Commenting on this blog is not a right.

This is my blog.

I am not obligated to post abusive, inappropriate ugly comments.

I am not obliged to justify what I do and do not post here.

I am not obliged to give anyone a platform to attack and shame intended parents for speaking out about their experiences.

I am not obliged to promote anyone's business.

It is not my responsibility to promote international surrogacy.

If as an industry professional you feel that I am a big meanie head for demanding that people who charge thousands of dollars for their services be accountable?

Surrogacy Beyond Borders Review and Complaint

Instead of addressing the very grave concerns raised by recent reports in the Mexican media about their practices, Surrogacy Beyond Borders has unfortunately chosen to attack and defame anyone brave enough to talk about this openly.   In my opinion, responsible, ethical providers have the ability to confront criticism honestly, are transparent about what mistakes were made and are committed to making concrete changes to improve.

More response from Lily Frost- Markowitz and Surrogacy Beyond Borders

International Surrogacy Risks/ Danger of International Surrogacy: Eleven months.

Eleven months ago tomorrow our long awaited, much loved twins arrived.

Eleven months ago our hearts filled with joy and then shattered with sorrow.

People who we thought were our friends turned on us when  they realized  we were unwilling to allow them to treat the death of our son as an inconvenience to their business.

People who we mistakenly assumed would blame us for our son's death have surrounded us with love and support.

A lot has changed in the last eleven months.

Our beautiful, vivacious daughter has blossomed as the health issues related to the medical neglect of her surrogate and the consequences of her premature birth have slowly begun to resolve.    She starts every morning with a smile.   Her first word was "Yay!"   She now says, momma, daddy-ji and didi (sister).   She loves music, adores jewelry and waves to everyone we meet.  

Mr. Q has flourished in his role as big brother.   Having a little sister has helped him in ways that we never envisioned.   

I no longer feel as alone as I did in the first few months after losing Johnny.   Some incredibly wise, strong and beautiful women (I'm looking at you, JT and CR) have allowed me to rage when I needed to, cry when I needed to and have never told me to "get over" it.  

Some things remain the same:

We are just as devastated by Johnny's death as we were  the day  he died.   Perhaps even more so as the truth about his life and death has become more clear.  To anyone thinking of commenting   that it's time for us to "get over it",   I truly hope you never have are in the position to know just how wrong you are to say this to parents who have lost a child. 

We are still being threatened, harassed and defamed by people within the international surrogacy community for speaking out about the dangers that this unregulated multi-million dollar industry presents to babies, to surrogates and to intended parents.

The organization which purports itself as advocating for best practices in international surrogacy still promotes agents/agencies, facilitators and clinics with well documented and known problems.  

Despite story after story of devastated intended parents, suffering surrogates and babies put in harm's way, agents and facilitators continue to promote themselves as experts in the legal and medical  systems of countries they have only visited briefly.  

How many babies will have to die?  How many families will be left bankrupted and devastated, their dreams of a family shattered?  How many surrogates will have to  suffer immeasurably?  When will these   "surrogacy cowboys" recognize that while they may not be legally accountable for the suffering they profit from,  the reality is that they are morally and ethically complicit in it continuing.   

Lauren Hill said it best, "Never underestimate those who you scar, cause karma, karma comes back to you hard."

Surrogacy in Mexico Resource

One of the few unbiased sources on the state of surrogacy in Mexico can be found on Facebook.  This page is managed by the only person I know of who talks about surrogacy in Mexico, but who does not make money off of doing so.   A few of her recent blog posts include discussions on:

Surrogacy Beyond Borders article

Additional article on Surrogacy Beyond Borders

The articles include information on how Mexican law has been violated (commercial surrogacy in Mexico is NOT legal no matter how many times people try to play semantic games like "recatagorizing income"), allegations of surrogate mistreatment and bribery.

This page has extensive information for intended parents regarding the evolving situation in Mexico.

Families Through Surrogacy: Consumer Advocacy Group or Trade Show?

"Families Through Surrogacy is a consumer-based non-profit organization focused on bringing together surrogates, intended parents and families through surrogacy to network, share their stories and stay informed about best practices in surrogacy arrangements" 

In March 2014, I spoke at the West Coast Families Through Surrogacy Conference held in San Francisco, California.  I was also a member of the conference committee from the fall of 2013 to the summer of 2014.

I was very excited when I first joined the FTS conference committee .  I felt honored to be part of a group that promoted transparency, ethics and best practices in international surrogacy.  It wasn't very long though before  I began questioning how the conference's policy on sponsorship could be reconciled with its mission statement.   

While I understand the financial reality of doing conferences around the world, I am disheartened by the way the financial need for sponsorship appears to be overshadowing FTS's stated mission.   When I was on the committee one of the very difficult conversations we had regarded a set of sponsors who had ties to a medical tourism company currently under FBI investigation.   When I expressed concern about promoting players with a history that was at the  least problematic,  Sam responded with something along the lines of "Well they are being investigated, but they aren't indicted yet."

Surely there is a better measure of best practices than "Not yet indicted." Allowing people with long histories of questionable behavior the opportunity to promote themselves at Families through Surrogacy conferences not only makes vulnerable IPs a captive audience to providers with known issues, it undermines the credibility that the conference has with the wider surrogacy community.  Whether the committee realizes it or not, allowing someone to present at the conference is an endorsement of their services.

Unfortunately, the conference has been used by more than one provider in this manner.   Speaking at the conference legitimizes providers, allowing them to present themselves as recognized "authorities" when that is often not be the reality.  It grants them a veneer of respectability and allows them them not only a captive audience, but they can later refer to their "speaking engagement" as a way to recruit new clients.  

The year  I spoke at the West Coast Families through Surrogacy conference Kim Waters Hendrix of Complete Surrogacy Solutions also spoke.    It was very clear the conference was used as a platform  to promote her business.   This pattern was repeated later that same year in Australia, where many people complained of Kim's "grandstanding."  Kim  used the forum not only to promote her own services, but also to denigrate her competitors.

Last year, Megan Sainsbury was "banned" from the Families through Surrogacy conference in Australia.   This year, Kim Hendrix is banned while Megan is attending under the umbrella of the clinic she promotes in Mexico.  What changed during this time?  To my knowledge,  no one from Families Through Surrogacy has explained why Kim went from being actively promoted to being banned and what Meg did that resolved the issues that caused her to not be allowed at the conference one year and then allowed to return the next.

At the very least, if a concern is brought to a provider, and it's serious enough to warrant not allowing them to attend the conference,  and then they take the time and energy to resolve those issues so that you feel comfortable bringing them back, it seems like it would be in everyone's best interest to give them credit for making those changes.

If the conference wants to grant sponsorships to anyone willing to pay the fee,  in much the same way that vendors at a trade show are selected, that is clearly their prerogative.   However, it's my opinion that if you want to maintain credibility as a non profit IP focused advocacy group, "not yet indicted" and "not popular at this time" is an incredibly low standard for professional participants.

When Families through Surrogacy allows agents to abuse intended parents publicly and says nothing?  They are giving their tacit approval of the behavior.  They are in fact contributing to the climate of fear and intimidation that permeates the international surrogacy community.   When Families through Surrogacy is not transparent about how they choose sponsors, they are not modeling the transparency that intended parents should expect from ALL parties who work in this field.  

I know that I am not the first person, nor am I likely to be the last,  to bring these issues to their attention.

Consumer driven advocacy groups have a responsibility to advocate.   If they do not want to take on that responsibility then truth in advertising demands that they notify attendees that they are a trade group for agents and clinics.   This would all them to continue to provide information to consumers, but would give those intended parents the proper context for that information.

If you aren't part of the solution, you're part of the problem.  

Is this professional behavior? - by Drew

While we have always named specific people who have exhibited behavior with which we have grave concerns, it could still be possible that someone could read our blog and believe that we are against international surrogacy, and that it should be shut down.  This is not true.   Despite Johnny's death and what has transpired subsequently, without international surrogacy we would not have the delight that is our daughter.  However, we are disappointed by the sheer number of people in the international surrogacy community who seem committed to behaving in  unprofessional and/or questionable ways.

The most recent example of this:

Last night, I received this Facebook message from Catherine Moscarello, of IP Conceptions.

To put it (very) briefly, Ms Moscarello started out as a Planet Hospital employee.  Catherine and her husband seem to be the only ones to who materially benefited from its implosion.    While the rest of us lost thousands of dollars, Catherine Moscarello awalked away with a set of embryos and the entire Planet Hospital client file.  Catherine then launched IP Conceptions,  her own surrogacy facilitation business in Mexico.  In the beginning,  Catherine  consulted frequently with us as to our opinions on best practices, transparency, etc.   We wanted to believe that she had good intentions.  However,  when she began make decisions that appeared to put her interests above those of IPs  who had lost tens of thousands of dollars to Planet Hospital,  we spoke up.    On good days, she ignored the concerns we and others shared with her.  On other days, we and several other former Planet Hospital clients were viciously attacked.

Ultimately, we decided  there was no point continuing to engage with her, so we severed contact with her and considered the matter closed.

Putting aside the hubris that makes her think that we are required to publish any comment she were to write, let me point out that we have not "attacked" Megan Sainsbury.  While we have expressed disappointment at Meg's behavior towards friends of ours, we haven't made any posts that address her or her business.   I have no idea what comment Catherine is going on about.  Please keep this in mind as you read the conversation between Catherine and I.

The following is the screencap she linked me to:

 

 

And now these are my screencaps of the rest of our conversation:



Ms. Moscarello is correct that we have put things out there publicly.  If she would like to refute those things or address them, it's my understanding she has her own social media accounts that she can use to do so.  My wife has blocked Catherine on her telephone, on email,  on Facebook, has put her on ignore on BabyCenter and has repeatedly asked her to not contact us.   Despite that,  Ms. Moscarello  appears to believe she has the right to continue a barrage of unwanted and harassing contact. This does not seem like professional behavior.