New Jersey 2026-2027 Regular Session

New Jersey Senate Bill S4274

Introduced
5/14/26  

Caption

Establishes certain residency and domicile requirements for gestational carrier agreements executed in this State.

Summary

Senate Bill 4274 amends New Jersey’s Gestational Carrier Agreement Act to add a residency or domicile requirement for gestational carriers entering into agreements in the state. Under the bill, a gestational carrier would be considered eligible only if, at the time the agreement is signed, she is either a lawful resident of New Jersey or has been lawfully domiciled in New Jersey for at least 12 months before execution of the agreement. The bill leaves the existing eligibility requirements in place, including age, prior childbirth, medical and psychological evaluations, and independent legal counsel. The bill also restates the requirements for intended parents, who must complete a psychological evaluation and be represented by an attorney who has advised them on the agreement and its legal consequences. The measure takes effect immediately and is framed as a clarification of who may properly enter into a gestational carrier agreement in New Jersey.

Impact

This bill would amend P.L.2018, c.18, specifically section 5 of the New Jersey Gestational Carrier Agreement Act, by adding a new statutory eligibility condition tied to residency and domicile. In practice, it would limit the pool of gestational carriers who can enter enforceable agreements in New Jersey to state residents or those domiciled in the state for at least one year, while preserving the existing medical, psychological, and legal safeguards already required by law. The change would affect intended parents, gestational carriers, attorneys, and fertility/assisted reproduction arrangements governed by New Jersey law.

Sentiment

No committee transcripts or recorded votes were provided, so there is no direct evidence of support or opposition from legislative debate. Based on the bill text, the measure is presented as a technical clarification rather than a major policy overhaul, suggesting a neutral-to-supportive framing focused on eligibility standards and legal certainty. The absence of recorded controversy in the provided materials means overall sentiment cannot be assessed beyond the sponsor’s stated intent.

Contention

The main point of potential contention is the new residency/domicile requirement for gestational carriers. Supporters may view it as a way to ensure a meaningful connection to New Jersey and to clarify who may participate in agreements under state law, while opponents could argue it restricts access to surrogacy arrangements and may limit participation by out-of-state carriers or intended parents seeking to use New Jersey law. Another possible issue is whether the 12-month domicile requirement creates an unnecessary barrier compared with the existing framework, but no specific objections are documented in the provided record.

Companion Bills

NJ A4646

Same As Establishes certain residency and domicile requirements for gestational carrier agreements executed in this State.

Similar Bills

SC H4800

Prenuptial and Postnuptial Agreements

AZ HB4073

gestational surrogacy; agreements

MI SB0160

Family law: marriage and divorce; uniform premarital and marital agreements act; create. Creates new act.

NC H973

Uniform Restrictive Employment Agreement Act

NC HB973

House Bill 973

CA SB1172

Bradley-Burns Uniform Local Sales and Use Tax Law: tax sharing agreements.

NC H203

Home Warranty Act

NC HB203

House Bill 203