Family Law - Marriage License Applications - Appearance and Affidavits
HB0095 creates a new section of the Health-General Article governing assisted reproductive treatment and informed consent. The bill defines assisted reproductive treatment broadly to include egg and sperm donation, embryo donation, intracytoplasmic sperm injection, intrauterine or intracervical insemination, and in vitro fertilization with embryo transfer. Before providing treatment, a health care provider must obtain written consent from both the donor and the recipient, keep that consent in the patient record, and use reproductive material only in a manner consistent with the donor’s informed consent.
The bill also prohibits a provider from knowingly using the provider’s own sperm or ovum in treatment without the patient’s informed consent, and bars use of donor material when the provider knows or reasonably should know it was used without consent or contrary to consent. Providers and their employees may not misrepresent the quality of reproductive material or information about a donor’s identity, genetic characteristics, or medical history. Providers must notify the recipient of misuse, misrepresentation, or error and report such incidents to the licensing board.
HB0095 would add a new statutory framework in Maryland law for consent, disclosure, recordkeeping, reporting, civil liability, and criminal penalties in assisted reproductive treatment. It creates private causes of action for patients, donors, spouses/domestic partners, and children in specified circumstances, including access to certain medical records for children born from treatment provided in violation of the bill. Remedies include treatment costs, compensatory damages, liquidated damages up to $50,000, and attorney’s fees, and the bill sets limitations periods tied to the child’s age, the treatment date, or discovery through DNA analysis. It also makes intentional or knowing use of a provider’s own sperm or ovum without informed consent a felony punishable by up to 10 years’ imprisonment and/or a fine up to $5,000.
Based on the bill text and the absence of recorded committee testimony or votes in the provided materials, the measure appears to be framed as a consumer-protection and fraud-prevention bill for fertility patients and donors. Its structure suggests a strong policy emphasis on informed consent, transparency, and accountability in assisted reproduction. No contrary public sentiment is reflected in the supplied context, but the bill’s criminal penalties and broad civil liability indicate it is likely to draw attention from fertility providers and medical professionals concerned about compliance and litigation exposure.
The main points of contention are likely to be the bill’s broad liability scheme and the scope of required consent and disclosure obligations. Fertility clinics and providers may object to the felony penalty for use of a provider’s own reproductive material without consent, the private right of action available to multiple categories of plaintiffs, and the extended filing deadlines tied to DNA discovery. Another likely issue is the requirement to disclose donor identity, genetic characteristics, and medical history, which may raise privacy, confidentiality, and operational concerns for providers and donors. Supporters would likely emphasize patient autonomy, prevention of reproductive fraud, and accountability for misuse of reproductive material.