Italy has given the green light to criminalize surrogacy also when it is carried out abroad. In this way it has become a “universal crime”, and will be prosecuted with imprisonment from three months to two years and with fines of 600,000 to one million euros. Regarding this law, which is sparking a wide debate due to its repercussions and ethical implications, ABC has interviewed the jurist Filomena Gallo, National Secretary of the Luca Coscioni Association, an organization active internationally in the protection of civil liberties.
Gallo is known in Italy for having carried out legal campaigns capable of establishing jurisprudence both on the issue of the ‘end of life’ and on medically assisted procreation, annulling the prohibitions provided by the original law on the subject. In addition, she is a specialist in Minor Law, Family Law and Public Law, and an expert consultant at the Italian Drug Agency. In 1998 he was one of the founding members of ‘Amica cicogna’, an association of infertile couples and people who need access to reproductive techniques.
-What is your assessment of the surrogacy law?
The Varchi law [recibe el nombre de la parlamentaria promotora de la Ley] It represents a huge setback for family rights. It penalizes those who resort to surrogacy, even in countries where it is legal, without taking into account the personal and medical situations of many couples. It is a punitive law, which does not solve the needs of those who cannot have children and also affects those who are forced to seek solutions abroad.
-The Italian Prime Minister, Giorgia Meloni, following Pope Francis’ campaign on this issue, affirms that surrogacy is “inhumane” and that it is not justified from an ethical point of view.
Calling the GPA “inhuman” [gestación por otros, en sus siglas en italiano]It is a highly ideological position. Each case must be evaluated in its context. Many people who use GPA do so for deeply human and personal reasons, such as overcoming illness or infertility. Reducing the issue to an ethical judgment without considering the lives and wishes of these people is unfair and unrealistic.
-Why do many already say that it will be inapplicable and even unconstitutional?
The law will be difficult to enforce because foreign pregnancy is regulated in 66 countries and it will not be easy to obtain international cooperation to gather evidence against those who use it abroad. Furthermore, it raises questions of constitutionality, since it could violate the right to the family, enshrined in international conventions and in the Italian Constitution.
-Is it fair to prohibit surrogacy in all cases, even when there is an altruistic agreement between the surrogate mother and the future parents?
No, that’s not fair. When there is an altruistic agreement between the surrogate mother and the parents, it is a conscious and supportive choice, not commodification. But, in any case, it is not fair even when it is based on laws that provide for compensation, but which always respect the woman’s free choice. A total ban does not take into account the reality of these agreements, which are based on precise rules, on laws, that can be ethical and respectful.
-Does the ban violate the right to form a family?
Yes, the GPA ban may violate the fundamental right to form a family, recognized by the Constitution and human rights conventions. Preventing couples who, due to their health or condition, require assisted fertilization techniques, from becoming parents is an infringement of this right.
-Declaring surrogacy as a ‘universal crime’, penalizing even parents who resort to that system abroad, what legal conflict could there be with other countries?
Penalizing parents who act in accordance with the laws of other countries does not make sense and creates a legal conflict between systems. The law should focus on protecting people, not criminalizing those who try to form a family under the legitimate laws of other nations.
-With this law, what rights do children born through surrogacy have? Has the situation been taken into account?
The rights of children born through GPA have not been adequately considered. The law raises many questions about their protection and risks leaving these children in an uncertain legal situation, without adequate recognition and protection.
-Is it justified to equate surrogacy with the “commodification” of the female body?
Not in all cases. Comparing altruistic GPA to “commoditization” is misleading. In situations where women freely choose to help other couples by choice, and perhaps without any compensation, this is an act of generosity, not exploitation. The generalization is not justified.
-Given that Italy does not allow adoption for same-sex couples, how does the ban affect homosexual couples?
This ban hits homosexual couples hard, especially those formed by male couples, who in Italy do not have access to adoption. For them, GPA was often the only path to becoming parents. The ban aggravates existing discrimination and denies them the right to a family.
-Are there alternatives to this total ban?
Yes, there are alternatives. Solidarity and controlled regulation of the GPA are a viable option. Instead of banning it entirely, clear criteria could be established to ensure transparency and protection of all parties involved, including surrogate mothers and children.
-In what legal situation are those who have started the surrogacy process?
Those who have already started the GPA trip abroad find themselves in a situation of great uncertainty. Many couples are already awaiting birth or have completed crucial stages of the process, and may be forced to face long legal battles for the recognition of the rights of their children.
#Filomena #Gallo #Italian #jurist #surrogacy #law #huge #setback #family #rights
