An ill-considered bill (S2965) drafted by the fertility industry is being rushed through the MN legislature to encourage Gestational Carrier Contracts, i.e. baby farming. A peculiar bipartisan coalition of legislators who apparently believe that everything has a price has pushed this bill through the Senate with only one public hearing. The House, with no hearings at all, has already given the bill a second reading.

Under this bill parenthood is simply a matter of contract. The rights of the surrogate mother, called a Carrier, are eliminated by defining her as a non-parent. The most intimate and sacred relationship known to humanity is reduced to a contract for the sale of goods. In the words of RESOLVE, a trade association for the fertility industry, a woman who carries a child in her body for nine months is nothing but a 'childcare provider ... just at a slightly earlier time in the parents’ child’s life.'

As Catholics and Democrats we object to this commodification of women and children. We believe it is disingenuous to ignore the large disparity in economic power between the intended parents and the woman bearing the child.

The Act has many flaws, but the overall effect is to require courts to enforce whatever provisions the parties put in the contract, including restrictions on the Carrier’s personal life during gestation. She may be forced to endure whatever medical procedures the parties think useful to the process, including abortion, if the fetus, or multiple fetuses, are found unacceptable to the Intended Parents before birth. The Act provides that the Carrier have legal counsel, but we question how independent a lawyer can be whose fee is paid by the Intended Parents.

After impregnation, the Carrier cannot change her mind. She can be forced to bear the child, which is then snatched from her at the moment of birth, without even the usual 72 hours to reconsider the emotional cost to her and her baby.

If the arrangement goes awry, courts must determine the fate of the child according to the intent of the parties. The court has no right to weigh the welfare of the child or the fitness of the Intended Parent, who may in some circumstances have no physical or prior emotional connection to the child, either genetic or gestational.

Some other states enforce such contracts, but only Illinois uses this radical a statute. Many states prohibit payment for surrogacy services, and a number of states, including New York, prohibit the practice altogether. Should Minnesota take the lead in the baby farming business without more thought being given to the practical and ethical consequences? If "freedom to contract" becomes the primary principle governing human relationships, where does it end? Do we really want to create a market in babies, human organs, prostitutes, or slaves, in which the wealthy can buy whatever they desire from anyone desperate enough to sign a contract? People are not things to be bought and sold, even with their permission. These contracts are wrong and the people of Minnesota must have the courage to say so.