Author Archives: nancy.murphy

After discussing the controversial issue of eugenics in class and going over how it was used for negative things such as forced sterilization and genocide I was curious if there was anything happening today in regards to it. I did a quick search and found this article about sterilization being used today in an organization called “Project Prevention” in California. This organization offers drug addicts the incentive of $300 if they agree to become sterilized. The goal of this is to prevent babies from being exposed to drugs while still in the womb and to prevent the pain and hardships of having to grow up with drug addicted parents. They use advertising campaigns featuring crying babies with the slogan “Get birth control or get sterilized and we’ll pay you $300!” This project has faced a plethora of backlash for several reasons. First, many feel this is a violation of civil rights by promoting a “vicious image of the external drug addict” with no focus on the internal human being. Secondly, this organization is preying on a vulnerable and desperate population of drug addicts, who are going to be willing to do almost anything for $300. I wonder if anyone who has gotten sterilized now regrets the decision. Perhaps these drug addicts will be able to clean up their lives and in the future want children. While it’s not technically “forced” sterilization, this entire process is very reminiscent of the history of eugenics in the US and shows how this entire ideology still has support for population control.

In this article from ABC Nightline, we are introduced into a growing trend of gay Hollywood couples using surrogacy to become parents. Openly gay and now legally married celebrities such as actor Neil Patrick Harris and director Todd Holland have both opted to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars to have the perfect surrogacy experience. A popular Los Angeles based surrogacy agency “Growing Generations” says that about 75 percent of their clientele are gay couples. The cost of surrogacy at this agency runs from $125,000 to $200,000. Gay couples can often feel as if they are ‘online shopping’ for egg donors, who must create a profile to include education, ethnicity and occupation as well as a video clip of themselves for potential couples to ‘buy’ their eggs. This agency differs from most in the fact that the egg donor and the surrogate mother must be different women in a hope that the surrogate mother will not become attached to the baby since there is no biological connection. Surrogates must go through psychological screening and preparation to prove she is fit for the job and understands the consequences.  However, such a complex process is never easy, especially when insurance and two women with different roles are involved. In the case of director Todd Holland, his surrogate was carrying three viable embryos, and insurance only covered two babies. The insurance company suggested they abort one of the embryos simply to save money. However, the surrogate mother used her own insurance, which was able to pick up the remaining bill and the couple now has three healthy children. This article is interesting in showing how even something such as surrogacy has a ‘top of the line’ agency which advocates for rich and celebrity clients. I feel this article was realistic in that it showed that problems do arise and politics such as insurance coverage often try to undermine the process as a whole. It overall shows surrogacy in a positive light since gay couples are not only able to have the gift of children, but they are able to choose the egg donor and surrogate that best fits their needs.