Summary#
This bill would stop federal courts from enforcing any part of a surrogacy contract that requires a surrogate to have an abortion at the request of an intended parent, party to the contract, or that party’s agent. It also says federal courts must still enforce any payment agreed to in a surrogacy contract even if the contract included an abortion requirement. The bill creates federal court jurisdiction over civil cases about surrogacy contracts that affect interstate or foreign commerce.
- Main change: Federal courts may not enforce clauses in surrogacy contracts that require a surrogate to get an abortion.
- Payment rule: Federal courts must enforce payment to the surrogate even if the contract tried to reduce or withhold pay because she refused an abortion.
- Federal jurisdiction: Federal courts would have original jurisdiction (power to hear) civil cases about surrogacy contracts that cross state lines or affect interstate or foreign commerce.
- Definitions included: The bill defines “abortion,” “female,” “intended parent,” “surrogacy contract,” and “surrogate mother” for these rules.
What it means for you#
- Surrogate mothers: A surrogate could rely on federal courts to refuse to enforce any contract clause that forces her to have an abortion. A federal court would still be able to order the intended parent to pay agreed compensation even if the surrogate refused an abortion.
- Intended parents: A person who plans to take custody of a child after birth could not get a federal court to force a surrogate to have an abortion under the contract. If payment was tied to compliance with an abortion clause, a federal court would still enforce the payment clause in favor of the surrogate.
- Surrogacy agencies and attorneys: Contracts that include abortion requirements would be less likely to be enforced in federal court. Parties may change how contracts are written or try to keep disputes in state court instead.
- Courts: Federal courts would handle more civil cases about surrogacy contracts that cross state lines. The bill applies to federal courts; it does not say state courts cannot enforce contract clauses.
- Medical providers: The bill does not change medical rules or criminal law. It only bars federal courts from enforcing contract terms that require an abortion. Medical decisions and state laws on abortion or coercion are not directly rewritten by this bill.
Expenses#
No publicly available information.
- The bill creates a new category of federal jurisdiction for surrogacy contract cases. This could increase federal court caseload and related administrative costs, but the bill text does not include a cost estimate.
- Parties to disputes would still have legal fees. Any change in where cases are filed (federal vs state) could shift public and private litigation costs.
- The bill does not specify new federal spending, new programs, or fee changes.
Proponents' View#
- The bill appears intended to prevent enforcement of contract terms that would force a pregnant person to have an abortion.
- A possible argument for the bill is that it protects the bodily autonomy of surrogate mothers by stopping federal courts from enforcing abortion requirements in contracts.
- The payment-enforcement clause could be seen as protecting surrogates from being denied agreed compensation if they refuse an abortion.
- Creating federal jurisdiction could be seen as a way to provide a uniform federal forum for disputes when surrogacy arrangements cross state lines.
Opponents' View#
- One concern is that the bill applies only to federal courts. It does not say whether state courts may enforce such contract clauses, so it may leave an uneven legal picture across states.
- The bill’s definition of “female” is narrow and could exclude transgender men or non-binary people who become pregnant. This may raise questions about who is covered.
- The bill does not create criminal penalties or civil remedies for coercing a surrogate into an abortion; it only limits federal court enforcement of contract terms. It is unclear how the bill would affect cases of alleged coercion under state law.
- Expanding federal jurisdiction over surrogacy contracts could increase federal caseload and lead to forum-shopping (parties trying to file in federal rather than state court).
- The bill does not explain how it interacts with existing state laws that regulate surrogacy, contracts, or abortion-related issues, so implementation could raise legal conflicts or uncertainty.