HB 1102 by
state Rep. Stuart
Bishop largely tracks the language of the 2014 bill vetoed by Jindal. It
would give state backing to the contracts, justiciable in state courts. The
practice goes on legally in Louisiana, but if one party alleges breach no
judicial remedy currently exists.
The bill provides one, but the merit of that
framework does not obviate its disqualification as meritorious public policy.
Rather, its basic concept makes it unsuitable for that produces two deleterious
impacts on society.
First, surrogacy devalues the institution of
marriage. Entering into matrimony conveys several benefits, but foremost among
them it produces children into an optimal environment for their guidance as
moral beings. While not all single-man-single-woman couplings can produce living
children because of biological imperfections or aging, and in other instances
such pairs may choose not to reproduce, the active, intimate physical involvement
of the two in the process, from moment of conception to birth, together
strengthens both the capacity of the family to provide beneficial childrearing
and the bonds of the two involved. Farming out the act frays that connection
and reduces the utility of subsequent raising of the child and also dilutes the
sanctity of the relationship between the two.
For couples where the female has physical impediments
to the extent that alternative treatments still will not allow her to give
birth to a living child, they may adopt or in stay childless such as in the
instance of older couples and thereby serve as role models of love and fidelity
for those couples capable of having children. They must understand that God’s
plan may involve this role for them while others can go forth and multiply fruitfully
(although sometimes God does spring a surprise on those pairings thought
barren). Keep in mind that if they deem such moral considerations trivial,
nothing prevents them from entering into a surrogacy compact.
On this account, increasingly state involvement
would act counterproductively given the recent judicial fiat that alters the concept
of marriage away from occurring between a single man and a single woman. As
marriage no longer must aid the state in self-perpetuation, government
has no reason to regulate it and promote it as the state does currently in
that the act now conveys special privileges to those who do not return any
benefit to the state by entering into marriage, either as models for
child-rearing or in producing children for their rearing. Further regulation in
the form of surrogacy contracts governing married individuals heads in the
opposite direction of more regulation affecting matrimony, rather than less.
However, the second negative consideration attached
to the idea behind the bill bears more serious import. Simply, surrogacy procedures
may use multiple embryos, thus causing their destruction by unnatural and
artificial means. Putting human life at risk like this makes the practice morally
objectionable. Individuals may wish to make such moral decisions on their own,
but the state should not encourage such acts by giving an imprimatur to these
by providing a legal structure to encourage the practice.
For these noxious reasons, any surrogacy bill never
constitutes good public policy. This 2016 version has gotten out of its House
committee, so plenty of opportunities this session exist for policy-makers to
take the wise step of preventing this measure from becoming law.
No comments:
Post a Comment