Dear Editor,
A critical question regarding the Assisted Human Reproduction Bill that appears to be left unanswered pertains to the vetting of prospective parents who wish to employ surrogacy as a means to have children. In Ireland, the process for those seeking to adopt demands an intense and drawn-out review of the applicants’ suitability overseen by Tusla. Is it planned for individuals intending to employ surrogacy to go through similar checks? An in-depth look at this bill, running over 190 pages, does not appear to contain any references to important terms such as “vetting”, “Tusla”, “screening”, “fitness – psychological or physical”, or “criminal history”. This is an oversight that is simply mind-boggling.
Yours faithfully,
Sandra Adams,
Baldoyle,
Dublin.
Dear Editor,
As a woman, I am heartened by Senator Rónán Mullen’s move to highlight the intricate issues related to surrogacy, with a specific focus on international surrogacy that our Government is trying to regulate via the Health (Assisted Human Reproduction) Bill 2022. The Bill, in its current form, seems to normalise the concept of women enduring pregnancy and birthing children, only to part with them upon birth.
The proposed legislation permits any individual aged 21 or above to request a baby via surrogacy, typically exploiting financially compromised women in foreign nations. Given our historical lessons in Ireland, one would hope that we would desist from repeating the patterns of downplaying women’s rights and exploiting their offspring.
Yours sincerely,
Jill Nesbitt,
Women’s Space Ireland,
Bray,
Co Wicklow.
Dear Editor,
I have been following the surrogacy-related discussions in the Seanad on the 20th of June with a mix of fascination and confusion. Those championing the Bill, including the Minister of Health, dismissed a number of seemingly rational amendments introduced by both critics and advocates of the legislation. It was particularly concerning to see the dismissal of an amendment put forward by Senators Keogan and Mullen to specifically exclude people previously convicted of sexual offences, particularly those involving children. While legislation cannot constrain such individuals from naturally conceiving children, the idea of enabling them to do so is questionable at best.
Yours sincerely,
Observing the members of Oireachtas once more audaciously utilise same-sex couples and their human rights as a means to provoke dissenters was utterly jarring. These individuals accused their opponents of disapproving of male homosexuals having children. Homosexual individuals should not be fodder for political debates, nor are we a protective shield that is used to hinder debate. Furthermore, categorising any opposition as “far right” or “anti-LGBT” to quell debates is not only intellectually untruthful but also tends to cause division. This approach stifles genuine discussion and deteriorates the quality of our discourse.
Moreover, there were statements suggesting that being against surrogacy is tantamount to being “anti-choice”. This intentional comparison with abortion views is downright insulting. I am an advocate for women’s access to reproductive healthcare, including necessary abortions. My affirmation to this was demonstrated by voting positively in 2018; I recognized that women deserve to have autonomy over their bodies and maintain control over their reproductive decisions. In the case of abortion, the woman is making a decision about her body, her health, her life. In contrast, surrogacy involves affluent couples seeking another woman to pause her life, undergo hormone injections, place her body and life in jeopardy, in return for a monthly remuneration that is euphemistically labelled as ‘reasonable expenses’ between €2000 and €4000.
The apparent inability of significant reasoned arguments against suggested amendments, the inability to respond directly to extremely reasonable questions and concerns raised by opposition Senators, and combining the opposition’s perspective on different issues rather than concentrating on the task at hand, were a clear indicator of the absence of authentic legislative and democratic processes. This collectively highlighted the Minister’s evident haste to fast track this process.
This proposed legislation carries implications not merely for citizens of Ireland, but women globally. Rushly passing it and ignoring valid observations can only further tarnish our nation’s historical record concerning the perception of women.
Sincerely,
ANNAIG BIRDY,
Dublin 8.