So you're a surrogate mother. And there's a trust that's supposed to pay for everything--including your fees--until you deliver. And the company running the trust absconds with the funds. And your broke employers don't have the money to make up the difference.
What do you do?
We need a policy decision here. Are you going to allow jokes in very poor taste?
What do all poor woman do when they find themselves pregnant and don't want an abortion?
Go on government aid, and let the state go after the company/parents as dead-beats; possibly put the child up for adoption.
Megan,
I've got a question for you about the bailout. Where would be the appropriate place to ask it? Will you be doing another one of those open threads for questions?
I like how the article compares the surrogate moms to the traders at AIG. I believe that the fact that the surrogate moms are pregnant with a baby/fetus is a very significant difference... the AIG response (if you don't pay me, I quit) is the more normal response.
I applaud the surrogates for continuing with the pregnancies in the face of financial hardship. I hope they can work things out for everyone.
I don't like the implication they there should be some policy to prevent this sort of risk and some kind of bailout for those that have already found themselves in such a scenario.
Risk is part of doing business. ANY business. There is no way to eliminate (or even substantially reduce) risk without unintended consequences that ultimately are worse than the original problem.
Subsidizing this practice will surely lead to too many surrogate pregnancies.
The contract is void for non-performance. Custody of the fetus reverts to the surrogate, basically a foreclosure. She can offer a contract to deliver a surrogacy to the highest bidder on EBAY in order to recover her losses.
What's the justification for treating the genetic mothers of these fetuses any differently from the genetic fathers? When the genetic mother is actually carrying the fetus, I can see why she would have control over the pregnancy rather than the father. In this case though, the genetic mother and genetic father are in exactly the same position. So why does William Saletan seem to have greater concern for the interests of the genetic mother? I don't see much distinction between the issue Saletan raises and the conflicts between a mother who wants to abort a fetus and a father who wants to keep it.
Bear the child and give it to the nonincubating parents anyway.
Bear the child and sell to the highest bidder...uh, put it up for adoption and ask for expenses.
Keep the child and sue for child support payments. (Much more lucrative than TANF. If the couple had enough money to pay a surrogate, they are wealthy and/or high income. Cha chingggg.)
This will be a "Law and Order" episode w/in the month.
i am sure the solution involves the surrogate mother putting in some capital, the usa treasury matching, and then the balance of the trust fund to be secured by a non-recourse loan backstopped by the FDIC..........
oops wrong thread.......or is it?
AliceInWonderland or BraveNewWorld or 1984 or TheRoad??
some day, this war's gonna end.....
That's why god gave us EBAY! As you say, markets in everything.
The situation could have been prevented had the surrogate bought insurance (default swap?) in case the paying party (the genetic parents or the broker) fails to meet its obligation.