Protecting Kids from Creeps Act
HB9131, titled the “Protecting Kids from Creeps Act,” would create a new federal criminal offense aimed at preventing sex offenders from participating in surrogacy arrangements. The bill amends chapter 110 of title 18 of the U.S. Code to make it unlawful for a surrogacy agency, or its employees, to knowingly or recklessly facilitate a surrogacy agreement involving a person who is required to register as a sex offender. It also makes it a crime for a sex offender to knowingly enter into a surrogacy agreement.
The bill sets mandatory minimum prison terms for violations: at least 10 years for reckless agency conduct, and at least 20 years for knowing agency conduct, employees who knowingly facilitate such agreements, and sex offenders who enter into them. It also provides collateral consequences for convicted agencies, including loss of 501(c)(3) tax-exempt status and ineligibility for federal grants. In addition, any surrogacy agreement made in violation of the bill would be void and unenforceable.
If enacted, the bill would add a new federal prohibition in criminal law governing surrogacy, directly affecting surrogacy agencies, their employees, and individuals classified as sex offenders under federal registration law. It would also create a civil enforcement mechanism allowing the Attorney General to seek penalties equal to the compensation involved in the prohibited conduct, and it would require state custody determinations for children born under unlawful surrogacy agreements to be made under the best-interests standard of the state where the surrogate resides, without giving effect to the invalid agreement. The bill would therefore affect both federal criminal enforcement and state family-law custody proceedings in cases involving prohibited surrogacy arrangements.
No committee transcript or vote record is available, so there is no documented floor or committee debate to gauge support or opposition. Based on the bill text and its introduction by multiple House members, the measure appears to be framed as a child-protection and public-safety bill, with an explicitly punitive approach toward sex offenders and agencies that assist them. The available context suggests a strongly supportive posture among sponsors, but no recorded legislative sentiment beyond introduction and referral.
The main points of contention are likely to be the bill’s broad criminal penalties, its mandatory minimum sentences, and its use of a recklessness standard for agencies. Critics could argue that the definition of “sex offender” is expansive because it covers anyone who is or ever was required to register, and that the bill could sweep in agencies or employees who may not know a party’s status. Another likely issue is the custody provision, which directs state courts to disregard the surrogacy agreement and decide custody under state best-interests law, potentially raising questions about federal intrusion into family law and the rights of intended parents, surrogates, and children.