Surrogacy just brought YouTube and Netflix star Ms. Rachel a new baby—and she’s not alone. Here’s why the business is booming
NYT Opinion:
Are Embryos Property? Human Live? Or Neither?
A summary of the article is below, including a quote by CFA Advisory Board Member Judith Hoechst Published 4/9/2025
Baby whisperer Ms. Rachel—the YouTuber-turned-Netflix-star who built a multi-million dollar empire entertaining the youngest of viewers—now has an infant of her own. The new mom, who also shares a 7-year-old son with her husband Aron, took to Instagram on Tuesday to make the announcement—and to thank her surrogate.
“I was unable to carry this pregnancy for medical reasons and we were blessed to have a surrogate who gave us the most precious gift possible,” wrote Rachel Griffin Accurso, aka Ms. Rachel. “We are now all family forever. We have immense gratitude and a deep bond. It’s been a truly beautiful experience. I’m in awe of her.”
While the exact current numbers are difficult to pinpoint, it’s safe to say the business is booming: The global surrogacy market was valued at $175.79 million in 2022 and is projected to reach $303.35 million by 2031, growing at a compound annual growth rate of 6.25% during that time. North America is the highest contributor to the market, expected to grow during the same period by 6.3%.
Commercial surrogacy is not federally regulated but left to the states, creating a patchwork of laws by which it’s allowed without restriction in 15 states, with various conditions or legal hurdles in 32, while three states (Arizona, Indiana, Nebraska) prohibit surrogacy contracts and Louisiana prohibits surrogacy altogether.
“More and more people do actually travel for surrogacy within the U.S., because there are just a lot of states with gray areas,” Jones says.
Globally, at least 10 countries ban commercial surrogacy, including Cambodia, Italy, Germany, and Spain.
Reasons behind illegality, believes surrogacy attorney Judith Hoechst—board member of Resolve: The National Infertility Association, past chair of the American Society of Reproductive Medicines, and mother to a 21-year-old son had through surrogacy—range from extreme judgment of parents who use surrogates to a “paternalistic” attitude.
“I think there’s a judgment that people just want to pay somebody to carry their baby because they don’t feel like being pregnant,” she says. “I’m going into my 15th year practicing reproductive law, I have never had one single case where somebody doesn’t want to carry their pregnancy.”
Her clients, she says, have often gone through dangerous pregnancies and are told not to try it again, or they’ve had hysterectomies—or breast cancer that makes it too risky to be exposed to the estrogen needed for IVF procedures. And about 15% of her clients are same-sex dads.
“I just came back from the third International Surrogacy Forum in Cape Town, Africa, and so much of the world is against surrogacy because they think it’s the commodification of women,” she tells Fortune. “So I think there is paternalism involved, where men think they know what’s best for women, instead of women saying, ‘I know what’s best for me.’”
A summary of the article is below, including a quote by CFA Board Member Ellen Trachman
Published 4/8/2025
The article examines the complex legal and ethical questions surrounding the status of frozen embryos, particularly in the context of divorce and custody disputes. It highlights how different jurisdictions treat embryos either as property or as potential life, leading to varying legal outcomes. The piece discusses notable cases where courts have had to decide the fate of embryos when couples separate, emphasizing the lack of consensus and the emotional toll on the parties involved.
The legal status of frozen embryos varies across jurisdictions, leading to complex and emotionally charged disputes.
Embryos as Property vs. Potential Life: Some courts treat embryos as marital property, subject to division upon divorce, while others consider them potential life, granting them special status. This dichotomy influences decisions on whether embryos can be used, donated, or destroyed without mutual consent.
Consent Agreements: Many fertility clinics require couples to sign agreements outlining the disposition of embryos in various scenarios, including separation. However, courts may or may not uphold these agreements, depending on state laws and public policy considerations.
Impact on Reproductive Rights: These legal battles raise questions about individual reproductive autonomy, especially when one party wishes to use the embryos to have a child, and the other does not. The outcomes can set precedents affecting future cases and reproductive rights broadly.
Notable Case - Sofia Vergara and Nick Loeb: The actress and her ex-fiancé engaged in a legal battle over the fate of their frozen embryos, with Loeb seeking to implant them against Vergara’s wishes. The case brought attention to the complexities of embryo custody and consent agreements.
Alabama Supreme Court Ruling: In a landmark decision, the court ruled that frozen embryos are considered children under state law. This classification could have significant implications for fertility treatments and the legal responsibilities of individuals involved.
“Embryo custody cases, as they’re sometimes termed, were typically resolved along similar lines — that parenthood should not be forced on a person who does not want it, with a few exceptions,” said Ellen Trachman, a Denver-based lawyer specializing in assisted-reproduction-related cases. “That principle was challenged in 2018, when the Arizona State Legislature passed a law requiring judges to award disputed embryos ‘to the spouse who intends to allow the in vitro human embryos to develop to birth,’ regardless of any contracts signed by both parties.”
The law was a response to a case in which a court ordered a divorced couple’s seven frozen embryos donated, per the couple’s previous agreement, even though the wife wanted to use them after her cancer treatment. Ms. Trachman expects more judges to favor the party who would like to use the embryos to attempt pregnancy now that Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization has undermined the rights to privacy and procreative autonomy protected in Roe. “The person opposing conception is probably going to be in less of a strong position, when before, it was an overwhelming position” to rule in that person’s favor, she said. A Republican legislator in Missouri proposed a similar bill this year after being petitioned by a divorced woman, Jalesia Kuenzel, who has been unable to use embryos she and her ex-husband created while married…
Why Colorado must act now to protect the right to build families | OPINION
By Kristina Shaw, CFA Chair, Mar 20, 2025 | Colorado Politics
Today, I am a busy mom, working professional and a member of three boards, including serving as chair of Colorado Fertility Advocates (CFA), a nonprofit that supports increased access to reproductive and fertility care so all Coloradans — regardless of gender, sexual orientation, race, or income — have the ability to build a family. However, just more than a decade ago, I was one of the millions of individuals — many who belong to the LGBTQ+ community, as I do — struggling with infertility. Though my wife and I knew we had to rely on donor gametes to help build our family, we did not anticipate the double whammy of facing infertility issues. Navigating both challenges created a journey that was long, expensive and emotionally taxing. And though my three healthy, beautiful and amazing children were worth every penny, every tear, and every obstacle we faced down — I cannot imagine how much harder it would have been if I had to also navigate the burdensome regulations currently in place in Colorado.
This is why I, and Colorado Fertility Advocates, support House Bill 1259. It protects access to affordable and equitable reproductive health care while also safeguarding the right for Colorado residents to build their family through donor gametes and fertility treatments, if needed. It also corrects provisions in a 2022 law that have inadvertently created barriers to donor availability.