Understanding gestational surrogacy in the United States: a primer for obstetricians and gynecologists

Published:January 23, 2020DOI:
      As gestational surrogacy (a process by which intended parents contract with a woman to carry a fetus that the intended parents will raise) increases across the United States, it is imperative that obstetrician/gynecologists understand the unique nuances of caring for patients who are gestational surrogates. Gestational surrogacy offers a route to parenthood for individuals and families who may otherwise have limited options. Understanding surrogacy requires multiple ethical considerations about the potential medical and psychosocial effects on gestational surrogates as well as the families built through surrogacy. There is a dearth of research on the subject, particularly in the United States and other countries that practice compensated surrogacy. Here we seek to review the process of gestational surrogacy in the United States, including the legal landscape, current trends in gestational surrogacy use, and what is known about the medical and social effects of this process on all participants. We also aim to highlight the limitations of available data and to identify topics for future research to provide optimal evidence-based and just care for these patients.

      Key Words

      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment

      Purchase one-time access:

      Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online access
      One-time access price info
      • For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
      • For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'


      Subscribe to American Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect


        • Spivack C.
        The Law of Surrogate Motherhood in the United States. The American Journal of Comparative Law. Vol 58, Supplement: Welcoming the World.
        U. S. National Reports to the XVIIIth International Congress of Comparative Law, 2010: 97-114
        • Fenton-Glynn C.
        Surrogacy: why the world needs rules for “selling” babies.
        BBC. April 26,, 2019
      1. Washington Uniform Parentage Act, Chapter 26.26A RCW.

      2. Utah Code Ann 78B-15-801.

      3. Paternity of F.T.R, Rosecky V. Schissel, 2013 WI 66, 349 Wis. 2d, 833 N.W.2d 634.

      4. Virginia Code “Status of Children of Assisted Conception” 20-156.

      5. New York Code Section 8-122.

      6. Michigan Surrogate Parenting Act MCL Section 722.851.

      7. N.M. Stat. Ann. 40-11A-801.

        • Jacobson H.
        Labor of love: gestational surrogacy and the work of making babies.
        Rutgers University Press, New Brunswick, NJ2015
        • Warnock M.
        Report of the Committee of Inquiry into Human Fertilisation and Embryology.
        Her Majesty’s Stationery Office, London1984
      8. FIGO Committee report: surrogacy.
        Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2008; 102: 312-313
        • Tanderup M.
        • Reddy S.
        • Patel T.
        • Nielsen B.B.
        Informed consent in medical decision-making in commercial gestational surrogacy: a mixed methods study in New Delhi, India.
        Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2015; 94: 465-472
        • Chhavi S.
        Once the go-to place for surrogacy, India tightens control over its baby industry.
        Public Radio International. July 4, 2018;
        • Sifris R.
        Commercial surrogacy and the human right to autonomy.
        J Law Med. 2015; 23: 365-377
        • Feiglin J.
        • Savulescu J.
        A new ethical model of commercial surrogacy arrangements for Australia.
        J Law Med. 2018; 25: 919-928
      9. International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. 1976.

        • ACOG Committee opinion no
        660: family building through gestational surrogacy.
        Obstet Gynecol. 2016; : 127e97-127e103
        • Rafique S.
        • DeCherney A.H.
        Physician responsibility when a surrogate mother breaks her contract.
        Virtual Mentor. 2014; 16: 10-16
        • Perkins K.M.
        • Boulet S.L.
        • Jamieson D.J.
        • Kissin D.M.
        • NASS Group
        Trends and outcomes of gestational surrogacy in the United States.
        Fertil Steril. 2016; 106: 435-442
        • Practice Committee of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine and Practice Committee of the Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology
        Recommendations for practices utilizing gestational carriers: a committee opinion.
        Fertil Steril. 2017; 107: e3-e10
        • Fuchs E.L.
        • Berenson A.B.
        Outcomes for gestational carriers versus traditional surrogates in the United States.
        J Womens Health (Larchmt). 2018; 27: 640-645
        • Parkinson J.
        • Tran C.
        • Nelson J.
        • Batzofin J.
        • Serafini P.
        Perinatal outcome after in-vitro fertilization-surrogacy.
        Hum Reprod. 1999; 14: 671-676
        • Muruguappan G.
        • Farland L.V.
        • Missmer S.A.
        • Correia K.F.
        • Anchan R.M.
        • Ginsburg E.S.
        Gestational carrier in assisted reproductive technology.
        Fertil Steril. 2018; 109: 420-428
        • White P.M.
        Commercialization, altruism, clinical practice: seeking explanation for similarities and differences in Californian and Canadian gestational surrogacy outcomes.
        Womens Health Issues. 2018; 28: 239-250
        • Soderstrom-Anttila V.
        • Wennerholm U.B.
        • Loft A.
        • et al.
        Surrogacy: outcomes for surrogate mothers, children and the resulting families–a systematic review.
        Hum Reprod Update. 2016; 22: 260-276
        • Woo I.
        • Hindoyan R.
        • Landay M.
        • et al.
        Perinatal outcomes after natural conception versus in vitro fertilization (IVF) in gestational surrogates: a model to evaluate IVF treatment versus maternal effects.
        Fertil Steril. 2017; 108: 993-998
        • Peters H.E.
        • Schats R.
        • Verhoeven M.O.
        • et al.
        Gestational surrogacy: results of 10 years of experience in the Netherlands.
        Reprod Biomed Online. 2018; 37: 725-731
        • Jadva V.
        • Murray C.
        • Lycett E.
        • MacCallum F.
        • Golombok S.
        Surrogacy: the experiences of surrogate mothers.
        Hum Reprod. 2003; 18: 2196-2204
        • Jadva V.
        • Imrie S.
        • Golombok S.
        Surrogate mothers 10 years on: a longitudinal study of psychological well-being and relationships with the parents and child.
        Hum Reprod. 2015; 30: 373-379
        • Yee S.
        • Goodman C.V.
        • Librach C.L.
        Determinants of gestational surrogates’ satisfaction in relation to the characteristics of surrogacy cases.
        Reprod Biomed Online. 2019; 39: 249-261
        • MacCallum F.
        • Lycett E.
        • Murray C.
        • Jadva V.
        • Golombok S.
        Surrogacy: the experience of commissioning couples.
        Hum Reprod. 2003; 18: 1334-1342
        • Jadva V.
        • Blake L.
        • Casey P.
        • Golombok S.
        Surrogacy families 10 years on: relationship with the surrogate, decisions over disclosure and children’s understanding of their surrogacy origins.
        Hum Reprod. 2012; 27: 3008-3014
        • Berend Z.
        The online world of surrogacy.
        Berghann Books, New York2016