HB7293, titled the Protecting Children in Surrogacy Act, would create a new federal criminal offense prohibiting a “covered sex offender” from obtaining a child through surrogacy or entering into a surrogacy contract as an intended parent. The bill defines a covered sex offender as a person who is or has been required to register on the National Sex Offender Registry, and it sets penalties of a fine, up to 10 years in prison, or both. It also defines key terms such as surrogacy, surrogacy contract, intended parent, surrogate mother, and child, and includes a broad interstate-commerce jurisdictional hook covering travel, communications, payments, equipment, or other conduct affecting interstate or foreign commerce.
In addition to the criminal prohibition, the bill would bar federal courts from enforcing any surrogacy contract in which an intended parent is a covered sex offender. It also adds a new federal district-court jurisdiction provision for civil actions involving certain surrogacy contracts connected to the prohibited circumstances, and makes conforming amendments to the federal judicial code. The bill’s definitions are expansive and would place surrogacy arrangements involving registered sex offenders under federal scrutiny, affecting intended parents, surrogate mothers, children born through surrogacy, and the courts that might otherwise hear related disputes.
The available context shows the bill was introduced in the House and referred to the Judiciary Committee, with no recorded votes or committee transcript excerpts provided. As a result, there is no documented legislative debate in the supplied materials, but the bill’s title and structure indicate a strong protective framing focused on child safety and preventing sex offenders from using surrogacy to obtain parental rights.
Because no discussion transcript or vote history is included, there is no direct evidence of opposition or amendment activity in the provided record. Potential points of contention, based on the text itself, would likely include the breadth of the sex-offender definition, the federalization of surrogacy regulation, the use of a broad commerce clause jurisdictional basis, and the bill’s definition of “female” in the surrogacy provisions. These features could raise concerns among surrogacy advocates, family-law practitioners, civil-liberties groups, and others interested in reproductive rights and federal-state authority.
The bill would amend title 18 of the U.S. Code to add a new federal crime related to surrogacy involving registered sex offenders, and it would amend title 28 to give federal district courts original jurisdiction over certain civil actions involving surrogacy contracts in the covered circumstances. It would also prevent federal courts from enforcing surrogacy contracts where the intended parent is a covered sex offender. In practical terms, the bill would affect criminal enforcement, contract enforceability, and federal court jurisdiction in surrogacy-related matters, while leaving broader state surrogacy laws in place but potentially preempting or limiting their operation in cases involving covered sex offenders.
The bill’s overall tone is protective and punitive, aiming to prevent registered sex offenders from obtaining children through surrogacy. With no committee transcript or vote record provided, there is no measurable legislative sentiment from debate or roll call, but the bill’s introduction and referral suggest it was presented as a child-protection measure rather than a compromise proposal. The framing implies support from lawmakers prioritizing child safety and opposition likely from those concerned about overbreadth, federal intrusion into family law, or the bill’s treatment of surrogacy arrangements.
Likely points of contention include whether a blanket federal ban on surrogacy for anyone who has ever been required to register as a sex offender is too broad, whether the bill improperly federalizes an area traditionally governed by state family law, and whether the commerce-clause triggers are expansive enough to reach nearly all surrogacy arrangements. The bill’s definitions, especially the definition of “female,” may also draw criticism from advocates concerned about gender identity, reproductive rights, and the treatment of intersex or transgender individuals. Supporters would likely emphasize child protection and preventing exploitation, while critics may argue the measure is overinclusive and could affect lawful surrogacy arrangements beyond the intended target group.