Breaking News: Surrogacy not for married couples only – singles and gays will have legal rights to have surrogate babies
Single men, single women, gays and lesbians may soon get the legal sanction to undergo surrogacy in India.
The draft bill legalizing the surrogacy process in India has provided for Single parenthood by allowing “Unmarried Couples” and “Single Persons” from India and abroad to have children in India using ART procedures and surrogate mothers.
By conferring the right to have children on unmarried couples and single persons, the bill attempts to achieve several historic feats – legalizing commercial surrogacy, single parenthood, live-in relationships and entitling gays and lesbians to start families using surrogate mothers – at one go.
The bill proposes to set up a mechanism to regulate and supervise surrogacy in India.
The bill, with potential to rewrite the social landscape, may be tabled in the monsoon session of Parliament if the Union Cabinet clears it.
Read more about this on http://epaper.hindustantimes.com//artMailDisp.aspx?article=21_06_2010_001_020&typ=1&pub=264
If the parents of newborn Noah Allen-Drury are lucky, their son will sleep through the noise as their flight from India lands in Sydney this morning.
Noah’s gay parents, however, are aware of legal turbulence that could prohibit the surrogacy arrangements that fulfilled their wish for a child.
A growing number of male couples from Australia and other Western countries are hiring surrogates in India to bear children, but that might no longer be possible if a draft bill to regulate IVF in India becomes law.
R.S. Sharma, the secretary of the committee writing a bill to govern assisted reproductive technology (ART), told the Herald that unless gay and lesbian relationships are legalised in India, gay couples would be excluded from hiring surrogates.
Delhi’s High Court recently overturned a 150-year-old section of the country’s penal code that outlawed ”carnal intercourse against the order of nature”.
However, gay activists warn this ruling, which in effect decriminalised sodomy, does not legalise gay relationships, leaving the status of such relationships unclear.
“If our government does not permit gay relationships, then it certainly will not be permitted for foreign gay couples to come to this country and have a [surrogacy] agreement,” said Dr Sharma, who is the deputy director-general of the reproductive health and nutrition division at the India Council of Medical Research.
John and Darren Allen-Drury, who live in the Blue Mountains, raced to India earlier this month when their surrogate mother entered labour. She gave birth to Noah on April 8. John Allen-Drury said changes to India’s laws would be a great disappointment, if passed.
”It would prevent a lot of same-sex couples from coming here,” he said.
Although some gay couples sought surrogate mothers in the United States and Thailand, ”India really is the closest country to Australia that offers affordable surrogacy,” he said.
The draft bill could make it difficult for all Australian couples to use Indian surrogates.
One stumbling block would be a requirement that foreign countries guarantee they will accept the surrogate child as a citizen – before a surrogacy could begin.
Dr Sharma said foreign couples would have to obtain a document from their embassy or foreign ministry pledging the surrogate child citizenship of their country. “Only then will they be entitled to sign an agreement with a surrogate or an ART clinic,” he said.
Parents using a surrogate would also be obliged to accept the baby even if it was born with abnormalities.
”Under the Australian Citizenship Act, there are no guarantees,” a spokesman for the Department of Immigration and Citizenship said on Friday. ”What you can infer from this is that while it’s not illegal, we certainly wouldn’t be encouraging it by giving a rubber stamp to anyone who entered into such an agreement.”
Mr Allen-Drury said surrogacy in the US cost $200,000 or more. In India the arrangements could be made for $40,000 to $50,000. Thailand’s laws were changed last year to stop surrogacies for same-sex couples, although it remains legal for single males.
Mr Allen-Drury said a requirement for the Australian government to guarantee citizenship before a surrogacy could begin was impractical. ”That would just close the door,” he said.
Trevor Elwell and his partner, Peter West, have twin girls, Evelyn and Gaia, from a surrogate mother in Mumbai. Mr Elwell predicted parliamentary inertia meant the Indian laws were months or years off. But he was concerned that interim guidelines could be adopted and, in effect, exclude same-sex couples.
Mr Elwell said the citizenship proposal could pose an insurmountable hurdle.
”If you want to do that process earlier and confirm citizenship, you’re going to have to have a government process upfront,” he said.
The demand for a guarantee of citizenship meant the Australian government would have to grant it on the basis of a contract it did not recognise.
”It is a bit of a tangle, so it might affect heterosexual couples in the long run,” Mr Elwell said.
Since the publicity after they got their twins, Mr Elwell and Mr West say they have helped more than 100 couples – some gay, some straight – arrange a surrogate mother in India.
”The tip of the iceberg may have been us.”
Source: The Sydney Morning Herald (26 April, 2010)
I was pleasantly surprised when I received this appended email from Orna Sagiv, the Consul General of Israel for India. The Israelis did not have to do this for our girl-children! Think about it….And please watch the movie clip as well.
India, the world’s biggest democracy, and Israel, one of the tiniest democracies, surprisingly have much in common. Both are the cradles to the world’s most dominant religions. Thus, for over 5000 years they have sprouted the foundations of human culture, as we know it today. Both these countries have many sites, which are considered the holiest to the largest number of followers all over the globe. Both countries received their independence from the British in the late 40s and both have ever since been trying to recuperate from the aftermath of geographic division based on religion. We have many cultural and social similarities. We both built our nations from scratch; we value education and hard work. We are quick to adapt to a new methodologies and we thirst for success and recognition.India and Israel are among the most significant democracies of the modern world. People are encouraged to make choices and more importantly be heard.
Given India’s strong scientific and technological base, Israel is keen on strengthening professional medical ties with India.
If we have to emulate a nation in education, nation-building, defence, education, research, science, technology & National-pride, it should be only Israel.
We are natural allies…will get closer as these turbulent & violent years pass by! Whether Israelis & Indians want it or not, I see a stronger partnership between these vibrant democracies in the years to come.
Artificial hips made in Ireland squeak and are defective, say 750 lawsuits against the manufacturers Stryker, the medical device and implants manufacturer. The artificial hips in question have now been recalled.
Most complaints allege that the hips squeak and one plaintiff says it destroyed his sex life. Another says he sounds like the Tin Man from Wizard of Oz and has put his squeaky hip on You Tube and attracted over 50,000 viewers.
Stryker faces a barrage of complaints that replacement hips made in its Irish facility in Cork caused pain and made embarrassing squeaking noises. One patient complained that the problem interrupted sex with his wife as she started laughing as his hip squeaked.
Patients have stated that reported that while the noise was amusing at first it quickly became upsetting.
Frances Jones had a Stryker implant to replace her left hip in October 2007. Jones is seeking $2.5m (€1.85m) in damages plus costs in Illinois according to the Irish Sunday Times, Stryker Ireland and its parent company’s Stryker Orthopedics and Stryker Corporation are named in the suit.
Jones claims her artificial hip had “excessive levels of manufacturing residuals” that made it squeak.
Among those who have had to have their artificial Stryker hip replaced is Mike Mueller, head of an online real estate business.
Mueller put a video of his squeaky Stryker hip on YouTube and has attracted almost 50,000 views.
“They used to call me the Tin Man from the Wizard of Oz as they could hear me creaking as I came down the corridor,” he said.
“I had the hip fitted in April 2007 and it started squeaking four months later,” he said. “Eventually I was in so much pain I had to have it replaced. I am worried that if I need a third hip replacement it will so much harder to fit and I might be confined to a wheelchair.”
Stryker Ireland’s accounts for 2008 showed the company employed 524 people here.
Doug Kreis, a personal injury lawyer in Florida, said the claims were related to “product liability.”
“The injuries claimed by the patients . . . relate to an alleged mechanism by which the natural lubricant layer between the ceramic ball and liner is compromised.”
Your name is a household phenomenon in Indian and even beyond her borders. Your fame has put you in the Newsweek “most powerful people list” recently. However, as you may recall from your recent experience in New Jersey Airport, real life is a little different – it does not always follow the path predicted by a scriptwriter or director.
Of late, we have been reading about your opinions and statements on matters beyond the celluloid world. Nothing is wrong in it. You live in a free, democratic country and are entirely entitled to your opinion. But as a common man, also from the same soil, I think I have the right too to raise a few points that may not conform to your views of the real world.
I hope you will read it out.
When recently, the Pakistani players were not selected for the IPL, it was almost predictable that NDTV, the award-winning, mouthpiece of our Indian liberal media select you for your views and you certified that “It (Pakistan) is a great neighbour to have. We (India and Pakistan) are great neighbours. They are good neighbours.”
I have a few words to say about those statements.
One may recall your effort to clarify the Pakistani team captain, Shoaib Malik”s apology to the Muslims, living all over the world, for failing to win the final T20 match against India, likely much to the embarrassment of a lot of Indian Muslims, as expressed by Shamin Bano, mother of the man of the match, Irfan Pathan. What was more embarrassing was your effort to try to defend Shoaib in a subsequent interview, “I don”t think he meant to segregate Muslims and Christians and Hindus and say this was a match between Islam and Hinduism. I don”t think that…”
I doubt whether Shoaib talked to you personally about his thought process at that time. You did not really have to respond for somebody else but perhaps you could not resist the temptation to show your brotherhood and solidarity.
This reminds us again of Dr Ambedkar”s observation that, “The brotherhood of Islam is not the universal brotherhood of man. It is brotherhood of Muslims for Muslims only.
Partition of India was what Pakistan wanted and got. It was painful to millions but many more millions in present India have been spared. Since then Pakistan has offered us only hatred. It has imposed on us three major wars, the Kargil insurgency, the Kashmir conflict, the series of serial blasts, the routine violation of border ceasefires, attacks on the Parliament House and the recent Mumbai 26/11attack.
Did you have these in mind when you talked about them being good neighbours?
In another interview you had tried to explain the concept of Islamic Jihad. “I think one needs to understand the meaning of jihad .. I’ve understood the essence that jihad is not about killing other people; jihad is about killing the badness in you.”
May be you understand jihad better and deeper than the superficial meaning of what we, the rest of the mortal mankind, overburdened and terrorized by the inter-religious, intra-religious and sectarian violence that is plaguing the world in the name of Islam today, do. For we, the less educated, cannot really make a difference between Jihad and Qatl, between Jihad by heart / soul, Jihad by pen and Jihad by sword or between lesser and greater jihad.
We wonder, whatever its meaning may be, does it minimize the significance of the mindless killings that we see today in the name of Islam, across borders, all over the world? Does it change the nature of the killers whether you call them holy warriors, mujahidins, fedayeens or plane suicide bombers?
We agree with you that terrorism has no religion. But hopefully you will also agree with the people who perceive that most terrorist in the world today happen to believe in the scriptures of Islam. They actually believe that they themselves are the true Islamists.
The so called “moderate” Islamist, perhaps does not want to contradict them or may be does not dare to speak out against them. You have probably not forgotten the FIR against you for listing Prophet Mohammed as one of the most unimpressive personalities in history, the threats from which you had to skillfully wriggle out. Others who are not so fortunate, famous or flexible are suffering lifetime, as Tasleema Nasreen or Salman Rushdie would testify. For blasphemy in Islam is punishable with death, even for a believer.
Do I have to spell out the fate if it is a non-believer?
It is due to the inherent intolerance and exclusivity of Islam itself despite your effort to convince us that there is an Islam from Allah and very unfortunately, there is an Islam from the Mullahs
Here is an historical insight from writer Irfan Hussain, “The Muslim heroes who figure larger than life in our history books committed some dreadful crimes..all have blood-stained hands that the passage of years has not cleansed. Indeed, the presence of Muslim historians on their various campaigns has ensured that the memory of their deeds will live long after they were buried…Seen through Hindu eyes, the Muslim invasion of their homeland was an unmitigated disaster.”
So why should the “non-believers” care to accept them? Why should the majority of Indians like to welcome back such disasters again?
Since partition, India has come a long way in progress and development to her current status and is projected as an economic superpower in coming decades while Pakistan is perceived as a failed state on the verge of disintegration.
What does India have to gain by offering neighbourly friendship to such a hostile and failed state?
India has never been an invader and is not in conflict of any other Muslim country. None of the wars and conflicts with Pakistan was instigated by India. In the current geopolitical situation, one can argue for the Muslim world’s grudge and anger against Israel or the west and USA but one fail to fathom why India should also be at the receiving end and why Indians should be the second largest group of people to die from terrorists attacks. Indian majorities do not have anything to do with the Danish cartoon or the death of Saddam Hussain; so why should they suffer from Islamic havoc on those occasions.
In almost all occasions of terrorism, questions are raised about possible role of Pakistan, its terror bases and its terrorist organizations, as either directly or indirectly involved. Be it state sponsored (as recently admitted by President Zardari) or by non-state actors, Pakistan or Pakistani born are prime suspect in terrorist activities all over the world. ISI has been accused of playing a role in major terrorist attacks including 9/11 in the USA, terrorism in Kashmir, Mumbai Train Bombings, London Bombings, Indian Parliament Attack, Varanasi bombings, Hyderabad bombings, Mumbai terror attacks or the attack on the Indian embassy in Kabul.
Do you believe these are marks of a good neighbour? Then what is the reason for your preaching of love towards Pakistan?
Perhaps, as you said, because it is your ancestor”s homeland, you have a soft feeling for Pakistan and cannot see the difference. On the eve of accepting an honorary doctorate from a British university, we heard you say, “I really believe we are the same ..when you come away from India or Pakistan you realize there is no Indian or Pakistani – we’re all together. We are – culturally, as human beings, as friends”
Which Pakistanis are you referring to?
The Pakistanis belonging to the land, admonished as the epicenter of global terrorism, not just by India or USA but even by its friendly allies like Iran or China.
Or is it the self-created, Talibanic Pakistan, who still imposes Jijya on the non believers or finds pleasure in blowing up girl”s schools..
Are you talking about its President class like the current Mr. Zardari, vowed to wage a 1,000-year war with India or the late Mrs. Bhutto who started Jihad in Kashmiri that lead to the exodus of Hindu minorities from the Muslim majority state of India, as refugees in their own country?
Are you referring to Pakistanis loyal to the ISI and the military who train their soldiers with only one objective, i.e. to fight Hindu India?
If your mind is concerned about the faceless mass of Pakistanis, does it also include the dwindling minorities?
Or are you just concerned about the celebrities and the social elites?
It is true SRK that we belong to the same human species but it is hard to stretch the similarities much further between “us” and “them”.
We from the same original land of Bharat but we want to keep her intact, they want to break it into thousand pieces.
Our ancestors happen to be the same. We acknowledge and adore the heritage but they abhor and decimate whoever is available in an attempt to wipe out the link.
We are culturally the same. We have created the culture over centuries what they dream to destroy in moments.
Ours is a 10,000 year old civilization, theirs is a 62 years old country undoing whole human civilization.
We extend our hands repeatedly to promote friendship and amity; they give us ISI, Lashkar, Harkat, Kashmir, Kargil and 26/11 in exchange.
Do you think that the Indians nationals who died in all the above wars, the Indian soldiers who lost their lives in cross-border ceasefire violations or the Indian civilians who are killed by the ISI trained Islamic terrorists and their affiliates, in all those serial blasts, all over the country, willfully sacrificed their lives as a friendly neighbourhood gesture?
Can you face the families of the victims of Chhatrapati Shivaji Terminus or the martyrs of the Kargil war and try to explain to them that “They are good neighbours. Let us love each other.”
Can you explain why the two gunmen at Cama hospital, during the Mumbai carnage, asked the man who gave them water, what his religion was, and shot him dead when he said he was a Hindu?
If you cannot, then perhaps you understand why the majority of India does not consider Pakistan as a good neighbour to have.
Perhaps you believe that the peaceful religious co-existence that you created in your home (and we appreciate that) can be extended to the large world outside. As you rightly said, we Indians trust and do accept everybody but what you did fail to mention was that it is the Indic tradition, essentially coming out of its pre-Islamic Hindu ethos.
If you think otherwise, show us a single Islamic country where the non-believers enjoy the same equality as the believers. Since partition, the Hindus left over in Pakistan and Bangladesh has suffered terribly. Strictly Islamic countries, like Saudi Arabia, do not allow any other religions to exist. Hindus working in the Gulf countries are not allowed to practice their religion in public. Saudi Arabia insists that India sends only a Muslim ambassador. Hindu Muslim unity by and large has generally been a matter of Hindus trying to please or accommodate Muslims. One cannot forget when Vajpayee was extending his hand for peace Musharraf was planning the Kargil insurgency.
Let us remind you, your own statement “I am a Muslim in a country called India .We’ve never been made to feel this is a Hindu country.”
Can you find me a Hindu in Pakistan who can reciprocate that sentiment?
Some years ago, another Mr. Khan, first name Feroze, from your fraternity was banned from entering Pakistan for saying, “India is secular unlike Pakistan”.
That is the basic difference of the land of “Hindu” India from the Islamic “pure land” of Pakistan.
So please do not ask us to love Pakistan.
Please do not lump the people of India and Pakistan together. We Indians are proud to preserve our separate identity..
And please do not insult the land that gave you your life, name and fame, by claiming that her worst enemy, who wants to break her into 1000 pieces, is a great neighbour.
Otherwise it would be sad if somebody accuses you of putting your religion ahead of your country.
Please give it a thought.
You Can Reach The Author By Clicking on This Link or Copy/Paste this Link:http://firstname.lastname@example.org&com_srno=518851&title=Open-letter-to-Mr.-Shahrukh-Khan-SRK