Pride Angel

There are many ways my family has an advantage over the regular two-parent model. That extra pair of hands, for one thing, that makes a massive difference, particularly in the foggy, newborn days. But it also throws up a number of problems that, while not absent in other families, can feel more acute in ours. Specifically, I'm thinking about the issue of control.

Parents who live together may not always agree on every aspect of raising their kids but, somehow, they have to find a way to compromise and put on a united front for their children. The rules their kids live by are the "house rules". There might be small differences – Dad lets us have a second bowl of ice cream, Mum helps with our homework, that sort of thing – but, essentially, there's one way of doing things; one style of parenting.

For us, it's not so clear. Our children are growing up, much like the children of divorced parents, with two homes and, in many ways, two different ways of doing things. Catherine, for example, is one of life's organisers and needs to know what she's going to be doing and how her day will go. She does a lot of structured activities with the kids – swimming lessons, baby gym, play dates etc. Cam and I, on the other hand, tend to take a much looser approach. The kids have a daily routine with us, but there is plenty of space for just pottering about, watching telly or kicking around the park. I know that Catherine sometimes finds our laissez-faire approach frustrating, just as I think she sometimes over-organises. If we lived together all the time, we would doubtless find a balance, but because we don't, what happens is that the kids have two homes with somewhat different parenting styles.

Does it matter? For the children, I would say not. First, kids are incredibly adaptable and seem to have no problem understanding that different things happen in different houses (especially if that's all they have ever known). And, over the course of a week, the organised and laid-back approaches probably balance out. But for us parents, it's been an exercise in learning to cede control. It requires a huge amount of trust in the other parent; trust that, though they may do things very differently, they are still doing what's best for your child. But you learn to let go and, in time, even see the benefits of this dual approach. Interestingly, when Hal arrived and we all started living at Catherine's house, Georgia became really unsettled. She only seemed to return to her normal, sunny self when Cam and I took her back to spend the night at our place. Of course, for her living in two homes is "normal" so suddenly being in the same house all the time felt strange. Her routine had been disrupted and she didn't like it.

Some things are sacrosanct. Whichever house the kids are in, they have the same bedtime routine and discipline is consistent. It's important that there is never a suggestion that they can get away with behaviour with one parent that would be unacceptable with the others.

As always, our family works first and foremost because we talk a lot and listen to each other. That is the golden rule, and the first thing I say to people who are considering entering an arrangement like ours. You won't always agree on everything, but it's how you handle it that counts. Remember that you all have the best interests of the children at heart and trust each other.

Article: 28th April 2012 www.guardian.co.uk

Read more about gay parenting and becoming a co-parent at www.prideangel.com

Amelia from Huffington Post has recently written an excellent article about the question of talking to kids about people being 'Gay'.

In some families the introduction of LBGT family members requires finesse or lengthy explanation. I don't have one of those families. After a whirlwind romance my brother Harold and his then-fiancée Jeanne, now my sister-in-law, were addressing their wedding invitations. They had a conversation that went a little like this:

Jeanne: "You have an aunt named Danny?"
Harold: "Nope, that's my uncle."
Jeanne, a little confused: "Then you have an aunt named Rich?"
Harold: "No. Wait for it. It will click."
Jeanne: "Oh! Good for them."
That's about as complicated as we get. (Although we do still tease Jeanne about it 14 years later.)

As of today, two states have "don't say gay" legislation pending: Tennessee and Missouri. One of the reasons given for these bills is that mentioning the existence of gay people in public schools will cause parents to have unwanted conversations with their children that would require them to explain "gay." The implication is that this is a conversation that is awkward, horrible, complicated, and impossible to do in an age-appropriate way.

I've never seen it that way, but I decided to call my friend Anne, whose children are the same age as mine, to ask her if she'd ever explained "gay" to her kids. In her family the conversation started because of the lesbian couple that owns and runs our local café. Their daughters knew the couple lived together (in our neighborhood), and one day their oldest daughter asked why.

"At first my husband told her it was because they were really good friends," Anne recalled. "Later I talked to him about it, because that wasn't really the truth. We then explained to the girls that they lived together because they loved each other just like Mommy and Daddy."

Nothing horrible there.

To get another opinion I called Jeanne. My nieces are in their tweens, and she might have another take on it. "I'm thinking," she said, taking a moment to collect her thoughts after I asked. "You know, I don't think we ever had a big conversation about it. Gay people have always just been a fact to them. There really was never a need. More than anything, we talk about how bullying gay people is wrong, and how important it is to stand up for your friends."

What always baffles me about those people who fight against equality "for the sake of the children" is that they always act like explaining homosexuality to kids is the same thing as explaining homosexual sex acts to them. When I asked both moms whether they had conversations about what gay sex looked like with their kids, they were both a little stunned.

"That's not age-appropriate for my kids," Anne said, "but neither is explaining the mechanics of heterosexual sex."
"We haven't," Jeanne told me, "and the girls haven't asked. But I am sure they will. One of the girls' friends came out to her recently, so that's probably on its way."
"Do you worry about it?" I asked.
"Not really. Talking about sex with a kid is always awkward and embarrassing for them. It won't be any worse or better than any other sex talk."

The truth is that explaining to children (or anyone, for that matter) what being gay means isn't difficult. It's about love and attraction. It's about whose hand someone wants to hold, or whom someone wants to ask to a dance. It's about emotion and the way people feel. It only gets complicated when adults make it complicated, when parents and other adults try to deny the parts about being gay that aren't related to which body part gets put where, when being gay is diluted to only being about sex.

And why do people feel like boiling it down to only sex? Because then they can make it bad. They can make it about "evil" acts done by "sinful" people and vilify them. It is harder to make a villain out of the women whom the kids adore and who run their favorite café and love each other so much that they want to live together and spend their lives together.

One of the many reasons the "don't say gay" laws are dangerous is that they essentially want to wipe the existence of gay people out of children's lives. But that's impossible, because some of those children are gay people. Never mentioning that some people are gay will only make those children feel isolated, alone, and wrong. It will contribute to depression and can lead to bad decisions. Just ask anyone who has lived more than half his or her life in deep self-loathing, or the woman who married the man of her dreams only to find out after the children were born that he is gay, or any of the children driven to take their own lives because they were unable to see a future in which they could be happy. Oh, wait, you can't.

As a society, we need to get our heads out of the sand and face the fact that LGBT people are a reality in all our lives. No amount of hiding or attempting to silence this fact will make it disappear, so we might as well start talking about it and keep talking about it until everyone's response is, "Oh! Good for them."

Article: 26th April 2012 www.huffingtonpost.com

Read more about gay and lesbian parenting at www.prideangel.com

Emma Brockes has written a fabulous major feature for this weekend’s Guardian Weekend magazine on same sex parenting, in which Natalie Gamble Associates are proud to be quoted. The piece tells the story of three modern same sex parent families:

Kellen and Patricia, lesbian mums from New York who have a daughter and are now expecting twins, following egg swapping IVF – Patricia is the birth mother but she carried embryos created with Kellen’s eggs.

Will Halm and Marcellin Simard, gay dads to three children age 15, 13 and 10, who pioneered surrogacy as gay dads in California, where they were the first same sex parents to be named on a birth certificate together, and where Will now represents others as a fertility lawyer.

Andrew Solomon and John Habich, gay dads to a truly alternative family structure – a son through surrogacy who they are raising together, and three more children co-parented with two different mothers.

It is a wonderful picture of the realities of modern same sex parenting, with scenarios we are increasingly dealing with for families in the UK too. All the parents involved talk vividly about the challenges and problems they have faced as gay parents – not the playground prejudice and emotional problems many might expect, but losing legal rights when crossing borders, and grappling with obstructive passport authorities. But the biggest problem of all for alternative families remains surrogacy. As Emma says in her article:

There is, in all this, one glaringly unsubtle problem, and that is surrogacy, which as a percentage affects gay men more than any other group. Commercial surrogacy is illegal in the UK, forcing many childless couples to seek help abroad. When they return, the British government is reluctant to endorse an arrangement that undermines public policy. “English law applies its own rules as to who the parents are, irrespective of what happens abroad,” says Natalie Gamble, the country’s leading fertility lawyer. “So even if you’re named as the parent on a US birth certificate, English law will say that the surrogate is the mother and if she’s married, her husband is the father.”

This can lead to some bizarre situations. In 2008, Gamble’s firm acted for a British couple who had used a surrogacy service in Ukraine. “In Ukraine, the law said they were the parents. But under English law, the Ukrainian surrogate and her husband were the parents. The systems were in direct conflict. The result was that the children had no parents and no nationality. They had no right to stay in Ukraine, and they had no passport to cross any borders. That’s the worst nightmare of international surrogacy.” Gamble persuaded the Home Office to issue the children with discretionary entry clearance, then applied to the high court for a parental order, naming the British couple as legal parents.

We have long campaigned for alternative families, both individually in court, and by arguing hard for changes to the law (including supporting the UK’s legal changes allowing gay dads and lesbian mums to be named on birth certificates together). Why do we do this? Because we believe that parents who love and cherish their children raise wonderful families, no matter what the structure.

With that in mind we want to salute, above all, what Will Halm says about his teenage daughter: “That a test tube baby, from two gay men, is a well-adjusted, smart, polished girl at 15, who is comfortable talking about her family – she is what I would like the world to see. Not the parents who are creating the child, but the children themselves.”

Article: 23rd April 2012 by Natalie Gamble Associates

Read more about gay and lesbian parenting at www.prideangel.com

Sperm Donor India: Vicky Donor a new Bollywood sperm donation film is now showing across the UK.

Talking about sex is still a cultural taboo in conservative India, but a Bollywood filmmaker is hoping to usher in change with a light-hearted take on infertility and sperm donation. 'Vicky Donor', a romantic comedy about a sought-after sperm donor at a fertility clinic, is part of a wave of recent films tackling subjects rarely addressed in Indian cinema - gay relationships, biopics on sex symbols and now sperm donation.

Indian audiences, torn between rigid social mores and the challenges of a rapidly modernising nation, have gradually accepted Bollywood films with bolder themes. But sperm donation may be pushing the limits. "Conservative families, how they will react, I don't know," said the film's director, Shoojit Sircar. "Things may change. There are chances that youngsters may tell their parents to go and watch the film."

In January, a couple's advertisement offering 20,000 rupees for the sperm of an Indian Institute of Technology (IIT) alumnus sparked an online furore. Sircar, whose 2005 film 'Yahaan' was a love story set in Kashmir, said he steered clear of adult jokes for 'Vicky Donor'. Vicky is the name of the main character.

"Sperm donation could become a little repulsive if not presented right because it is a taboo and sperm donation straight away relates to masturbation," the 43-year-old film-maker told Reuters in a phone interview from Mumbai. "The treatment is quite humorous, a very Woody Allen-ish style of humour."

Much of the dialogue in 'Vicky Donor' is sourced from real-life anecdotes, with the filmmakers taking inspiration from the doctors and patients they met while researching the movie. The trailer depicts a childless couple seeking a cricketer's sperm sample so that their offspring could play for the country and also make a lot of money. "This is a subject that we talk only in our bedrooms but infertility is a huge problem in this modern society," said Sircar.

Despite marketing gimmicks such as men dressed in sperm suits dancing at the film's music launch earlier this month, the makers of 'Vicky Donor' may find it difficult to counter the stigma attached to sperm donation. No mainstream Bollywood star, with the exception of its producer, John Abraham, features in Sircar's film. The director says he didn't even bother asking the Indian film industry's reigning heroes.

"Any star would have liked the script but they wouldn't have agreed to be a part of the film, I knew that," said Sircar. Instead, newcomer Ayushmann Khurrana, a known face on Indian television who donated sperm as part of a reality TV show task, was cast in the lead role.

"Sperm donation is something not generally discussed openly, at least no one knows about the lives of professional sperm donors in India," said film critic Utpal Borpujari. "If this film is able to give a perspective to the whole thing -- even if in a comic way -- the director will deserve kudos for bringing an important issue out in the open."

Vicky donor is screening now across the UK, including at Vue Cinema Birmingham, Odeon Cinema Trafford centre Manchester, Glasgow and Leeds-Bradford, also see it at Cineworlds across London

Article: www.ibnlive.in.com 24th April 2012

Read more about sperm donation and find your ideal sperm donor from a choice of thousands of profiles at www.prideangel.com

A sophisticated new microscope makes it possible for fertility doctors to monitor the developing fertilised egg continuously for up to five days, also making it possible for parents to watch their developing baby in video from conception.

It means any abnormal changes can be spotted and the egg discarded so only the best quality ones with the best chance of creating a healthy pregnancy are transferred to the womb. The technique has led to one in every two couples achieving a successful pregnancy, doctors said. The remarkable images show the egg dividing first into two cells, then four and so on until the developing embryo 'hatches' out of the egg and is ready to implant in the womb. Parents who successfully have a baby using the new technique can obtain a video of this "magical" moment.

Currently clinic staff have to remove the developing embyro from its incubator to look at it under a microscope and this can only be done once a day. This may miss vital mistakes and abnormal changes in the development which could jeopardise the chance of a successful pregnancy. Care, the UK's biggest private provider of fertility services, has installed the Embryoscope at its Manchester clinic. It is the first time it has been used to treat patients in Britain.

So far over 1,500 embryos from 200 patients have been monitored using the device and it has boosted pregnancy rates. With traditional monitoring one in three patients fell pregnant at Care and this has increased to one in two following Embryoscope monitoring. The first babies have been born and there are 74 other women currently pregnant after using the new technique.

Alison Campbell, Head of Embryology at Care said: “Currently, assessment of embryos in IVF is limited to brief snapshot glimpses at defined time points, usually one per day, involving removal from the incubator. "However, embryo development is a dynamic process and the use of time lapse imaging with the EmbryoScope enables the growth and activity of each stage to be observed continuously by the embryologist without removing them from incubation. “The ability to view continuous embryo growth helps us to observe abnormal development, and exclude embryos that are not ideal for implantation.

"Eggs are injected with sperm and then placed into the EmbryoScope for fertilisation and development to take place. "Images are taken every few minutes and viewed as time lapse video by the embryologists until the point of embryo transfer, usually three or five days later. The ability to study these images in a closed system allows us to more accurately select the most viable embryo for transfer into the patient. "Early assessment of this technology demonstrates that the new, valuable information is delivering improved pregnancy rates.”

Isabella Potter from Wigan is just three weeks old and was the first baby born using the technique. Her mother Gemma Potter, 27, a primary school teacher, said: “She is our little miracle. We are so happy, we have been shouting from the rooftops for three weeks.

"To see her as an embryo was so special. Up until now no parent has seen their child at that magical moment of life. "To think that Isabella, lying in my arms now, was that tiny speak when she started out, as we all are, was so precious. None of us have ever seen ourselves at the very start of life but Isabella will be able to. "We will show her the time lapse video when she older along with all the pregnancy scans."

Mrs Potter and her husband Simon, 33, a software engineer, had been trying for a baby since 2007. Mr Potter said: "Seeing the time lapse images was mindblowing." They were referred to Care Manchester and conceived Isabella on the first cycle of IVF. The treatment was funded by Ashton, Wigan & Leigh Primary Care Trust. Embryoscope monitoring is being charged at £750 per cycle and includes videos of the developing embryo that the parents can keep. A typical cycle of standard IVF treatment costs around £5,000.

Article: 20th April 2012 www.telegraph.co.uk

Read more about IVF and fertility treatment options at www.prideangel.com

Trent Arsenault’s website could easily be mistaken for an online dating profile. There, the 36-year-old Silicon Valley high-tech worker describes his appearance (blond hair, brown eyes), personality (“happy, easy going”) and hobbies (“hiking, bird watching, habitat conservation”).

But interspersed among action shots of Arsenault biking in China and scuba diving in Hawaii are snapshots of his sexual health records, genetic testing results and the 15 children he’s fathered since hanging up a shingle in 2006 as a “free sperm donor” www.trentdonor.org.

He’s part of a burgeoning online network of willing donors and would-be mothers who are bypassing the anonymity and expense of licensed sperm banks in favour of a more do-it-yourself approach to assisted conception, much to the ire of semen regulators who have decried the practice as a threat to public health.

Arsenault has been locked in a regulatory battle with the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) since 2010, when the regulator ordered him to stop making private donations unless he could meet the stringent requirements it has set out for sperm banks.

“On that logic, every man in America could be a risk to their partner,” Arsenault contends. Indeed, he claims to pose a reduced risk in comparison with men who beget children the old-fashioned way because he’s celibate, provides documentation of regular screening for sexually transmitted infections and donates via a sterile cup and syringe.

Now, Canadian proponents of free sperm donation fear the case will set a precedent for similar crackdowns by Health Canada, which has already issued two alerts about the “serious potential health risks” of the practice.

“I’m absolutely concerned,” says Sam [who requested her last name be withheld], a Toronto, Ontario–based mother who is attempting to conceive a second child using free donations from men she’s met online. She and her partner spent more than $10 000 conceiving their first child via a licensed sperm bank. “We go into it with our eyes wide open, know what our risks are and make the decision based on the information we’re provided and what our guts tell us. Ultimately, it’s no worse than going to a bar and picking someone up.”

But it’s the fact that private donors and recipients are not having sex that’s exposing them to scrutiny from regulators in Canada, the United Kingdom and the US.

Semen is regulated as a drug in Canada, unless it’s donated to a spouse or sexual partner, according to Leslie Meerburg, a media relations officer for Health Canada. As a drug, it must pass through a battery of checks under the Food and Drugs Act and “Processing and Distribution of Semen for Assisted Conception Regulations,” including a six-month quarantine period during which the sperm is frozen.

This effectively makes it impossible for individuals to donate fresh sperm privately without having sex or breaking the law, says Emily Larose, a Toronto, Ontario–based lawyer who specializes in dealing with health regulations.

Private donors who opt to do the latter could face compliance and enforcement actions, including prosecution, although “the extent to which Health Canada would take these enforcement measures is not certain,” Larose says. “I don’t know whether a friend helping out a friend would be a situation that would trigger this kind of scrutiny, [but] when people are doing it in a broader, more public sense [as they are online] they attract the regulator’s attention.”

That’s been the case in both the UK and the US, where similar restrictions on semen donation and exemptions for donations from “intimate” partners apply and www. In recent years, the UK’s Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority has given written notice to private sperm donation sites to warn that their unlicensed operation constitutes a criminal offence (www.hfea.gov.uk/1369.html).

But Arsenault’s case appears to be the first in which a regulator has targeted an individual donor for enforcement. He had already sired 10 children via artificial insemination and made some 328 donations to 46 different recipients when FDA investigators searched his home in August 2010. Three months later, he received the order to “cease manufacturing” donations there unless he could “provide adequate protections against the risk of communicable disease transmission”.

Advocates for free sperm donation argue it’s unfair to hold individuals to the same standards as sperm banks, particularly as many private donors disclose more information about their sexual health, genetics and fertility than most people require of their so-called intimate partners.

Adam [who requested his last name be withheld], a Saskatoon, Saskatchewan-based student, writes in an email that he’s taken greater precautions in preparing to become a private donor than even most recipients require. In addition to screening for sexually transmitted infections, he has undergone genetic testing, conferred with a lawyer about his responsibilities to recipients and any resulting children, and sought to determine whether there is a maximum number of children a donor may have per population. And like Arsenault, Adam abstains from sex.

Although Adam acknowledges that not all donors go to such lengths — either because of ignorance or “darker motives” — he accuses government of overreaching its authority by extending their hand into the bedrooms of private citizens. “There needs to be protection in place [for] both the parties. Having said that, ... this comes down to the old argument of the government trying to restrict what consenting adults want to do.”

Others contend the regulations force women to choose between the financial consequences of using a sperm bank and the physical and emotional risks of having sex with a stranger.

“That’s a crappy choice, and guess what? That person still wants to have a baby and they’re going to find a way,” says Beth Gardner, founder of the US-based Known Donor Registry, a site that currently connects some 5750 people interested in private donation, including Canadians. “It’s not the realm of government to decide who I’m allowed to have a baby with and how I’m going to make that happen. That’s my business.”

Current restrictions only serve to force such transactions underground, putting desperate women at a greater risk of being coerced into sex or obtaining sperm from unscrupulous donors who have foregone screening, Gardner adds.

A “much more appropriate” alternative to imposing one-size-fits-all regulations on sperm banks and individual donors alike would be to create a distinct set of guidelines on how to engage in private donation as safely as possible, she argues. That could be as simple as recognizing private donor–recipient relationships as “intimate” and therefore exempt from the regulations governing sperm donations, or the development of some form of universal checklist or consent form that sets out each party’s risks and responsibilities.

Erika Tranfield, director and cofounder of the UK-based private donation site Pride Angel, concurs. A less restrictive approach would also enable women and donors to work more closely with health professionals to carry out private donations, ensuring an additional layer of accountability while retaining the ability to “create their own rules,” she says.

Many women are attracted to private donation because it allows them to meet potential sperm donors in person, and screen for personality and other characteristics that are difficult to judge from sperm bank profiles, Tranfield says. The parties can also customize the level of contact they propose to maintain after a child is conceived, she adds. “It eliminates the longing to meet the donor when they’re older and the child is obviously able to say ‘I have a dad,’ making them no different from the kids at school.”

Arsenault has kept in touch with several of the families which were recipients of his sperm and those relationships are the basis on which he’s appealing the FDA kibosh on his activities as donor.

“The recipients and I agree we’re intimate partners,” Arsenault says, adding that the FDA doesn’t have a right to define what constitutes sexual intimacy for individuals. The FDA hasn’t yet indicated whether it will grant a hearing on his appeal but in the mean time, Arsenault says he’ll continue donating. The FDA did not respond to requests for an interview.

Article: 17th April 2012 www.cmaj.ca

John Healey MP (the Shadow Secretary of State for Health) spoke clearly and compellingly in the House of Commons this afternoon about the need for proper maternity leave and pay for mothers through surrogacy in the UK (you can watch John Healey’s speech in full here). Introducing a Ten Minute Rule motion, he told Parliament about his constituents, surrogate mother Amy Bellamy and her cousin Jane Kassim. They came to see him at his surgery having been “stunned” to discover that Jane had no legal right to maternity leave or maternity pay to care for the twin daughters Amy had carried for her after Jane was told at 15 that she could never bear children.

Natalie Gamble Associates and Surrogacy UK, are proud to have supported today’s important landmark, the first time this issue has been properly raised in Parliament. As we know so well, for parents who have struggled to build their families through surrogacy (often after a long and difficult journey of infertility), the lack of basic rights to care for their newborn baby can feel like the final insult. It makes no sense and has never been a policy decision; just a gap in the law which has not been addressed. But it is important, as the current position leaves children born through surrogacy in the UK without the legal protection afforded to other children born to their mothers or adopted.

Problems with UK surrogacy law
As well as talking about maternity rights as the urgent first step needed, John highlighted some of the wider problems with UK surrogacy law which need addressing, including:
- the parents not being named on their child’s birth certificate,
- problems dealing with the child’s medical treatment,
- delays in the court system to reassign parenthood, and
- the absolute veto the surrogate and her husband hold, no matter what is in the child’s best interests.

The UK’s surrogacy laws were designed in 1990. After 22 years we live in a much changed world, with more children born through surrogacy and a much more sophisticated understanding of families created in unusual ways. The law on surrogacy was not reviewed properly when Parliament had a chance in 2008 and is overdue for review. John drew attention to other models of surrogacy law, including pre birth orders, which have been much more successful in dealing with surrogacy arrangements in certain US States, and which the UK should look to.

What was said in Parliament?
“Unlike other mothers, Jane is entitled – having her baby through a surrogate mother – to only 13 weeks parental leave unpaid, and then only entitled to it when she and her husband have a parental order in place. That means that for mothers like Jane, they are faced with the choice of going back to work very quickly or indeed giving up their jobs entirely. Today is a day when I hope this House will take the first step in closing this legal loophole.

“As the leading lawyer in this field says: The conditions for a parental order do not place the child’s welfare first, and ultimately children born through surrogacy do not have the same protection as other children to the time to bond with their parents in the early months of life. That is from Natalie Gamble, a leading legal expert in this field and one who has conducted more cases and seen through more parental orders than any other lawyer in the country.

“There are probably around 100 babies born through surrogacy each year, but the number is growing as society is changing and science is advancing. Surely there must be a good case for Britain, like some States in the US, to have a system of pre birth orders. But the first and most important step is to secure basic maternity rights. So that mothers like Jane who have their children born through surrogates have the same rights as any other mothers who give birth themselves or indeed who adopt children.

“It is wrong that thousands of mothers who have their own babies or who adopt have a legal right to 39 weeks maternity pay and up to 52 weeks maternity leave, while others have a right to only 13 weeks parental leave unpaid. It is wrong that such parents cannot put their names on their children’s birth certificate, they cannot make decisions about medical treatment for their children until they have a formal parental order in place. It is wrong that such a legal step can be blocked completely by the surrogate mother or her husband; and wrong that it may take months, if a magistrates court is busy, to get that order in place. Above all it is wrong that mothers like Jane are denied the same basic rights to the time they need together with their newborn babies that other mothers have.

“Amy simply wanted Jane to have the same joy as a mother as she had with her own son Archie. Together they make a very powerful case for legal change. This is their campaign and I hope this House will back them today.”

What next?
The Bill proceeded unopposed and was formally listed for a second reading, although in practice it is rare for Ten Minute Rule Bills to be given sufficient Parliamentary time to become law. However, a cross party group of MPs will now meet with the Minister for Employment to press for government-led change. We will continue to support this however we can and if you want to get involved or can help with case studies, please do contact us.

Woman’s Hour today
Natalie was also interviewed on this morning’s BBC Radio 4 Woman’s Hour, following a discussion on the lack of maternity leave rules for surrogacy which Natalie contributed to back in 2009, and updating the programme on what was happening today. You can listen to Natalie on today’s Woman’s Hour here.

Article: 17th April 2012 www.nataliegambleassociates.co.uk

Read more about surrogacy law Looking for an egg donor? search hundreds of profiles at www.prideangel.com

Scientists are now using the compounds to develop a new gel they hope will increase the chance of couples conceiving naturally without the need for expensive treatments such as IVF.

Male fertility has been largely overlooked until recently with most treatments requiring women to take medication or undergo expensive and invasive procedures. Up to half of the problems suffered by couples trying to conceive, however, are due to the man's fertility.

Now research into a key aspect of male fertility - how sperm cells swim - has enabled scientists at the University of Birmingham to identify potential new treatments that can "supercharge" men's reproductive cells. The scientists have discovered chemical compounds that increase the swimming ability of sperm cells and they believe this can help to boost the number of cells capable of reaching a woman's egg.

They are now using the compounds to develop a new gel they hope will increase the chance of couples conceiving naturally without the need for expensive treatments such as IVF. Their research could also help doctors to select healthier cells for use in assisted conception like IVF and intrauterine insemination.

Dr Jackson Kirkman-Brown, a senior lecturer in reproductive biology at the University of Birmingham and director of the Centre for Human Reproductive Science in Birmingham, said: "Fertility treatments basically involve helping sperm to reach the egg.

"The majority of these involve doing something quite invasive to the woman, often even though she may be perfectly healthy. "If you can give the man's sperm a little more va-va-voom, you could help fertility in a far less invasive way and it would be far cheaper. "We now have some compounds, that are in the early stages of testing, which can make more sperm will swim through cervical mucus, which means you would get more sperm into the uterus. This should increase natural fertility."

Approximately one in six couples have difficulty conceiving and around 3.5 million people are thought to be affected in the UK. Although the majority do eventually conceive naturally, around 50,000 couples undergo fertility treatment each year. Current fertility treatments such as IVF cost thousands of pounds while requiring the woman to take powerful medication and undergo invasive procedures to extract and implant eggs.

Yet only a third of all fertility problems suffered by couples are due to women - the rest lie with the male partner or an unknown cause. There have also been some recent concerns that male infertility is increasing as studies have shown that up to a quarter of young men have poor quality semen.

Dr Kirkman-Brown and his colleagues have now extensively studied what influences the motility, or movement, of sperm cells. They have found that the most successful cells move in a specific way where they flick their tails in a whip-like motion. This motion is thought to be controlled by spikes and dips in the levels of calcium inside the cells.

They are now applying for a patent for a number of molecules that can help increase this whip-like motion with the intention of incorporating them into a gel that can be used by couples during sex to increase their chance of conceiving. The compounds have proved successful in the laboratory but have yet to be used in any kind of clinical trial.

Other recent findings by the team have revealed that sperm cells crawl rather than swim towards the uterus, which may help to doctors select the most successful cells for use in more traditional fertility treatments. Dr Kirkman-Brown said: "Sperm have to make their way through quite a difficult environment. On that scale it would be equivalent to us trying to swim through cold syrup or butter.

"Only a small number of sperm have the correct properties or ability to swim through that environment and we have found that those that can do that, swim very efficiently, with a distinct way of crawling along the walls. "If you can give them something that makes them swim better, then you can give nature a helping hand. What the compounds we are developing do is effectively switch more sperm into the right kind of motility to get through this environment. "We are still in the early stages and but it is showing a lot of promise."

Dr Allan Pacey, a senior lecturer in andrology at the University of Sheffield and chairman of the British Fertility Society, said that male fertility has made little progress in the past and so has often been overlooked as a source of new treatments. He said: "Men get a bad deal when it comes to infertility treatments. Faced with a diagnosis that their sperm quality is poor, there is sadly very little that men can do to reverse the situation.

"Years of research has failed to come up with anything to help them, so there is nothing proven that can be offered to them. In spite of this we should not give up searching for something. "It vital to carry out the necessary basic research to understand the problem, but unfortunately all too often this area is not considered a high priority for funding alongside issues such as cancer research. "Any new compound, however, would need to be shown to be effective through a proper randomised controlled trial."

Men check your fertility with our sperm count test.

Article: 15th April 2012 www.telegraph.co.uk

Texas sperm donor — Former Arlington police officer Ronnie Coleman is an eight-time Mr. Olympia winner. But he believes it was a moment of weakness when he agreed to donate sperm so a friend could have a baby.

"Wasn't nothing written down," Coleman said. "We'd been friends 14 years at the time. I never thought it would come to what it came to." Coleman said he used a California sperm bank in 2006, and made it clear he wanted only to be a donor — not a parent.

But he said he soon received demands for child support for the two surviving triplets after the sperm recipient gave birth. "I feel betrayed in a way," Coleman said.

Coleman, who has two young children with his girlfriend, said he's paid many thousands of dollars in child support payments to the other woman, along with about $400,000 in legal fees to free himself from those payments.

A California court of appeals recently ruled in his favor. We were unable to reach the woman's attorney. "I think what's happened is, medicine has advanced much faster than the law has advanced," said Arlington attorney Lauren Duffer.

She handles complicated paternity cases. Duffer said the contracts for donors should be extensive, with clear intent at every step in the process. "The main thing is medical professionals and legal professionals communicating," Duffer said.

As for Ronnie Coleman, he said the financial strain has nearly broken him. And he said he would never even consider being a sperm donor in the future.

Article: 14th April 2012 www.kens5.com

Considering donating sperm or using a known donor in the UK? read more about your legal rights.

SCIENTISTS hope to fertilise the first human egg cells grown in a lab from stem cells later this year, it emerged yesterday. The move, if successful, would mean a potentially unlimited supply of human eggs could be produced.

The breakthrough could revolutionise fertility treatment and also ease conditions associated with the menopause. Edinburgh University researchers are working with a team from Harvard Medical School to be the first to produce mature human eggs from stem cells isolated from ovarian tissue.

They will ask for a licence to try to fertilise the lab-grown egg cells to prove they are viable. If any embryos were produced they would then undergo “robust” scientific and genetic testing to determine that they are normal. Current methods mean only a small number of human egg cells are generated directly from the ovaries of women who have had hormonal stimulation.

Dr Evelyn Telfer, a reproductive biologist at Edinburgh University, said: “With every experiment you don’t know the outcome. Even if we get an egg fertilised we don’t know it will be normal. “Any positive results could mean a breakthrough for fertility treatment.”

The team hope to do the tests at the IVF unit at Edinburgh Royal Infirmary this year. Professor Jonathan Tilly, from Harvard Medical School believes the process could also reverse or delay the menopause, meaning women would be free from the health risks associated with later years.

He said: “There is a grander golden chalice here which is ageing itself. These cells may provide a way for us to tackle that tremendously important problem. “It’s very clear that keeping the ovaries working has tremendous health benefits on the ageing female body.”

Article: 12th April www.dailyrecord.co.uk

Looking for an egg donor? search hundreds of profiles here.