights to fertilized eggs, which means a fertilized egg would have equal rights to a human being.  ASRM held a press conference this morning to state their fervent opposition against Colorado's Personhood Amendment, calling it a "deceptive and dangerous measure." 

ASRM President Dr. William Gibbons started off the press conference by saying the organization represents the doctors who care for the 1 out of 8 couples in the U.S. suffering from infertility, and applying personhood to any human being from the beginning of biological development is denying those infertile couples the solution to help build their families.  ASRM is bringing $12 million to Denver this year, and Gibbons indicated if the amendment was passed it would effect any future decisions to hold this meeting in the state of Colorado.  He went on to acknowledge the irony between this upcoming vote on 62 on November 2nd, and the recent recognition of Robert Edwards, who helped develop IVF, as a Nobel Prize recipient. 

Dr. William Schlaff, a board member for ASRM, focused on the dangers of this amendment on infertility treatments, including embryo transfers.  If an embryo is considered human, than a woman undergoing IVF would have to transfer all her embryos into her uterus- this would be very dangerous for not only the women's health, but also greatly increase the number of multiple births.  Schlaff also talks about an anticipated increase in genetic diseases because an embryologist wouldn't be able to discard abnormal embryos, and would be forced to implant them into the woman's uterus. The decision about which and how many embryos to transfer should remain in the hands of the physician and couple undergoing IVF, and be based on hard scientific evidence. 

Schlaff gives an example from Shady Grove Fertility, the largest U.S. fertility clinic, of the how many embryos could be effected by the passage of this amendment.  From 2005-2008, Shady Grove did 14,500 IVF cycles, producing 200,000 eggs from those cycles.  57% of those eggs were fertilized, and only 7.5% of the fertilized eggs would go on to become children.  He says this amendment isn't about protecting every person, but a direct assault on Colorado's efforts to build families in a safe manner. He goes on to discuss how unused embryos are often donated towards the studies for cures for such diseases Alzheimer's, diabetes and spinal diseases. 

ASRM member Dr. Nanette Santoro spoke about how the personhood amendment could effect family planning and emergency contraception.  She says 43 million sexually active adults in the United States, and of those, 89% are practicing safe sex with the use of birth control pills. There are 2.9 million youths having sex, and 54% of those use birth control pills to prevent pregnancies.  Santoro says the amendment has a far reaching effect on women's health and autonomy.

ASRM, along with The AFA, are urging Colorado residents to vote NO to Amendment 62 on November 2nd.

Serving those who hate.

by Corey Whelan

On Facebook, twitter, linked in, all of it, we tend to create networks of people who rubber stamp our ideas.  We get thumbed up a hell of a lot more than we get thumbed down, have you ever noticed that?  It's a funny thing to me, really, because my organization, my beloved organization, The American Fertility Association, is unique.  We aren't looking for a rubber stamp.  We are about family building and we are all inclusive.  We wrap our arms around the world and we do it with gratitude.  We welcome everyone, not just the population of people who sometimes call themselves "infertiles".  I hate that term, by the way, but that's not what this blog is about.

We serve everyone who needs us.  We welcome, encourage, support and educate anyone within our global family who is striving to create and raise their own, smaller, part of that family. 

Obviously and of course that includes LGBTQ individuals.  Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and questioning people.  Of course.  Because people are people and families are families.  I say this with honor, consciousness and pride.  An overused word but I mean it from my heart, especially today.

Ok.  The AFA does not segregate our mission or our lists.  We put important family buildling information out there for everyone to access and to learn from.  Why am I talking about this now?  Because The AFA's posts about Spirit Day, an international initiative spearheaded because of the tragic, senseless suicides of six young kids who were bullied and pushed because they were gay, was greeted with a number of jeers and hate filled responses by women who are currently trying to conceive, on various pages online.

I read thoughtful posts as eloquent as "ugh".  I read posts that said "No one should be gay it's disgusting".  I read and deleted other posts I won't acknowledge here.  I got angry and I got sad and then I got angry again. 

So this is the piece for me, as a mom, that rises above all else.  I want to say to these women (at least on the various pages I read it has not been men) I want to say, what if the baby you are praying for, struggling for, dying for, is conceived by you and turns out to be gay?

What then?  My daughter was watching a TV news report yesterday about a young boy, obviously to her at least gay, whose family had an exorcism performed on him.  So is that your plan?  What's your plan?  What's your heart?  Tell me.  Tell yourself. 

The AFA is an open arms organization.  We want you to get the best, the most up to date, the most honest information that you can when you are building your family. We don't ask your sexual or political orientation.  We don't care about it, it doesn't affect our mission of serving you.    

I personally however have a request of you. I have something to ask, of all of the hate filled women who attempted to stamp that hate on a day about love, on a day about saving children's lives.  I ask that you re-think your entrenched, taken for granted views.  Yes, that's what they are. I ask that you think about the children.  The children here now, the children you hope to have some day.  Your chidren.   The perfect children you dream about when you think about getting pregnant.  Think about them. 

Look, I know I won't change any minds or hearts on this page today.  The collision of populations that we, our organization, serves, has served up something else for me, for us today, and I needed to give voice to that.  However, my request to you, stands.

Spirit Day

"There's so much more to me than who I choose to sleep with" - Adam Lambert

_____________________

"Within the last few weeks six young men that we know of, and quite possibly many other lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and questioning youth, took, or tried to take their lives, because of homophobic abuse in their home and schools. Suicide among gay youth is three times that of their straight counterparts. The AFA is a family building organization, and we stand for family in all of its diverse forms. Children, whatever their sexual orientation, deserve to grow up free from bullying and hate." - Ken Mosesian

____________________

48,380 Attending.

12,656 Maybe Attending.

147,440 Awaiting Reply.

36,717 Not Attending.

October 20th, 2010 is Spirit Day.  On this day, many people worldwide will come together and wear purple in honor of the LGBT youth who have committed suicide in recent weeks/months due to homophobic abuse in their homes and schools.

PURPLE represents Spirit on the LGBTQ flag and that’s exactly what we’d like all of you to have with you: spirit. Please know that times will get better and that you will meet people who will love you and respect you for who you are, no matter your sexuality.

We want to thank Brittany McMillan for creating this event!
http://www.easternecho.com/index.php/m/article/2010/10/spirit_day_to_honor_recent_homosexual_suicide_victims

Please wear purple on October 20th. Tell your family, friends, co-workers, neighbors and schools.

RIP
Tyler Clementi, Seth Walsh, Justin Aaberg, Raymond Chase, Asher Brown, Cody J. Barker, Harrison Chase Brown, Caleb Nolt, Billy Lucas, Jeanine Blanchette, and Chantal Dube.

Spread The Message. It is important that all this hate be stopped.  For more information or to get support contact the Trevor Project.

 

Ban on gay adoption overturned in Florida

 

by  Carolyn Berger, LCSW

On Wednesday I learned that Florida will stop enforcing its gay adoption ban, which has been in existence for 33 years.

 Until now, Florida was the only remaining state to ban adoption by gay men and women without exception.

 Honestly, I don’t know whether to celebrate or cry.  It’s undeniably a great step forward, but difficult to comprehend why Florida allowed gays and lesbians to become foster parents, but refused to allow them to adopt.

The story of Frank Martin Gil and his boys is at the heart of Wednesday’s decision.  When the two half- brothers came into his home as foster children, they were four years old and four months old. Their parents were crack-addicted, and like other kids removed from their home and placed in foster care, they were abused and neglected.  They both had ringworm. One of them had an untreated ear infection.  The four-year-old couldn’t speak, and he spent all of his time taking care of his baby brother.

In 2008 the ACLU represented Gil in his desire to adopt the boys, who were clearly thriving.  Adoption would give these children permanency, meaning that Gil would be their “forever” parent rather than their foster parent.  Judge Cindy Lederman wrote a decision stating it is clear that sexual orientation is not a predictor of a person’s ability to parent, and she ruled that Florida’s ban on gay adoption was unconstitutional. Gil was able to adopt his boys.

Later, the Florida Department of Children and Families challenged Judge Lederman’s decision, saying that the court had erred and the adoption was illegal.  On Wednesday Florida’s Third District Court of Appeals in Miami upheld the lower court’s 2008 ruling, and Gil’s adoption was deemed permanent.

Now it is said that The Florida Department of Children and Families is weighing whether to appeal at the Florida State Supreme Court.  Since Wednesday’s ruling applies to the Gil family only, a decision from the state’s highest court would provide a clear resolution in all jurisdictions.

We need a clear resolution—for gay rights and for children’s rights.  Both sides of the original 2008 case agreed that the boys were doing extremely well in their foster parent (and his male partner’s) home.  Both sides agreed that gays and heterosexuals make equally good parents. 

A final resolution of this matter would allow countless other gay foster parents in Florida to adopt kids and give them safe, secure homes, as well as the knowledge that their families couldn’t be taken apart by the State—unless, of course, there was evidence of abuse or neglect.

This is as it should be.  Right now there are 114, 550 U.S. children in foster care waiting to be adopted, according to the Dave Thomas Foundation for Adoption, a leader in the nation’s efforts to find homes for these kids. 

So, when two children who have endured abuse and neglect from their biological parents and have found physical and emotional well-being with their new parent, don’t we want this to continue?  All too often, foster children are shifted from home to home, never knowing the kind of family life so many of us take for granted. 

 Would we really want to interfere with a family that is doing so well just because the Dad is gay?

 I don’t think so. But don’t take it from me-- ask the 114,500 children who are waiting for permanent homes.

 Carolyn Berger, LCSW, is a Founder, Board Member, and Chair of the Adoption Advisory Council of The AFA. She has a private practice specializing in Fertility and Adoption in Larchmont and Manhattan.

 

 

 

 

 

Fall is (almost) here! Can The AFA's Fertility and Adoption Directory be far behind?

by Corey Whelan

Despite the fact that New York City school children are not yet back in school, summer really is whispering goodbye.  I can't believe it's Labor Day Weekend.  Heat wave notwithstanding, sunscreen bottles will eventually get relegated to the back of the medicine cabinet, and weekend excursions to view the fall foliage will be planned.  And for many, dreams of becoming a family will once again take center stage after a summer's mental hiatus.

Every summer, The AFA staff finalizes the finishing touches on our year long labor of love, the annual AFA National Fertility and Adoption Directory.  It's an important book.  In this era of quick internet searches, the Directory gives men and women who are in pursuit of family the opportunity to sit, relax, and read.  To learn.  To breathe into their plans a little bit.  To luxuriate in the knowledge that the information they are reading is cutting edge, first rate, and most of all, trustable.  As a non profit, patient advocacy organization, that's who we are.  That's what we give.

This year's book is about What's New.  What do you need to know, to build your family now?  Articles in this year's edition will focus on a vast array of topics, including (but not limited to):

• • The Initial Consultation - Dan Potter MD
  • Elective Single Embryo Transfer - Mark Bush MD
  • Egg Freezing and Vitrification - John Schnorr MD
  • Weight and Infertility - Joel Batzofin MD
  • Unexplained Infertility - Richard Sherbahn MD
  • Bicornate Septum - Fred Licciardi MD
  • Herbal Solutions to Thyroid and Infertility - Stacy Roberts
  • Hypnois and Infertility - Joanne Verkuilen
  • What's New in the world of Urology - Philip Werthman MD
  • Vasectomy Reversal - Harry Fisch MD
  • Varicocele and Infertility - Stan Honig MD
  • Separate but not Equal - Ken Mosesian
  • Complete Informed Consent - Cyndi Gross
  • Marriage Equality - Thersa Erickson Esq.
  • Growing Up Adopted - Marni Denenberg
  • Pregnancy Interupted - Emily Laitmon, LCSW
  • PGD - Kathleen Miller
  • Cord Blood Banking - Wendy Spry RN
  • Attachment Disorder and Adoption - Carolyn Berger LCSW
  • Surrogates and Health Insurance - Steve Snyder Esq.
  • LGBT Adoption Laws - a State by State Guide
  • Premature Puberty - Danny Shapiro MD
  • Some of my own articles on being pregnant and on being a mommy after infertilitiy

Oh Lord, there's more.  This is about half.  It will be a good book.

And like all AFA publications, this book on cd is free to consumers.  Which is a really good thing.  Because not only are we giving (thanks to our wonderful authors) amazing information to our readers, we are also supplying in print, our practice network lists of providers, state by state.  More comprehensive and easier to read than ever, we will list physicians, attorneys, lgbt friendly providers, therapists, complementary specialists, a bunch of others.

Did I mention that the Directory is free?  That it is printed in book form, and on cd format and hangs on our website for a year?  And doesn't cost consumers anything?  

We'd like to thank the Directory advertisers, the savvy professionals who opt to support our work through these pages.  They are:

• A Baby at Last
• A Jewish Blessing
• Adoptions From the Heart
• Advanced Fertility Center of Chicago
• Agency for Surrogacy Solutions, Inc.
• Alliance for Children
• AlphaCord
• Ambulatory Care Pharmacy
• Ametz Adoption Program
• Apthorp Pharmacy
• Ascend Specialty Rx
• Associated Services for International Adoption
• Attain FertilityTM Centers, an IntegraMed Specialty and provider of the Attain® IVF Programs
• Beth Israel Medical Center, Department of Urology
• BirthRoad Surrogacy Specialists
• Bob Bamman, LCSW
• California Cryobank, Inc.
• Carolyn Berger, LCSW
• Center For Advanced Reproductive Services
• Center for Male Reproductive Medicine and Surgery, Cornell Institute for Reproductive Medicine
• Center for Reproductive Health
• Center for Reproductive Medicine
• Circle + Bloom
• CNY Fertility Center
• Coastal Fertility Medical Center
• Colorado Reproductive Endocrinology
• Conceiveabilities
• Conceptions Reproductive Associates of Colorado
• Conceptual Options
• Dave Thomas Foundation for Adoption
• Disney/ABC
• Donor Network Alliance
• Donor Services
• Ellen Speyer, MFT
• Emily Laitmon, LCSW
• Erickson Law
• Fairhaven Health, LLC
• Family Acuity
• Family Creations, LLC
• Fertility Centers of Illinois
• Fertility Counseling Services
• Fertility Cryobank
• Fertility Physicians of Northern California
• Fertility SOURCE Companies
• Fertility Specialists of Houston
• Forever Families Through Adoptions
• Genesis Fertility and Reproductive Medicine
• Genesis Genetics Institute
• Genetics & IVF Institute
• Global IVF, Inc.
• Greenwich Fertility Center
• Growing Generations
• Happy Beginnings, LLC
• Harris M. Nagler, MD, FACS
• Heartfelt Egg Donation
• Houston IVF
• HRC Fertility
• IntegraMed Specialty Healthcare Services
• International Assisted Reproduction Center
• IVF Florida Reproductive Associates
• IVF New Jersey
• Izetta Stern, LCSW BCD
• Jewish Child Care Association
• Jeanette Moy, MS, LAc
• Jennifer Thie, MD LLC
• Joan Winograd, LCSW
• Joann Paley Galst, PhD
• Judith Greenwald, MSW
• Julie M. Tavoso, Esq.
• Kings Pharmacy
• LA Baby
• La Jolla IVF
• Law Offices of Julie M. Tavoso, LLC
• Lois Nachamie, LCSW, BCD
• Lotus Blossom Consulting, LLC
• Madeline Licker Feingold, PhD
• Madison Women's Health & Fertility, PC
• Marc Goldstein, MD, DSc(hon), FACS, Center for Male Reproductive Medicine and Surgery, Cornell Institute for Reproductive Medicine
• Margot Weinshel, LCSW, RN
• MDR Pharmaceutical Care
• Mindy Berkson, Infertility Consultant
• Miracles Egg Donation
• Missouri Center for Reproductive Medicine & Fertility
• Nancy Kaufman, LCSW, LP
• National Fertility Law Center, Inc.
• New England Fertility Institute
• New Life Agency
• Open Arms Consultants
• Oregon Reproductive Medicine
• Pacific Fertility Center of San Francisco
• Pacific NW Fertility and IVF Specialists
• Parenting Options Through Surrogacy, Egg Donation and Adoption
• Patricia Mendell, LCSW
• Peas in a Pod
• Penn Fertility Care
• Peter N. Schlegel, MD, FACS, Center for Male Reproductive Medicine and Surgery, Cornell Institute for Reproductive Medicine
• Prime Genetics, LLC
• Prospective Families
• Reproductive Care Center
• Reproductive Endocrinology Associates of Charlotte
• Reproductive Medicine Group
• Reproductive Medicine Associates of New York
• Reproductive Medicine Associates of Philadelphia
• Reproductive Possibilities, LLC
• Reproductive Resource Center of Greater Kansas City
• Reproductive Science Center of New England
• Reproductive Specialists of New York
• Rockville Centre Pharmacy
• Ronald O. Perelman and Claudia Cohen Center for Reproductive Medicine of Weill Cornell Medical College
• Ross & Zuckerman, LLP
• Rumbold & Seidelman
• Sandra Schoeneman, PhD
• SCSA Diagnostics, Inc.
• Shady Grove Fertility
• Silvia Schneider Fox, PsyD
• Spence Chapin
• Steven H. Snyder & Associates
• Strong Yoga4Fertility
• Surrogacy Center
• Surrogate Alternatives, Inc.
• Surrogate Parenting Services
• Susan Frank, LCSW
• The Center for Reproductive Medicine
• The Dave Thomas Foundation for Adoption
• The Reproductive Medicine Group
• The Ronald O. Perelman and Claudia Cohen Center for Reproductive Medicine of Weill Cornell Medical College
• The Surrogacy Center
• Tiny Treasures New England
• University Reproductive Associates
• Village Fertility Pharmacy
• West Coast Surrogacy
• Westchester Reproductive Medicine
• William Petok, PhD
• Worldwide Surrogacy Specialists

   Pretty impressive list.  And no, we couldn't do it without them.  And yes, we are grateful, as are the consumers who benefit from these pages.

The AFA is currently accepting pre-publication orders of the Directory on cd, for consumers only.  (Professionals can pick up a copy at The AFA booth at ASRM).  If you would like to request your free copy of the Directory, please let Lisa know.  [email protected].  She will get you a copy as soon as the presses stop running.  

Enjoy the beach this weekend my friends. 

 

Graphic Art courtesy of Mindi Sarko

Proposition 8 Overturned: A Muted Celebration

 

By Stuart Miller

 

 Yesterday was historic.  A federal judge, one appointed by a Republican President no less, overturned and called unconstitutional the mean-spirited anti-gay Proposition 8 that prevented gay and lesbian couples from marrying in California. 

At last, after 20 plus years of struggling for marriage equality a great injustice had been undone and there was dancing in the streets.

So, why did I not feel like dancing?

 Obviously, as a gay man who is married to the love of his life (we were able to get married before Prop 8 took effect) and a father to the most incredible 2 ½ year old son on the planet, I was happy.  But, I wasn’t ecstatic.  In fact, I felt a bit of sadness and even shame.

Because, even in light of this historic judgment, the radical right extremists were still hurling their hate and homophobia at us.  And, it hurts and is even a bit embarrassing even though we know they are wrong. 

I am sure that what I am feeling is similar to what African Americans must have felt in 1967 when the U.S. Supreme Court heard Loving vs. Virginia and finally overturned the laws which prevented black and white people from marrying.   I was only 2 years old then but I am sure that there were great celebrations but how can one be truly happy when you finally get the justice you deserve but there are still so many people that hate and despise you? 

Today, it is no different for the gay and lesbian community and our supporters than it was for the African American community and its supporters in 1967.  We’ve won the battle but not the war because there is still a large percentage of people who find it okay to openly and proudly discriminate against us.

I hate the fact that I am even going to have to explain this chapter in our country’s history to my child.  I hate the fact that I can’t walk down the street with my family and feel completely safe from a hate crime.  I hate the fact that many in my own family won’t even speak to or see my husband and I.  I hate that I have been forced to spend so much energy in my life addressing the prejudice and hatred of others.

So, yes, I am happy that this hateful law has been overturned.  And, yes, I know that we will in the not-too-distant future have full equal marriage rights for everyone in this country.  And, yes, I know that each year gay and lesbian people become more and more accepted and that there will come a time when the world will be quite different than it is today.

But, for now, I don’t feel like dancing in the streets.  Instead, I’ll just hug my husband and son really tight tonight and pray for strength as we continue in a battle that is far from over.

 

--Stuart Miller is the Co-Chair of the American Fertility Association and the CEO of Growing Generations.  He and his partner, Allen, and their son live in Los Angeles, CA.