83 ms·
> That means, if something goes wrong the surrogates are stuck with med bills too, in addition to the legal ones. This is not true. Our contract, which was ex
by tuckerman 1y ago
> That means, if something goes wrong the surrogates are stuck with med bills too, in addition to the legal ones.
This is not true.
Our contract, which was extremely standard, made us assume all medical expenses related to the pregnancy, including any complications that could have occurred afterwards. If anything happened to her health insurance coverage we would have also had to pay for premiums for new coverage.
- bigbadfeline 1y agoGood for you, but not all contracts are like that, as is the case in the orig article. I'm not concerned about individual cases but about systemic risks.
- tuckerman 1y agoThe original comment asked what is typical, I am commenting what is typical. What you describe would be extremely atypical and I can’t imagine any lawyer representing a surrogate would allow that to stand. It’s also nearly universal for IPs to cover legal fees for the surrogate to have an independent representation. California, as an example, has laws mandating that IPs and Surrogates have separate attorneys for the process. I think most supporters of surrogacy would approve of common sense laws like that everywhere but even without them it’s very standard.
- bigbadfeline 1y ago> What you describe would be extremely atypical Well, we're commenting on an article describing such a case and there's no study telling us that it's atypical. > I can’t imagine any lawyer representing a surrogate would allow that to stand. Well, I can and I'd rather nor leave it to the imagination. I understand surrogate clients, but many of them don't seem to understand that taking a narrow, egoistical view and wanting all options available to them actually limits the pool of willing surrogates. One of the many cases where greed works against itself and needs correcting nudges from the law.