Surrogacy Bill Reaches a Key Point in Long Gestation Period : Legislation: Assembly panel will discuss and possibly vote today on a proposal that would make California the first state to regulate birth contracts.

A controversial bill that would make California the first state to regulate contracts with surrogate mothers is gaining momentum in the Legislature and will be considered today by a key Assembly committee.

Inspired by the Orange County case of surrogate Anna L. Johnson, whose custody dispute with Mark and Crispina Calvert has been appealed to the state Supreme Court, the proposal seeks to catch up with the phenomenon of infertile couples paying women to provide them with children--particularly through in-vitro technology.

The bill making its way through the Legislature would require surrogates to be at least 21, to have had at least one child and to receive psychological counseling before and after giving birth.

Also, the bill would exempt money paid to surrogates from current law that makes it a felony to sell or pay for the custody of a human being. It would not require a surrogate to be married or to seek the consent of her husband if she has one.

A particularly divisive aspect of the bill is that it distinguishes between genetic surrogates, who are artificially inseminated, and gestational surrogates, sometimes called “womb mothers,” who carry a donated ovum to term and have no genetic link with the baby.

Under the proposal, babies of gestational surrogates, such as Johnson’s, would automatically belong to the intended parents, while those of genetic surrogates would need to be adopted. Similarly, gestational surrogates would be held to their contracts, while the genetic surrogates would be allowed to challenge for custody later if they change their minds.

In custody disputes, judges would be directed to decide “in the best interests of the child.” The court would represent the child.

Proponents say the bill has been quietly gaining momentum since it was introduced in April and is getting some public attention now that it is well along the legislative process.

Today, the Assembly Judiciary Committee will hear and possibly vote on the Alternative Reproduction Act, SB 937. The act was introduced by state Sen. Diane Watson (D-Los Angeles), passed the Senate Judiciary Committee, then was sent to its opposite-number panel in the Assembly.

If the Assembly panel passes the measure, the act will receive a hearing on the Assembly floor, followed by a vote. If passed, the act will return to the Senate and, if approved on the floor, move to governor’s office for approval or veto.

As thousands of infertile couples have sought the services of surrogate mothers in recent years, virtually every state has considered legislation to regulate the practice. California has considered a variety of bills in the past 10 years.

While surrogacy is not illegal in other states, California would be the “first that creates a regulatory structure for paid surrogacy,” said Lori Andrews, a research fellow at the American Bar Foundation in Chicago. “Nobody has considered as comprehensive a legislative scheme as California has, nor done as much to develop a consensus.”

Orange County lawyer Andrew John Guilford, past president of the Orange County Bar Assn., said it is time for the Legislature to act.

“Major surrogacy cases have come up in Orange County,” he said. “Our judiciary has specifically asked the Legislature to act on this important issue.”

The bill, added Guilford, a supporter of the proposal, “gives the Legislature a chance to be pro-choice and pro-life. It’s pro-life because it presents a baby to a couple who are very much desiring a baby. It’s pro-choice because it gives the surrogate parent and the other parents a chance to contract among themselves and decide what’s best for them.”

Nevertheless, the bill’s foes include a formidable if unlikely coalition of Roman Catholics, evangelicals, feminists and the ACLU, who oppose the law for reasons ranging from sanctity of procreation to allegations of selling babies.

Kate Sproul, legislative advocate for the state chapter of the National Organization for Women, said the group is not opposed to regulating surrogacy but objects to distinguishing between gestational and genetic surrogates.

“The process of carrying a fetus, whether or not the egg is your egg, gives the surrogate mother potential rights,” she said. “The major right is a grace period in which she could change her mind.”

On the other hand, the California Commission on the Status of Women supports the bill because “surrogacy today is a reality,” said Pat Towner, executive director. “We can hide our heads and decide it’s not around, but it is around. Our feeling is, while it’s not the best bill, at least it’s a good first start to regulate what has not been regulated.”

The vast majority of surrogacy arrangements are concluded happily with no problems. The Los Angeles-based Center for Surrogate Parenting estimates that just 16 of 5,000 contracts nationally have ever been contested. There are roughly 200 surrogate births in California each year.

Orange County judges have decided two high-profile surrogate disputes in recent years.

Johnson, the surrogate who produced a child from the egg and sperm of the Calverts, was denied custody after a court battle. However, Elvira Jordan, a genetic surrogate who was artificially inseminated, won some parental rights from a divorcing couple.

Under other provisions of the bill, the intended parents:

* Would be required to pay for the surrogate’s legal advice and health services throughout the pregnancy. The surrogate could choose the providers.

* Would pay for all services, although the surrogate could choose her providers and control her medical treatment.