In the rush (because how else can you characterize a bill that changes the ages-old definition of “parent,” moving from introduction to adoption in 16 days by a two-vote margin?) to push paid surrogacy in Michigan, there’s not been a lot of discussion about how this change affects women.

Sure, we have Farmington Hills rep. Samantha Steckloff talking about infertile women who want a baby.  But babies are not products, made to order or obtainable from a catalogue.  Whether traditional or technological, having a baby involves a man and a woman to provide genetic material and a woman to carry that child.  And about that side of the picture, Steckloff and her supporters are strangely silent.

Under Steckloff’s bill, none of those persons would any longer be “parents.”  They would be shorn of any legal status.  They would all be reduced to parts suppliers for whoever is ordering a baby.

So let’s look at the less-than-pretty side of custom-made babies.

You need some sperm.  You can make a withdrawal at the sperm bank, with the average price in the United States running between $400 and $2,000.  Apart from the price, what guarantees do you have?  In theory, sperm banks are supposed to keep good records, but what real assurances do you have regarding the source of this vial?  And how many other children is this donor responsible for?  The New York Times carried a report of one donor siring 150 children.

If your finances are limited, you might want to consider free, donated sperm.  Back in October 2011, US News and World Report featured a cover story about “coffee shop babies.”  Women who wanted to get pregnant but didn’t necessarily want to pay sperm bank fees searched the internet for volunteer donors.  The magazine story featured a guy who showed up at Starbucks, masturbated in the restroom, handed his specimen in a coffee cup to the woman, and then the two sat down to a Grande Venti Latte before she used his donation to impregnate herself.  Now, ask yourself: do you really want your baby’s father to be a guy who hands out his gametes in coffee cups?

You need eggs.  Eggs are harder to obtain.  One can, in theory, use frozen ova, but fresh eggs are much better.  The problem there is, there are no “free range” ova donors.  You have to synchronize two women: the donor to ovulate and the bearer (whether or not she ultimately gets the baby) to be ready for implantation and continued pregnancy.  That’s a lot of medication, medical attention, and coordination.  On top of that, most egg-buyers are picky.  They usually don’t want just any woman’s egg.  Physically attractive, college-educated (preferably Ivy) co-eds demand premium prices. 

You need an incubator.  Women serving as gestational surrogates, compared to egg donors, generally cost less.  Many are often working-class or lower-middle-class women, sometimes military wives, for whom the motive of “helping a woman have a baby” often gets ensnared with “making a little extra income on the side.”  The average American surrogate makes $60–70,000 tops for her “services” (usually with some additional expenses coverage).

Now, let’s break that down.  A nine-month pregnancy averaging 30 days per month = 270 days times 24 hours per day = 6,480 hours.  $60,000 for 6,480 hours of labor = $9.26/hour.  No overtime, no weekends. 

Michigan’s current minimum wage is $10.10/hour.  Better off taking a job at in a burger joint!  For the same time investment, you’ll come out over $5,400 ahead. 

Of course, one can reduce costs by offshoring production.  Just like car manufacturing, baby-making can be done more cheaply overseas.  Many Asian countries were destinations for surrogate shoppers until their governments began protecting women.  Most recently, Ukraine was a prime destination...but they’re a little distracted now.

While Samantha Steckloff’s eight-bill package to “reform” Michigan’s surrogacy laws changes definitions of parentage, amends inheritance laws, and in general makes the child produced the property of his “intending” parent, it is generally silent about the parts suppliers — except to strip genetic and gestational parents of legal rights to a child that is in part theirs. 

Aren’t you the least bit curious that the men and women necessary biologically to produce that child have no rights — not as parents, not even as sub–minimum wage laborers?  Will Michigan’s criterion of “parent” be whoever wants to be and has a fat enough checkbook to fund her wants?

Rep. Steckloff undoubtedly would paint herself, Governor Whitmer, and all those promoting commercial trafficking in babies as heralds of “reproductive choice,” but isn’t it worth asking: what is the dark underbelly of this business?

We can all sympathize with the pain of women unable to bear or have a child.  But our sympathy for that distress should not occur at the cost of the good of children and other persons.  The truth is, under commercial surrogacy, a child becomes a made-to-order product for which other people are used — honestly, exploited — to fulfill the wishes of those wealthy enough to pay for their way.

Michigan became a state in 1837.  In the following 28 years, it was a prime route on the Underground Railroad for Southern slaves to reach Canada and freedom. 

Do we really want to bring a new form of slavery to Michigan in 2024?

Image via Free Range Stock.