Reaching the contract phase is an exciting step in your family-building journey. We know opening a 40-page legal document for the first time can feel a bit overwhelming. It’s completely normal to have questions about the terms that directly impact you, like insurance, timelines, or financial arrangements. When clients ask us questions about the first draft we sent, we are here to provide clear answers to help them stay informed, as we know this may be their first time navigating a legal agreement of this scope. Recently, though, we have started receiving more emails with long lists of questions organized in neat bullet points. At first glance, they seem thoughtful. As we read further, however, many of the questions turn out to focus on clauses that have little to do with the clients’ actual situation. In cases like this, we can tell that clients have run their contract through an AI chatbot and then forwarded us the list of questions it generated. We understand the appeal of AI. It's tempting to hand a dense document to a free tool that can flag ten potential issues in seconds instead of reading every line yourself. Nevertheless, from our years of experience drafting and reviewing these contracts, we’ve found that the AI tool clients use to engage with their contracts often ends up creating risks and confusion that it’s supposed to help avoid. In this blog, we would like to discuss three major issues with running your contract through AI. 1. Confidentiality Risk: Where Does Your Contract Actually Go? What Happens Behind the Scenes When You Paste a Draft The first issue is one most people never think about: the moment you send your contract draft to an AI chatbot, where does it go? When you paste your contract into ChatGPT or another GenAI tool, it doesn’t “read” the document the way a person does. The text is broken into smaller units called tokens and converted into numerical representations that the model uses to generate a response. In most GenAI systems, your input is then sent to the provider’s servers for processing. Although interacting with an AI chatbot may feel like a private conversation, the contract leaves your device and enters someone else’s infrastructure. It is then handled under the provider's privacy policy and terms of service. Depending on the platform, it may be temporarily stored, logged for security purposes, reviewed by humans for quality assurance, or used to train future models. OpenAI’s own data-usage policy, for example, states that content submitted to its consumer services, including ChatGPT, may be used to train its models unless the user opts out. In some cases, fragments of your contract may appear in what the AI generates for other users. From the moment you upload it, you are no longer the one deciding how that information is handled. This is where confidentiality risks appear. Losing Attorney-Client Privilege When thinking of the term “confidentiality”, some people understand it as a promise that the information will not be actively shared with any individuals outside an authorized circle. In everyday practice, however, it consists of more layers. Confidentiality, the obligation to protect private or sensitive information from unauthorized disclosure, also involves a set of strict protocols regarding how such information is handled. In a law firm, that responsibility is built into everyday practice: who can open a file, where documents are stored, and how they are shared. These protective boundaries exist precisely in line with the legal rule of attorney-client privilege, codified in California Evidence Code section 954, which protects communications between you and your attorney so that there’s always a guarantee that the sensitive information you disclose to your attorney will remain confidential, and you will not be discouraged from sharing facts that are deeply personal or critical to your case. However, the privilege can be broken if you share such information with unauthorized third parties, which is exactly what you risk doing when you upload your contract to an AI chat. The risk is not merely theoretical. Just in 2026, in United States v. Heppner (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 10, 2026), a federal court ruled that a criminal defendant's litigation strategy questions and interactions with a public AI chatbot (Anthropic’s Claude), were discoverable by the government and used as evidence against him, was not protected by attorney-client privilege. Even though the defendant was analyzing information received from his lawyers and later shared the AI’s output back with them, the court held that handing the information over to a third-party AI provider destroyed the expectation of privacy. For attorney-client privilege to apply, three conditions must be met: It must be a communication made between a privileged person and an attorney, in confidence, and for the purpose of seeking or receiving legal advice. Pasting sensitive contracts that are provided by your attorney into a public AI chatbot potentially breaks these conditions and therefore waives the legal protections that would have otherwise kept your private details secure. Although the legal consequences of sharing this information depend on the circumstances and the tool, the surest way to preserve attorney client privilege is not to hand the communication to a third party at all. Risking the Violation of Confidentiality Clauses Additionally, many agreements also contain confidentiality or privacy clauses that limit what information about the case can be shared and with whom. In surrogacy and donation agreements, this is especially the case, as disclosing identifying information to an unauthorized third party can jeopardize the privacy and security of everyone involved, including the future child. The contract often contains parties' full names, addresses, email addresses, compensation details, and family planning decisions, all of which are highly sensitive. Uploading these drafts to a public AI platform can potentially be considered a violation of the confidentiality clause. Human reviewers routinely read chat logs for quality control. Worse, chatbots can be tricked with prompts to remove barriers to providing this info to irrelevant users. Operating inside an opaque black box, these hidden data flows leave you with zero control over who ultimately sees your and the other party’s personal information. Although the wording of each contract regarding confidentiality can be different, and it is not always the case that an upload triggers an automatic breach, protecting your private data is always the safest approach. Without reading the contract itself first and understanding the clauses carefully, sharing it with an AI on a whim can put you at significant legal risk. 2. Accuracy Risk: When AI Hallucinates Word Prediction ≠ Legal Reasoning If the confidentiality risk is about the action of uploading your data, the second risk is about the output and what can go wrong if one over-relies on the response provided. When you ask a chatbot to analyze a contract, you are risking what is commonly called AI "hallucination." This happens when a model produces answers that sound confident and convincing but are entirely detached from reality. This is not uncommon in the legal field. In the landmark 2023 case Mata v. Avianca, Inc., 678 F.Supp.3d 443 (S.D.N.Y. 2023), a federal court sanctioned an attorney who submitted a brief filled with fake case citations entirely hallucinated by ChatGPT. More recently, in Noland v. Land of the Free L.P. (Cal. Ct. App. Sept. 12, 2025), a California appellate court issued a $10,000 fine to a lawyer who similarly submitted a brief containing fabricated AI-generated citations. In fact, the problem has become so widespread that a public database maintained by legal researcher Damien Charlotin now tracks it, documenting nearly 1,800 court decisions worldwide in which a party relied on AI-hallucinated material. If AI models can so easily mislead practicing attorneys, it is even more dangerous for our clients without legal backgrounds to rely on them. How does AI hallucination happen? Unlike an attorney who conducts legal research by analyzing case-specific facts and looking up the current statutes or cases that apply, AI generates answers by identifying patterns in large amounts of training data and statistically predicting the most likely sequence of words. Unreliable Web Data and Losing Legal Nuances The issue with this mechanism is that much of the training data AI relies on is not legal text at all, but was scraped from web sources like Wikipedia and Reddit. Therefore, having a general-purpose AI model review your contract is akin to asking a web forum for legal advice. Even when it does use data from public court records and government websites, these inputs may be outdated or completely irrelevant to your situation. What makes this even more dangerous is that these models are tuned to sound persuasive and complete. When AI gives answers based on a blend of internet chatter and outdated legal fragments, it can still pass as an authoritative opinion. Sometimes, when a question falls outside what the model actually knows, instead of saying "I'm not sure.”, it fills the gap with what is most “likely” the answer that the user looks for, whereas the answer may be factually incorrect or unverified. This shifts the burden entirely onto the user, who usually lacks the specific legal training, to attempt to distinguish true statements from false ones. While some might believe that gaining some broad legal knowledge from AI is still better than having none at all, in surrogacy law, broad legal advice is sometimes worse than useless. Surrogacy in the United States is not regulated at the federal level; it varies state by state. A clause that is fully enforceable in California under Family Code sections 7960 through 7962, may be void, or handled entirely differently, in another state. If you ask an AI a general question about such a clause, it may answer from general family law content on the internet, rather than the specific statute that actually governs the agreement. These nuanced variables can hardly be accurately handled through AI’s guesswork. How AI Feedback Loops Escalate Your Stress Besides drawing from unreliable inputs, there is a second way AI models can hallucinate. AI models are built to be responsive to the person asking, and when prompted repeatedly, they show sycophantic behavior, that is, a tendency to mirror the view of the user. Therefore, when someone, feeling uncertain about a complex legal agreement, turns to an AI to help understand, it can inadvertently trigger an escalating feedback loop. The model can potentially read a request like "Is this clause unfair to me?" as a command to "find flaws," thereby hallucinating risks that are completely ungrounded in the text of the contract. Because these tools present information so persuasively, it is natural for a user to take these warnings seriously and ask follow-up questions, which, occasionally, prompts the AI to generate very detached speculation. Very often, we notice AI-generated questions in client emails because the issues they raise are either irrelevant to the contract itself or already clearly addressed in the contract language. These detours stall what could have been a more straightforward review. In a family-building journey, which is often mixed with both joy and anxiety, we see AI often end up amplifying the stress rather than providing clarity or peace of mind that the families look for. 3. Individualized Representation: More than Information Another reason why we discourage the use of AI, beyond the risk of breach of confidentiality and unreliability in interpreting legal text, is that it cannot replicate the individual representation an experienced attorney provides. Representation involves much more than just explaining legal concepts to clients or retrieving information from clients to be entered into an agreement. What distinguishes representation from advice generated from AI is the legal accountability and professional judgment of an attorney and their deep understanding of the entire professional ecosystem managing a surrogacy or a donation journey. Professional Accountability and Legal Ethics First, when an attorney is retained to draft or review your surrogacy or donation agreement, a formal relationship is established under strict professional and ethical rules. An attorney can be sued for professional malpractice, and therefore carries a direct legal obligation to ensure the advice they provide is accurate. Every state enforces its own rules of professional conduct for attorneys. In California, the Rules of Professional Conduct impose, among other things, the duty to possess competence in the relevant field of law (rule 1.1), the duty of confidentiality (rule 1.6), and the duty of avoiding conflicts of interest (rule 1.7), and an attorney's license is regulated by the jurisdiction in which they practice. Under these rules, attorneys must be responsible for their advice and the judgment calls they make on their client’s behalf. An AI model, by contrast, is not a licensed counsel. If an AI argues for unconscionable medical decision provisions, which subsequently causes the contract negotiations to be terminated, it cannot be held accountable for the consequences. Why Human Judgments Matter in Your Contract Review Many people might still find it tempting to use AI as a “backup” tool to check the agreement. In practice, however, we find this approach frequently introduces more confusion. When provided with an entire agreement to unpack, general-purpose language models tend to treat every provision on the page with equal weight and generate exhaustive lists of hypothetical risks or irrelevant legal theories. Without clear directions, they are often incapable of distinguishing clauses that reflect standard statutory language and the more high-stakes clauses that truly require a client’s attention. In our contract review process, the most valuable conversations usually go beyond simply explaining what the agreement says. Clients often ask about how certain provisions may affect them in practice or request changes based on their own needs, such as additional medical screening requirements, adjustments to compensation or benefits, or specific expectations during the pregnancy. These questions cannot be answered by simply reviewing the language of the agreement. They require the attorney’s experience with similar cases and a deep understanding of the client’s individual situation, the negotiation process, and the agency involved. These are precisely the human judgments that our attorneys are best fit to make using their expertise. What AI Misses in Real-World Negotiation Some may argue that AI has become more personalized because many AI tools can now remember information shared by users across different conversations. While this feature may make AI responses feel more tailored and even adept in suggesting potential contractual provisions, using it does not necessarily facilitate the process of finalizing a contract. Knowing what the client wants to request as it comes to a surrogacy or donation agreement represents merely the baseline of a legal process. Between when the first contract draft is provided and when a contract is finalized, the negotiation process demands a sophisticated understanding of the other party in the agreement and their representation. Experienced legal counsels always use their knowledge of both parties and prior experience to strategically advise clients on the specific conditions they may not want to yield on versus those where they can safely offer a middle ground. Despite some knowledge shared by the user, an AI model remains entirely blind to these tactical issues as it lacks much information about all the stakeholders involved. Therefore, they cannot predict how the other party may react to a demand, nor can they consistently inform the user of the long-term risks embedded in a seemingly minor compromise. More often than not, relying on AI to analyze these fluid variables frequently introduces friction and distractions. Embracing Innovation While Protecting Your Journey None of these is to discourage clients from seeking additional resources when reviewing a contract. We understand why many clients may turn to AI before speaking with their attorney. Surrogacy or donation agreements are lengthy and include unfamiliar legal terminology, and this can be especially challenging for international intended parents who may be navigating both a foreign legal system and a second language. Some clients may feel more comfortable using AI as a low-pressure way to organize their thoughts, explore questions they may be hesitant to ask, or gain confidence in their own understanding before discussing the agreement with counsel. However, using AI for general background, like understanding the surrogacy process, is very different from feeding it an entire contract draft in hopes of receiving legal analysis. From a practitioner's perspective, uploading agreements to general-purpose models creates unintentional privacy risks, adds unintended layers of confusion to the collaborative review process between the client and the attorney, and pulls focus away from the key information within the agreement. If you wish to request a summary of a surrogacy or donation agreement, you can ask, and we can provide one. We can utilize professional versions of AI where we review the policies to ensure they will not be subject to third-party disclosure. AI is changing the legal industry quickly, and we welcome these changes. Our firm actively uses new technology in our own practice to best serve our clients. With generative AI, we even built our own IVF calculator app to help intended parents and surrogates to track the pregnancy timeline and due date after an IVF procedure. We imagine that it would shape the legal industry in more ways than we previously anticipated, and we are not surprised that our clients are also finding the tool compelling. Yet, as AI unlocks unprecedented access to information, we want to remind our clients that information is still not a substitute for decades of legal experience. You do not have to turn to an AI-generated checklist for peace of mind, as it still remains a risky and inaccurate tool for a legal journey that largely requires human judgment. When your draft arrives, we encourage you to read it yourself through the lens of your family’s real-world priorities and speak to us honestly about what’s on your mind. You can trust us to take care of the legal analysis and the tough negotiations so you can focus on the journey ahead. Let’s Protect Your Family-Building Journey Together. Have questions about your draft agreement? Tsong Law Group provides dedicated, strategic contract review for intended parents, surrogates, and donors across California, New York, Illinois, Washington, Arizona, and Oklahoma, as well as international intended parents building their families in the U.S. Contact us at info@tsonglaw.com or 877-992-3678 to schedule a consultation with an experienced attorney. This article is provided for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice or establish an attorney-client relationship. Every contract and family-building journey is unique; please consult a qualified legal professional regarding your specific legal needs and state laws.

Update As President Donald J. Trump promised, he issued a slew of executive orders on his first day in office on January 20, 2025. The one that potentially affects surrogacy is his executive order to restrict birthright citizenship which is titled “Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship.” June 30, 2026: The answer is now settled. On June 30, 2026, the Supreme Court struck down Executive Order 14160 in Trump v. Barbara, ruling 6-3 that it is unconstitutional and cannot be enforced. Chief Justice Roberts wrote the majority opinion, holding that children born in the United States are citizens at birth under the Fourteenth Amendment, including children born to parents who are not citizens. For international intended parents, this means the Executive Order will not affect your child's citizenship. A child born in the United States through surrogacy remains a U.S. citizen at birth, regardless of the intended parents' nationality or immigration status. The Executive Order creates a policy that no department or agency will issue documents recognizing United States citizenship or accept state documents that would recognize United States citizenship to persons (1) where either the person’s mother was unlawfully present in the United States and the person’s father was not a United States citizen or permanent resident at the time of birth, or (2) where the person’s mother’s presence at the time of birth in the United States was lawful but temporary, and the person’s father was not a United States citizen or permanent resident at the time of the person’s birth. This Order will apply to persons born 30 days from January 20, 2025 and shall not be construed to affect other individuals from obtaining documentation of their United States Citizenship. What Does This Mean for Surrogacy with International Intended Parents? The U.S. has long been a global leader in surrogacy due to its favorable legal framework, the laws of several states permitting surrogacy, and the ease of obtaining legal documents such as birth certificates for children born to American surrogates. The Executive Order does not directly mention surrogacy. In fact, it specifically does not affect the citizenship of anyone who does not fall under the two specific situations. The first group of people excluded from citizenship are those where the mother is unlawfully present and the father is not a U.S. citizen or green card holder. This would not apply to international intended parents as neither would enter the U.S. unlawfully. The second category requires two things, both that the mother’s presence is temporary and the father is not a U.S. citizen or permanent resident. It is unclear whether this applies to U.S. surrogate births in all situations. The Reasoning of Trump’s Challenge on Birthright Citizenship and Why It is Unlikely to Succeed The Executive Order quotes the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution which states, “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.” Trump interprets this Amendment to exclude birth citizenship to persons who are not “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States and argues anyone who is not a permanent resident or citizen is not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. However, a historic Supreme Court decision established birthright citizenship in 1898. United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898) found that a Chinese man born in San Francisco to parents who were at the time both Chinese citizens permanently living in the United States, could not be denied citizenship even though a law at the time, the Chinese Exclusion Act, prevented Chinese from becoming U.S. citizens. The Trump administration reads this case as requiring permanent residence in the United States, when the legal status of permanent residency did not exist until the Alien Registration Act was passed in 1940. Thus, legal experts predict that any attempt to alter birthright citizenship will likely face lengthy court battles. The possibility of the order ever taking effect in thirty days is unlikely. The procedure is likely to be as follows: (1) In the thirty-day period before this Executive Order takes effect, it will be challenged by immigrant rights and civil liberties groups in the United States in federal court. In fact, as of the time of this writing, eighteen states, the ACLU and other groups have already filed a lawsuit. (2) The plaintiffs will request the judge hearing the to issue an injunction, or a stop, to enforcement of the order nationwide until they have heard the arguments and make a decision. An injunction of the Executive Order is likely under the standard which requires (i) a likelihood of success on the merits; (ii) a likelihood of irreparable harm; and a (iii) balance of equities and hardships in favor of the moving party; and (iv) the preliminary injunction is in the public interest. (3) It will then take months before a trial takes place. We expect that the trial will find the Executive Order is unconstitutional based on the precedent of United States v. Wong Kim Ark. (4) The injunction or denial of the injunction will then be appealed to a federal appeals court, and eventually the Supreme Court. Each appeal on the injunction could take about a month, Should the injunction stay in place, the case will take more than two years to be resolved, first with a lower court decision after a trial, then after the federal appeals court rules, and finally, with the Supreme Court ruling. Even in the worst case scenario where the executive order is not enjoined and the USCIS denies citizenship documents to international intended parents, there are alternative ways to establish the child’s citizenship. These include applying for citizenship in one’s home country or applying for special statuses that allow travel without a passport. While these processes may require additional steps, they are manageable with the help of experienced legal professionals. Opportunities for Growth and Collaboration The surrogacy industry in the U.S. is resilient and resourceful. In fact, surrogacy continues to expand in the U.S., as Michigan will join states in which surrogacy is legal this year. While restrictive policies could prompt some families to explore options in other countries, the U.S. remains a preferred destination for its exceptional legal clarity, the shorter wait times, and modern healthcare. By engaging with policymakers and advocating for inclusive family-building policies, industry professionals can help maintain the U.S.’s position as a global leader in surrogacy. Moreover, while international intended parents may fear chaos will erupt during the Trump administration restricts immigration, as a surrogacy law firm that experienced the COVID-19 outbreak, we have successfully navigated a crisis that caused the shutdown of courts, passport agencies, and a travel ban for intended parents with a positive outcome for all of our clients. Advocacy groups and agencies are prepared for whatever the next Trump administration will bring up, working proactively to ensure that families' rights and needs are protected in the future. Conclusion: Preparing for a Bright Future The Executive Order was not written with surrogacy situations in mind and there are arguments that the Executive Order does not apply to international intended parents using surrogacy. In addition, the legal foundations of birthright citizenship, supported by the U.S. Constitution, are likely to survive this Executive Order. Note that the situation is subject to change, and we will update the blog when there is new information or guidance. The attorneys of Tsong Law Group have over 30 years of combined legal experience and are licensed in six states. If you choose Tsong Law Group, we will provide assistance with documents to help with an exemption from Trump’s Executive Order and have solutions for any legal issues that arise, so you can focus on your family building. Updates: On January 23, 2025, Senior U.S. District Judge John Coughenour in Seattle granted a temporary injunction blocking the Executive Order nationwide from coming into effect for at least 14 days while the case is argued. This is the lawsuit by various states including Washington. On February 5, 2025, U.S. District Judge Deborah Boardman in Maryland granted a preliminary injunction on the Executive Order nationwide, stating it "contradicts 125 year-old binding Supreme Court precedent and runs counter to the country's 250 years history of citizenship by birth." A preliminary injunction is longer than a temporary injunction and stays in effect until the case decided by the court, or it may be appealed to the Court of Appeals. On February 10, 2025, Federal Judge Joseph Laplante in New Hampshire temporarily blocked the implementation of the executive order after determining that keeping it in place would cause serious harm to the affected parties. He found that suspending the order would have minimal impact on the government since it simply preserves the current citizenship documentation process for newborns. When granting the injunction, the judge emphasized the importance of experienced legal practitioners presenting thorough arguments, noting this approach best serves and maintains the rule of law. On May 15, 2025, the US Supreme Court heard oral arguments on whether to allow the preliminary injunctions in effect to go forward. On June 27, 2025, the Supreme Court ruled 6-3 that the preliminary injunctions were overbroad and could only cover the individual plaintiffs in the action. Read our article here for a complete analysis. On July 10, 2025, Judge Laplante of the New Hampshire District court certified a class which includes babies covered by the executive order and parents of those babies, and issued a preliminary injunction covering the class. The government had seven days to appeal the ruling to the First Circuit. The federal government failed to appeal in time so the executive order is enjoined (stopped from taking effect) nationwide.

For the first time, Congress is moving to regulate surrogacy agreements at the federal level. Unfortunately, they are doing so not quite in ways that support families. Four bills introduced in the 119th Congress would significantly alter how surrogacy operates nationwide. Although all four of them remain in the House or Senate Committees and none has become law, they do deserve your attention. With two of them introduced as recently as June 2026, intended parents, surrogates, and agencies should understand what they say now before they advance to committee hearings. This article explains each bill, why we believe each one is flawed, and what you can do about it. At the end of this post, you will find a tool that generates a letter to your Representative or Senators opposing the bills you select. H.R. 9131: The Protecting Kids from Creeps Act H.R. 9131 was introduced by U.S. Representative Scott Perry of Pennsylvania on June 3, 2026. It responds to a real case: Brandon Keith Riley-Mitchell, a registered tier 1 sex offender in Pennsylvania, obtained a child through surrogacy after pursuing an independent journey without a surrogacy agency. We want to be clear at the outset that keeping sex offenders out of surrogacy is a goal we support. Screening of intended parents is already standard practice at all reputable agencies, and the case that prompted this bill appears to be a case without an agency. However, while the bill is marketed to the public as a safety measure to compel stricter vettings, the text contains no screening requirement at all. It does not say what a background check must include, who must run it, or when. Rather than setting a preventive standard, it moves directly to criminal punishment that could chill the industry. It creates a new federal crime, 18 U.S.C. section 2260B, targeting "surrogacy agencies" broadly. According to the bill, a surrogacy agency means "any entity in the United States that facilitates, arranges, procures, or otherwise assists in the formation or execution of a surrogacy agreement." Note that this would appear to include all employees of an agency, and attorneys for the parties, and even notaries, as they may assist in the formation or execution of a surrogacy agreement. The legislation carries the following features: An agency (including its officers) that "recklessly" facilitates a surrogacy agreement where any party is a sex offender faces a mandatory minimum of 10 years in prison. An agency acting "knowingly" faces a mandatory minimum of 20 years, as does any individual employee who knowingly facilitates such an agreement. There is no definition of “reckless” or “knowingly” in the statute. "Sex offender" is defined as anyone who is, or at any time was, required to register under the federal Adam Walsh Act (34 U.S.C. § 20913). That definition has no tiers, no time limit, and no relevance requirement. A person required to register decades ago for a Tier 1 offense, the lowest-severity classification, who has long since been removed from the registry, is treated identically to a current Tier 3 offender. The surrogacy agreement itself becomes void and unenforceable, and custody of any child born under it is decided through best-interests litigation in the surrogate's home state, with the agreement given no effect. Why we oppose H.R. 9131 as written Our objection is not to the goal of protecting children from predatory actors. The problem is that the bill treats a generally non-existent problem to regulate agencies by relying on a case where no agency was used. Nearly all agencies utilize background checks on intended parents and surrogates and their partners or spouses. This is done because they provide a service and need to ensure that the parties know whether the other party has any criminal record, which might be disqualifying, or which the other party has a right to know about. Note that misdemeanors and expunged cases may not get discovered in background checks if they are over ten years old, so some sex offenses may not come up in a background check. A 10-year mandatory minimum imprisonment for recklessness is extraordinary in federal criminal law. Recklessness is a civil negligence-adjacent standard, and the bill gives agencies no safe harbor. An agency that runs a professional background check and misses an old, out-of-state registration that no longer appears in any database could still face an argument that it acted recklessly, with a decade in prison as the floor, while the underlying sex offense of a party could have been a misdemeanor with no prison time. The lifetime definition of "sex offender" compounds the problem. Because it sweeps in anyone ever required to register, regardless of tier, offense, or how long ago, it bars people from parenthood for life with no individualized review. Even adoption law, which the sponsors cite as their model, does not do so in such absolute terms. Finally, voiding the contract punishes the wrong people. Anyone who facilitates a surrogacy contract that includes a party who is a “sex offender” will be sentenced to ten or more years in prison. Thus, if in an independent journey, an attorney for the surrogate did not do a background check of the gestational carrier, her partner, or the intended parents, or did not ask for the background checks performed by the agency, he or she could be sentenced to major prison time. In addition, if a contract is voided, the surrogate, who did nothing wrong, may be left as the presumed legal parent of a child she never intended to parent, with her compensation and legal protections erased along with the agreement. If it is the case that the partner/spouse of the surrogate or the surrogate herself was a prior sex offender, it is the intended parents who did nothing wrong. Why would the contract be voided in this situation? In many such cases, the child could end up in the foster care system. Congress could achieve its intended goal by mandating background checks in surrogacy and delegating who is responsible for obtaining them, providing a clear standard with safe harbor protections for compliant agencies and proportional penalties, or leave the matters to the states. H.R. 9131 does neither. H.R. 9132: The Preventing International Surrogacy Exploitation Act H.R. 9132, also introduced by Representative Perry on June 3, 2026, has been described as targeting "adversarial nations" and birth tourism. Its actual scope is considerably broader. It voids any surrogacy agreement between a surrogate in the United States and a prospective parent who is a "foreign national," defined as any alien under the Immigration and Nationality Act. This covers people from every country. The bill contains one exception: an agreement survives if there are two prospective parents, they are legally married, and at least one is a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident. This leaves out a significant portion of international families who use U.S. surrogacy: a married couple from Toronto, a couple from Paris or Israel whose home country prohibits surrogacy, or a single intended parent from anywhere abroad. The bill also imposes up to 10 years in prison on any broker who knowingly or recklessly facilitates such an agreement, sends custody of children born under voided agreements to a best-interests-of-the-child litigation in the surrogate's state, and strips the foreign parent of any immigration benefit arising from being the parent of their own U.S. citizen child. H.R. 7040 and S. 3101: The SAFE KIDS Act The Stopping Adversarial Foreign Exploitation of Kids In Domestic Surrogacy Act exists in two versions: S. 3101, introduced by Senator Rick Scott of Florida in November 2025, and H.R. 7040, introduced by Representative Blake Moore of Utah on January 13, 2026. Both are narrower than H.R. 9132. They void surrogacy agreements only where the prospective parent is a citizen or permanent resident of a "foreign entity of concern," a list defined in federal procurement law that covers China, Russia, Iran, and North Korea. The same married-couple exception applies. The House bill imposes up to one year in prison on brokers who facilitate a voided agreement, and custody again goes to best-interests litigation, with the contract given no weight. The bills' findings cite a criminal investigation in Arcadia, California, involving a couple who had fourteen or more children from surrogates they raised in a compound, and frame the issue as a national security threat. It is not clear from the reporting on this case that the bill would actually have prevented this couple from pursuing surrogacy, as they may be permanent residents or citizens. Why we oppose all three international bills The conduct these bills cite, human trafficking, immigration fraud, and the sale of children, are federal crimes today, and the Arcadia case the sponsors point to is being investigated under those existing laws. However, in our experience, surrogacy in the United States does not involve any of these things. Nearly all international intended parents come to the US for surrogacy because they want children of their own. The motivation of these bills appears more aligned with the Trump administration’s opposition to so-called “anchor babies” and birth tourism, which inspired its Executive Order on birthright citizenship. Surrogacy, from our experience, does not operate this way. In all the cases we have represented international intended parents, they have always returned to their home countries with their children. They enter legally and leave as soon as the travel documents or passport is received, as their desire to return home with their child is compelling. Most of the time, the intended parents will obtain citizenship in their home country for their child. In rare cases where the child does not, the child can make the decision at age 18. The child cannot cause “chain migration” to the United States, as they cannot sponsor the parents to immigrate to the US until they turn age 21. We are not aware of international children born in the US through surrogacy, living in another country, and then sponsoring their parents for green cards at age 21. If the bill sponsors had evidence of this taking place, it surely would be produced. Even if it were considered an abuse of the system, the immigration law could be changed rather than applying it to surrogacy. What the bills actually reach is the lawful, regulated path: agreements negotiated with independent counsel for both sides, with escrow accounts, insurance requirements, psychological screening, and court-issued parentage judgments under state laws like California Family Code sections 7960 through 7962, New York's Child-Parent Security Act, and the Illinois Gestational Surrogacy Act. That contract is the surrogate's primary protection. It is what guarantees her compensation, secures her health coverage, and preserves her authority over her own medical care. Declaring it void does not protect her from exploitation. It removes her ability to enforce anything against the intended parents while she is pregnant with their child. The bills are just as hard on the children they are named for. When an agreement is void, custody is decided through litigation in which the agreement counts for nothing. A surrogate can be left as the legal parent of a child genetically unrelated to her, against her wishes and the intended parents' wishes alike. H.R. 9132 goes further and bars the foreign parent from any immigration benefit through their own child, making it harder for that child to live with their parents, an outcome difficult to square with a bill titled to prevent exploitation. None of the three bills would actually prevent the problematic scenarios in the cases they rely on, nor do they add a single protective requirement. None of these three bills relies on the input or suggestions of actual surrogacy industry professionals or intended parents and surrogates. Finally, surrogacy and parentage have always been matters of state family law. States that have regulated surrogacy carefully, over decades, would see those frameworks overridden for a class of families defined by the passport they hold. It should also be noted that when international intended parents turn to the United States for surrogacy, it results in a windfall for the United States economy. At least a quarter million dollars is typically spent by international intended parents, and this goes to support the surrogate and her family, the agency that employs Americans, American physicians, and lawyers. International intended parents have the means to pay for health care for the child, and the public welfare system is not used for medical expenses for either the surrogate or the child. The bills provide no good reasons for banning international intended parents, only speculation and stereotypes about foreigners’ intentions. Where the bills stand All four bills have been introduced and referred to the Judiciary Committee in their respective chambers. None has passed either chamber. H.R. 9131 and H.R. 9132 were introduced on June 3, 2026, and announced at a press conference the following day. Introduction is a long way from enactment, but bills like this could move quickly if there is no opposition, and representatives might believe these bills will be popular if their constituents do not voice opposition. What you can do If you are an intended parent, a surrogate, an agency professional, or simply someone who believes families should not be defined by citizenship, tell your members of Congress. The House bills (H.R. 9131, H.R. 9132, and H.R. 7040) are before the House, so write to your Representative. S. 3101 is before the Senate, so write to your two Senators. Use the letter generator below. Check the bills you oppose, fill in your information, and it will produce a letter you can copy into your legislator's contact form, email, or print and mail. If you do not know who represents you, you can look up your Representative at house.gov/representatives/find-your-representative and your Senators at senate.gov. Questions about your surrogacy journey? Tsong Law Group represents intended parents, surrogates, and donors in California, New York, Illinois, Washington, Arizona, and Oklahoma, including many international intended parents building their families through U.S. surrogacy. If you have questions about how proposed legislation could affect your journey, or you are ready to start one, contact us at info@tsonglaw.com or 877-992-3678 to schedule a consultation. This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Legislation described here is pending and subject to change.

What is legal insurance and how does it help in surrogacy? When starting a family formation journey, it's important to be prepared legally and financially. One way to help pay for your legal costs for your journey is with the assistance of legal insurance. What exactly is legal insurance, and how can it help you in your surrogacy journey? Let’s break it down in simple terms. Legal insurance is a special type of insurance that pays for legal services. Think of it like health insurance, but for legal matters—it can cover the costs of hiring a lawyer for things like reviewing contracts, handling disputes, or providing legal advice. In the context of your family formation case, legal insurance can be particularly helpful to cover costs of drafting or reviewing an agreement. ' Why legal insurance matters in family formation A third party reproductive journey involves a range of legal documents and agreements between intended parents, surrogates, donors, and sometimes surrogacy agencies. These documents can include surrogacy agreements, which outline the responsibilities and expectations of all parties involved; egg, sperm, or embryo donation agreements, which detail the terms of donation and parental rights; and adoption paperwork, whether it is a straightforward adoption or one where an adoption is needed to confirm parental rights of a parent for a foreign surrogacy arrangement or for a parent in a sperm donation case. Having legal insurance can help cover the costs, saving you money. Legal insurance providers we accept at Tsong Law Group At Tsong Law Group, we recognize the value of accessible legal services, particularly for complex matters like surrogacy, adoptions, and donations involving eggs, sperm, or embryos. That’s why we accept major legal insurance plans from top providers including: MetLife Legal Plans, LegalEASE, and ARAG Legal Insurance. Each offers distinct advantages to help you navigate your legal needs with confidence. MetLife Legal Plans provides comprehensive coverage at an affordable cost, with access to over 18,000 qualified attorneys nationwide. Employers that offer MetLife Legal Plans include major corporations like Microsoft, Bank of America, Ebay, Meta, Boeing and Morgan Stanley. We are one of the few surrogacy law and adoption specialists under MetLife Legal Plans. Your coverage will vary depending on your employer but for some, MetLife will cover 20 hours of reproductive law, which will cover egg donation cases, a surrogacy agreement and part of a surrogacy parentage action. For others, Metlife may not cover reproductive law, but you may still be eligible for four hours of out-of-scope services which will cover a gamete donation agreement or count towards a surrogacy contract. To check your Metlife benefits, we need your eligibility ID or membership number. LegalEASE has been a trusted name in legal insurance since 1971, offering plans that are often provided as employee benefits. Employers offering LegalEASE include Target, Google, CVS, and Stanley Black & Decker. Known for their expansive attorney network of over 20,560 vetted professionals, LegalEASE makes it easy for members to connect with the right attorney through their unique Compatibility/Matching System. Some LegalEASE cases will pay for your attorneys fees in full, for other cases you will be entitled to a discount on flat and hourly attorney fee rates. ARAG Legal Insurance is another legal insurance offering to University of California employees, California state employees, and employees at companies like Wells Fargo, the Cigna Group, Mattel, and Oracle. ARAG was one of the first to offer reproductive law benefits. We accept ARAG for some egg, sperm and gamete donations cases, foster adoptions, and surrogacy agreement reviews. Where coverage is not found, you may still be entitled to reductions in flat or hourly rates. An honorable mention goes to Men Having Babies, a private organization. Members of Men Having Babies are entitled to 10% discounts and larger discounts if they qualify for the Gay Parenting Assistance Program (GPAP) levels 1 or 2. By being qualified to provide services under these providers, Tsong Law Group provides an avenue for some clients to find discounts on their legal fees. Whether you’re navigating surrogacy, adoption, or other family-building options, we’re here to help you every step of the way. How to check your eligibility If you’re interested in legal insurance, your first step should be to check with your employer. Many large employers offer legal insurance as part of their benefits package. Ask your Human Resources department if legal insurance is available to you and whether it covers surrogacy and related legal matters. Other workplace legal benefits In addition to the main legal insurance providers, some workplaces offer other options like Workplace Options, a provider that partners with employers to offer legal services, and CLC (Certified Legal Counsel), which is another resource that some employers provide access to for various legal needs. These options can sometimes extend to cover surrogacy-related legal matters, so it’s worth exploring all the avenues available through your employer. Accessing Tsong Law Group with your plan Once you have your insurance or plan in place, the next step is to open up a case or matter, and you can then search for our name as a provider and request our service. We can assist you whether or not we are local to you, as long as you or your donor or your surrogate lives in one of our licensed states: California, Arizona, New York, Oklahoma, Illinois, and Washington. Conclusion: The legal aspects of surrogacy, gamete donation, and adoption don’t have to be overwhelming. With the right legal insurance plan, you can have peace of mind knowing that your legal needs are covered, allowing you to focus on the joy of building your family. At Tsong Law Group, our experienced team of surrogacy, adoption and egg donation attorneys is here to guide you. We are licensed in California, Washington, New York, Arizona, Illinois, and Oklahoma. Contact us today to learn more about how we can support you on your surrogacy journey.

Our previous blogs have discussed  three tricky provisions in a surrogacy agreement  and  what’s in a surrogacy agreement.  One major part of a surrogacy agreement are the sections regarding the surrogate's behavior during pregnancy. These activity restrictions aim to protect the developing fetus, but they also raise important legal and ethical questions about bodily autonomy and enforceability. This article explores common activity restrictions in surrogacy agreements, their legal status, and best practices for intended parents and surrogates.  Common Activity Restrictions in Surrogacy Agreements  Surrogacy agreements typically include restrictions that fall into several categories:  Health and Medical Care  The duty to attend medical appointments and take medication as instructed by the physician;  Agreeing to certain recommended medical procedures such as prenatal diagnostic testing, induction and cesarean sections;  Obtaining permission from the physician before taking over-the-counter medication, alternative medicine, massage, acupuncture, or chiropractic procedures.  Lifestyle Choices  Restrictions on travel, especially by plane and in later pregnancy stages  Prohibitions on alcohol, tobacco, recreational drugs, and certain medications  Dietary restrictions (e.g., avoiding raw fish or meats, unpasteurized dairy, high-mercury fish)  Limitations on high-risk physical activities like strenuous sports or dangerous activities;  Environmental Considerations  Restrictions on exposure to certain chemicals or environmental hazards (x-rays)  Limitations on occupational risks (e.g., heavy lifting, exposure to toxins)  Guidelines regarding pet contact (particularly cat litter boxes due to toxoplasmosis risk)  Legal Enforceability of Restrictions  The enforceability of these restrictions will be based on contract law. However, some states such as Washington  or Texas state will allow a surrogate to make decisions to protect her health or the health of the fetus.   Remedies for Breach  Even when activity restrictions are included in an agreement, the available remedies for breach may be limited as:  It may be difficult or impossible to discover the breach because the intended parents cannot reasonably monitor what the surrogate eats or does.  The contract may state that if the surrogate does not cure a breach, payments can be stopped. Some attorneys and surrogates will not agree to this provision.  Termination of the contract usually will not be possible once pregnancy is established.  Surrogate's Bodily Autonomy  The surrogate retains fundamental rights to bodily autonomy which may not be contracted away. Courts will be reluctant to compel specific performance for activities or medical treatments.  Best Practices for Activity Restrictions  Based on legal precedent and ethical considerations, we recommend the following approaches:  For Intended Parents  Focus on medically-supported restrictions rather than personal preferences.  Discuss expectations openly during the matching process.  Be reasonable in your requests; no one likes to be micromanaged or mistrusted.  Include updates and communication protocols so you can be informed about the progress of pregnancy and when there are important medical decisions.  For Surrogates  Be honest and open about your willingness to accommodate lifestyle modifications  Discuss potential concerns before signing the agreement with your family and attorney.  Don’t sign unless you understand your rights and the potential consequences of non-compliance under the contract.  Maintain open communication about any difficulties following or understanding restrictions.  For All Parties  Work with experienced surrogacy lawyers familiar with your jurisdiction.  Consider mediation through a mediator or a mental health professional for resolving contract disputes.  Emphasize communication and cooperation rather than punitive measures  Work on building and extending trust throughout the relationship  Conclusion  Activity restrictions  in surrogacy agreements are an important aspect of the contract process but must be balanced against the surrogate's individual rights of privacy and right to make decisions about her body. The most successful surrogacy arrangements are those based on mutual respect, clear communication, and reasonable expectations. As legal enforceability of these provisions may not be guaranteed, the spirit of cooperation between parties will be the best measure of in the arrangement.  If you're considering becoming a surrogate or intended parent, consulting with an experienced reproductive attorney is essential to navigating these complex issues. Tsong Law Group specializes in surrogacy and gamete donation law and can provide personalized guidance for your specific situation. Contact us now . Disclaimer: This article provides general information and should not be construed as legal advice. Laws regarding surrogacy vary by jurisdiction and change over time. Please consult with a qualified attorney for advice specific to your situation.

Why same-sex couples should consider a second parent adoption if you or your partner conceived a child through sperm or embryo donation. In 2014, the California legislature added  Family Code section 9000.5  which simplifies a stepparent adoption in cases where one spouse gave birth to a child during a marriage or domestic partnership by removing the requirement of a home study or home visit prior t o the adoption. Previously, home studies costing $700 were required for all second parent adoptions which could take months to complete. The result is a “second parent” or “confirmatory” adoption which is easier than ever for lesbian couples who conceived a child during their marriage or domestic partnership. This Family Code section also applies surrogacy births where the parties were married at the time of conception but one party is not on the birth certificate. When you should consider a second parent adoption if your partner conceived a child through sperm or embryo donation: 1. If you are a same-sex couple that may move out of California in the future. One should not assume that listing both spouses on the birth certificate of the child guarantees the parent-child relationship. States are not required to recognize birth certificates, and case law finds that the birth certificate is not an official act but merely a recording of what two parents report to a county clerk.  An adoption order is an official act entitled to recognition under the Full Faith and Credit clause of the Constitution. Every state differs in its recognition of children born in a marriage, some are gender-specific to recognize only fathers of children born to their spouses as natural parents. So the parentage of same sex couples may be recognized in California but not elsewhere.  2. If you did not use a licensed physician, surgeon, sperm bank, or clinic for your sperm donation. Some women have used home do-it-yourself methods for artificial insemination; others use intercourse. In the first case, a written agreement prior to insemination needs to be in place; in the latter case, no contract between donor and mother will terminate the donor’s parental rights. In these cases, a second parent adoption should be used to ensure that the spouse of the natural mother is recognized as the parent in the adoption.  When would the lack of an adoption order cause problems? In some cases, sperm donors have sought visitation or custody rights; if the donor agreement which establishes no parental claims is not recognized in the state they seek visitation rights, they may be found to have rights as a parent . In the case of divorce, the other parent may claim that they are not responsible for child support. If the state does not recognize the surrogacy or sperm donor’s consent, then parental rights may be established in favor of the donor. A second parent adoption would terminate whatever rights might exist by virtue of the donor’s blood relationship to the child. What about for surrogacy? The Family Code also provides that for spouses or domestic partners in surrogacy where only one spouse is established through the proceeding to establish parentage or Uniform Parentage Act, the spouse is also entitled to a streamlined adoption. So spouses who end up not being on the birth certificate for surrogacy may be able to apply for a second parent adoption. Under this procedure, the spouse who is not on the judgment or birth certificate can receive an adoption order to be added as a parent on the birth certificate or delayed registration of birth if the birth certificate is foreign.  If you have questions about whether a second parent adoption is right for you, Tsong Law Group. Contact us today .

I have referred to surrogacy as one thing, but there are two types of surrogacy in California. “Traditional surrogacy” or “AI (artificial insemination) surrogacy” involves situations where the woman agrees to carry the child and also is the egg donor, and the sperm is provided by the intended father or by a donor. ( Family Code section 7960 .) “Gestational surrogacy” refers to surrogacy in which a woman who is not an intended parent agrees to gestate an embryo that is genetically unrelated to her. Gestational Surrogacy Contracts vs. Traditional Surrogacy Contracts While the California Supreme Court recognized in Johnson v. Calvert that a contract for gestational surrogacy was valid and that a gestational surrogate had no parental rights to the child after it is born, contracts for traditional surrogacy which assign parentage to an intended mother or father have been found unenforceable in California because it contradicts existing law on parentage. (See In re Marriage of Moschetta .) The surrogate carrier will be considered the natural mother of the child and she will have to consent to a stepparent adoption by the intended parent in order to relinquish her rights. Financial Accessibility and the Moschetta Court’s Observation This is unfortunate because the traditional surrogacy route is much more financially accessible to couples having difficulty conceiving than IVF, retrieving the embryo, freezing, transporting, and implanting the embryo in the womb of the gestational surrogate. The court of appeals in Moschetta observed: "Infertile couples who can afford the high-tech solution of in vitro fertilization and embryo implantation in another woman’s womb can be reasonably assured of being judged the legal parents of the child, even if the surrogate reneges on her agreement. Couples who cannot afford in-vitro fertilization and embryo implantation, or who resort to traditional surrogacy because the female does not have eggs suitable for in vitro fertilization, have no assurance their intentions will be honored in a court of law. For them and the child, biology is destiny." Legislative Gap in California Although the California legislature has defined traditional surrogacy in the Family Code, it has yet to enact law weighing in on court rulings which do not recognize traditional surrogacy. Out-of-State Traditional Surrogacy and Stepparent Adoption It can be noted that that there are a small number of states where a traditional surrogacy contract may be legally recognized. For example, Florida allows pre-adoption contracts in cases of artificial insemination without reference to traditional surrogacy. However, if you bring a child conceived through traditional surrogacy born in another state to California without an adoption order that can be recognized by California courts, you may run the risk of the traditional surrogate asserting or holding parental rights. As I wrote in the prior blog post “ Couples should consider stepparent adoption for children conceived by ART ” a finalized stepparent adoption can eliminate any doubts as to parentage of a child conceived through artificial insemination where the natural mother is not an intended parent. If you have had a child conceived through traditional surrogacy, schedule an consultation with my office at Adoption California to determine if a stepparent adoption is your next step.

The Affordable Care Act (ACA) is a federal law that provides health insurance coverage to millions of Americans. Open enrollment is the period during which individuals can enroll in or change their health insurance plans. It is important for surrogacy journeys because it allows surrogates to choose insurance policies that cover surrogacy.  Under the ACA, any U.S. citizen or permanent resident can apply for major medical insurance as long as they do so during open enrollment, and premiums are the same no matter what pre-existing conditions they have. Surrogates, even if pregnant from their surrogacy, can sign up for this kind of insurance during their state’s open enrollment period. If you learn that your health insurance or maternity coverage does not include a surrogate pregnancy, look for an Affordable Care Act (ACA) plan on the marketplace during open enrollment.  ACA open enrollment is a crucial period during surrogacy journeys because it provides surrogates and intended parents the opportunity to choose a plan that will cover a surrogate pregnancy, and this may only be available during open enrollment. It's important to begin research as soon as possible to determine if the surrogate's current plan is surrogacy-friendly and if the ACA plan alternatives are friendly or friendlier. As we discussed in another article, some plans have  liens  that should be avoided, as they will raise the cost of the surrogacy journey.  Depending on your county of residence, the ACA marketplace may not provide any surrogate-friendly plans. However, there are still some options available. For example, Lloyd's of London is a company that provides insurance coverage for surrogacy pregnancy.  The following a chart of the state deadlines for open enrollment.   States Federal Open Enrollment Period for 2025 Plans Alabama November 1, 2024 – December 15, 2024 (Coverage starts on January 1) December 16, 2024 - January 15, 2025 (Coverage starts on February 1) Alaska November 1, 2024 – December 15, 2024 (Coverage starts on January 1) December 16, 2024 - January 15, 2025 (Coverage starts on February 1) Arizona November 1, 2024 – December 15, 2024 (Coverage starts on January 1) December 16, 2024 - January 15, 2025 (Coverage starts on February 1) Arkansas November 1, 2024 – December 15, 2024 (Coverage starts on January 1) December 16, 2024 - January 15, 2025 (Coverage starts on February 1) Delaware November 1, 2024 – December 15, 2024 (Coverage starts on January 1) December 16, 2024 - January 15, 2025 (Coverage starts on February 1) Florida November 1, 2024 – December 15, 2024 (Coverage starts on January 1) December 16, 2024 - January 15, 2025 (Coverage starts on February 1) Georgia November 1, 2024 – December 15, 2024 (Coverage starts on January 1) December 16, 2024 - January 15, 2025 (Coverage starts on February 1) Hawaii November 1, 2024 – December 15, 2024 (Coverage starts on January 1) December 16, 2024 - January 15, 2025 (Coverage starts on February 1) Illinois November 1, 2024 – January 15, 2025 Indiana November 1, 2024 – December 15, 2024 (Coverage starts on January 1) December 16, 2024 - January 15, 2025 (Coverage starts on February 1) Iowa November 1, 2024 – December 15, 2024 (Coverage starts on January 1) December 16, 2024 - January 15, 2025 (Coverage starts on February 1) Kansas November 1, 2024 – December 15, 2024 (Coverage starts on January 1) December 16, 2024 - January 15, 2025 (Coverage starts on February 1) Louisiana November 1, 2024 – December 15, 2024 (Coverage starts on January 1) December 16, 2024 - January 15, 2025 (Coverage starts on February 1) Michigan November 1, 2024 – December 15, 2024 (Coverage starts on January 1) December 16, 2024 - January 15, 2025 (Coverage starts on February 1) Mississippi November 1, 2024 – December 15, 2024 (Coverage starts on January 1) December 16, 2024 - January 15, 2025 (Coverage starts on February 1) Missouri November 1, 2024 – December 15, 2024 (Coverage starts on January 1) December 16, 2024 - January 15, 2025 (Coverage starts on February 1) Montana November 1, 2024 – December 15, 2024 (Coverage starts on January 1) December 16, 2024 - January 15, 2025 (Coverage starts on February 1) Nebraska November 1, 2024 – December 15, 2024 (Coverage starts on January 1) December 16, 2024 - January 15, 2025 (Coverage starts on February 1) New Hampshire November 1, 2024 – December 15, 2024 (Coverage starts on January 1) December 16, 2024 - January 15, 2025 (Coverage starts on February 1) North Carolina November 1, 2024 – December 15, 2024 (Coverage starts on January 1) December 16, 2024 - January 15, 2025 (Coverage starts on February 1) North Dakota November 1, 2024 – December 15, 2024 (Coverage starts on January 1) December 16, 2024 - January 15, 2025 (Coverage starts on February 1) Ohio November 1, 2024 – December 15, 2024 (Coverage starts on January 1) December 16, 2024 - January 15, 2025 (Coverage starts on February 1) Oklahoma November 1, 2024 – December 15, 2024 (Coverage starts on January 1) December 16, 2024 - January 15, 2025 (Coverage starts on February 1) Oregon November 1, 2024 – January 15, 2025 South Carolina November 1, 2024 – December 15, 2024 (Coverage starts on January 1) December 16, 2024 - January 15, 2025 (Coverage starts on February 1) South Dakota November 1, 2024 – December 15, 2024 (Coverage starts on January 1) December 16, 2024 - January 15, 2025 (Coverage starts on February 1) Tennessee November 1, 2024 – December 15, 2024 (Coverage starts on January 1) December 16, 2024 - January 15, 2025 (Coverage starts on February 1) Texas November 1, 2024 – December 15, 2024 (Coverage starts on January 1) December 16, 2024 - January 15, 2025 (Coverage starts on February 1) Utah November 1, 2024 – December 15, 2024 (Coverage starts on January 1) December 16, 2024 - January 15, 2025 (Coverage starts on February 1) Virginia November 1, 2024 – January 15, 2025 West Virginia November 1, 2024 – December 15, 2024 (Coverage starts on January 1) December 16, 2024 - January 15, 2025 (Coverage starts on February 1) Wisconsin November 1, 2024 – December 15, 2024 (Coverage starts on January 1) December 16, 2024 - January 15, 2025 (Coverage starts on February 1) Wyoming November 1, 2024 – December 15, 2024 (Coverage starts on January 1) December 16, 2024 - January 15, 2025 (Coverage starts on February 1) State State Open Enrollment Period for 2025 Plans California November 1, 2024 – January 31, 2025 Colorado November 1, 2024 – January 15, 2025 Connecticut November 1, 2024 – December 15, 2024 (Coverage starts on January 1) December 16, 2024 - January 15, 2025 (Coverage starts on February 1) Idaho October 15, 2024 – December 15, 2024 Kentucky November 1, 2024 – December 15, 2024 (Coverage starts on January 1) December 16, 2024 - January 15, 2025 (Coverage starts on February 1) Maine November 1, 2024 – December 15, 2024 (Coverage starts on January 1) December 16, 2024 - January 15, 2025 (Coverage starts on February 1) Maryland November 1, 2024 – December 31, 2024 (Coverage starts on January 1) January 1, 2025 - January 15, 2025 (Coverage starts on February 1) Massachusetts November 1, 2024 – January 23, 2025 Minnesota November 1, 2024 – December 18, 2024 (Coverage starts on January 1) December 19, 2024 - January 15, 2025 (Coverage starts on February 1) Nevada November 1, 2024 – January 15, 2025 New Jersey November 1, 2024 – January 31, 2025 New Mexico November 1, 2024 – January 15, 2025 New York November 1,6 2024 – January 31, 2025 Pennsylvania November 1, 2024 – December 15, 2024 (Coverage starts on January 1) December 16, 2024 - January 15, 2025 (Coverage starts on February 1) Rhode Island November 1, 2024 – December 31, 2024 (Coverage starts on January 1) January 1, 2025 - January 15, 2025 (Coverage starts on February 1) Vermont November 1, 2024 – January 15, 2025 Washington DC November 1, 2024 – January 31, 2025 Washington November 1, 2024 – January 15, 2025 Conclusion In conclusion, Affordable Care Act open enrollment is important in many surrogacy journeys because it allows parties to find insurance policies for surrogates that cover their pregnancy and contain no surrogacy exclusions or liens. If you are a surrogate or intended parent, make sure the surrogate's insurance coverage has been reviewed by a professional and sign up for major medical insurance during open enrollment to ensure she is covered for a surrogacy pregnancy if her insurance does not cover surrogacy If you are committed to ensuring that your surrogacy journey aligns seamlessly with legal, financial, and healthcare aspects, don't hesitate to reach out to us. Our expert team, licensed in CA, NY, IL, WA, AZ, OK, is ready to provide the legal guidance and support you need. Contact us now.

In October 2024, Italy made international headlines by passing one of the strictest surrogacy laws in the Western world. This controversial law not only bans surrogacy within Italy but also prohibits Italians from seeking surrogacy abroad. It classifies surrogacy as a universal crime that transcends borders, equating it with serious offenses like terrorism or genocide. The broad scope of this law extends beyond surrogates and intended parents, affecting Italian citizens employed as doctors, nurses, or in other roles related to surrogacy at foreign clinics. The creation and implementation of this law sparked heated debates and concerns across Italy and abroad, particularly within the LGBTQ+ community, reproductive rights advocates, and parts of the Italian medical and legal community.  Under this new law, Italian citizens involved in surrogacy abroad could face severe penalties, including up to two years in prison and heavy fines. Thelaw aims to discourage surrogacy entirely, believing that it exploits and commodifies the female’s bodies. However, many critics argue that the law is not driven by medical or ethical concerns, but rather is a political power move done by Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni to please her supporters and the conservative political base.   We sat down with German and Italian lawyer   Alexander Schuster  to find out more about the law. Schuster first studied surrogacy as an academic when Italy’s 2004 law was enacted, and his professional experience with surrogacy grew under its enforcement. The 2004 Law on Assisted Reproductive Techniques takes a very restrictive approach: using the term "procreation" rather than "human reproduction". It banned donor insemination, a restriction that was later declared unconstitutional in 2014. It also required  women to only transfer fresh embryos , but this was also found unconstitutional in 2009.  It also banned any form of surrogacy, including uncompensated surrogacy, and makes it a crime punishable by up to 2 years in prison and a fine of up to 1 million euros.   Why was this law passed?   Until 2004, there was no legal framework for medically assisted reproduction. The center-right government then restricted access to heterosexual couple, married or unmarried, of reproductive age with fertility issues, excluding single individuals, homosexual couples, and donor fertilization. The law also prohibited genetic testing and screening and cryopreservation, two restrictions that were later declared unconstitutional. Advertising, facilitating surrogacy, and commercializing gametes and embryos are declared crimes, though convictions are rare. Convictions for these crimes have essentially never occurred, and the four cases that have made it to the Supreme Court on surrogacy carried out abroad have all been overturned and the couples acquitted. In order to strengthen the criminal prohibition, the Italian Parliament has recently passed a law that extends the crime of surrogacy so that it applies to any Italian citizen, even if the conduct is carried out entirely abroad. So what we see now is actually the extension of the prior 2004 law, by a new center-right government.    Who exactly is covered by the new law?  Does it affect people living outside of Italy?   It applies to any Italian citizen, regardless of domicile. It applies to all citizens who advertise, organize and carry out the surrogacy. This includes not only the intended parents and the surrogate, but also any other professional involved, such as a facilitator who holds Italian citizenship, or even if a US judge holds Italian citizenship and approves a surrogacy agreement. What happens to surrogacy journeys which were already completed legally?   Criminal law cannot be applied retroactively. Once the child is born and the agreement is fully fulfilled, the IPs and everyone else are safe.  What is happening to Italian same sex couples who used donors or surrogates?    The law is drafted in a neutral way, so that gender and sexual orientation do not play a role. However, given the negative attitude of the Italian government towards homosexual couples, their main target, they face the highest risks. A birth certificate with a mother and a father doesn't trigger an investigation in most cases. Exceptions would be a woman with an age incompatible with pregnancy or a notice from an Italian consulate that there is high suspicion (which occurs for travel and birth in Ukraine). We will see how the authorities react when they receive a birth certificate with two fathers.  What happens to surrogacy journeys abroad that are in progress? What should these intended parents do?    The bill that was passed does not make any transitional provisions. When it comes to criminal law, caution is advised. There is a risk of prosecution if a child is born after the law comes into force and the birth certificate is presented to Italian registries. I expect that the law will be enforced around the last ten days of November. There are clearly many arguments against applying it to cases where the pregnancy was already underway, but the risk of criminal proceedings remains.   How will the government know if a child born abroad is born to a surrogate?   This is a good question. Italy cannot rely on the cooperation from countries where surrogacy is not illegal. Unless the IPs make some mistake, Italy may not be able to provide evidence of the "crime" and the burden of proof is clearly on the prosecutor. However, we will have to see what happens. In the first period of implementation, I fear that some conservative judges might find and punish on the basis of probability rather than the proper standard of "probability beyond reasonable doubt.” And this approach would affect gay male couples the most.  Are there any other important things should we know about the law?   In the last 20 years, parts of the 2004 law have been struck down several times by the Constitutional Court and brought into line with fundamental rights. There are strong arguments to challenge the constitutionality of extraterritorial jurisdiction over a minor offense by Italian standards (imprisonment cannot exceed two years unless there are exceptional aggravating circumstances). But Parliament also appoints one-third of the Court's judges, and this is a highly divisive issue.  I do not expect the law to have a de facto impact on Italians living abroad, but I do expect the law to plunge Italy into a state of uncertainty, if not chaos, over the next five years. Lawyers who used to assist intended parents will have to assess the risk of their own prosecution. In about five years, we will see if this extraterritorial crime is unconstitutional and how it will be enforced. Until then, many potential families will be prevented not only from realizing their dream, but also from remedying Italy's plummeting birth rate.  Conclusion: Italy’s new surrogacy ban has provoked strong reactions both domestically and internationally, and may be a model for other countries who seek to prohibit surrogacy abroad. By extending surrogacy prohibitions beyond Italy’s borders, it threatens those who are in the middle of their surrogacy journeys, as well as for surrogacy agents, and medical and legal professionals who have Italian citizenship. Mr. Schuster indicates the courts might stop the law as they have in the past, but that is cold comfort for the intended parents pursuing surrogacy who have to risk fines and imprisonment.  For Italian intended parents considering surrogacy, it’s essential to consult a knowledgeable lawyer who can provide guidance on Italy’s new surrogacy law.  At Tsong Law Group, we are here to support our international clients every step of the way, working closely with their international counsel to follow their advice and help families make informed decisions as they pursue their dreams of parenthood. Our surrogacy attorneys, licensed in California, Washington, New York, Arizona, Illinois, and Oklahoma, are ready to assist you through every stage of the journey. Contact us today.

As legal professionals in assisted reproductive technology (ART), watching Netflix's "Joy" offered us an eye-opening reminder of how far fertility treatment has come. The film follows the efforts of scientist Robert Edwards (James Norton), physician Patrick Steptoe (Bill Nighy), and the first IVF nurse and embryologist Jean Purdy (Thomasin McKenzie), to develop from scratch IVF which led to the birth of Louise Brown in 1978 – the world's first IVF baby. In the 1970s, these researchers were essentially creating everything from scratch–from the basic medical equipment they used to, to the technique used to retrieve eggs and fertilize them, to determining the right hormone therapy. The movie details that their efforts were through trial and error with many failed attempts. The story is told from Jean Purdy’s perspective. One of the important roles Jean had was to guide the patient volunteers by administering injections, consoling them and providing moral support when a transfer failed or a pregnancy was lost. The women who took part in these trials called themselves "Ovum Club" as they volunteered knowing success was unlikely. Indeed, there were years of clinic trials before the first successful pregnancy. The film spends some time about their motivations. Uniformly, they all dream of having a baby, and even the slight chance that IVF offers is enough to give them hope. Today's fertility patients have a very different experience. While IVF still can't guarantee a baby, patients now have much more information to help them make decisions about their treatment and better chances for success. Shifting Social and Legal Landscapes One of the surprising aspects of "Joy" is the opposition these IVF pioneers faced from the media, medical institutions, and even fellow scientists. Jean feels deeply ostracized from her family and her church, and her research is compared to recently legalized but still scandalous procedure of abortion. Edwards and Steptoe operate on a shoe-string budget, unable to secure grants, and are portrayed as mad scientists in the media, with Edwards agreeing to a television debate against Nobel Prize winner James Watson (of DNA double-helix fame) in hopes of changing minds but finding that the minds of the audience are already made up. The women of “Ovum Club” had to remain secretive of their involvement for their own protection, fearing judgment and condemnation. The film reminds us that many medical breakthroughs we now consider routine once faced intense social resistance and moral condemnation. The film ends by noting that over 12 million IVF babies have been born worldwide – a testament to the vision of Edwards, Steptoe, and Purdy. Today's fertility treatment continues to advance, with new technologies and techniques regularly emerging. Today's ART practices now follow written guidelines issued by the professional organization ASRM, and in third party reproduction, many surrogacy agencies and lawyers are guided by ASRM and other ethical organizations, SEEDS, and AAAA. Nevertheless, we see today that the right to pursue fertility treatment could be threatened in the future by new embryonic personhood laws or regulations on IVF like those tried in Italy. A Personal Note While watching "Joy," we were struck by how the core mission of fertility treatment remains unchanged: helping people fulfill their dreams of building families. This film captures both the scientific breakthrough and the deeply personal aspects of fertility treatment. When we see Jean take the Ovum Club on a retreat or console a patient who has a miscarriage or can no longer continue with treatment after aging out of eligibility, we are reminded of the role agencies and mental health professionals play in third party reproduction, whether it is boosting the morale of surrogates with retreats and gatherings, or comforting their intended parents and surrogates in the event of fetal loss. The film also beautifully portrays the dedication of medical professionals who commit themselves to helping make parenthood possible. For those considering fertility treatment, watching "Joy" can help put modern procedures into perspective. While today's methods are far more advanced, the film reminds us that behind every medical advancement are real people - both the professionals pushing boundaries and hopeful volunteers. It is a tough business, one where some clients experience loss, and others joy, but the joy, or the hope of joy, that motivates us to keep going. Joy is currently streaming on Netflix. At just under two hours, it’s a compelling watch for anyone interested in the groundbreaking story behind the world's first test-tube baby. Tsong Law Group is dedicated to guiding you through the legal aspects of assisted reproductive technology (ART). Inspired by the advancements highlighted in Netflix's "Joy," we are here to support you in building your family dreams while addressing the changing legal landscape. Contact us today to discuss how we can assist with your fertility journey.