Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Incidence of surrogacy in the USA and Israel and implications on women’s health: a quantitative comparison

  • Assisted Reproduction Technologies
  • Published:
Journal of Assisted Reproduction and Genetics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

Gestational surrogacy (GS) has been researched in multiple qualitative studies. In contrast, quantitative aspects of the practice are conspicuously understudied. The present article assesses and compares the incidence of GS in the USA and Israel, two industrialized countries that have maintained active commercial surrogacy practice, for over two decades.

Method

The article is a secondary analysis of GS figures published by the Israeli Parliament’s Centre for Research and Information (2018) and by the USA’s Centers for Disease Control (2016) and related professional publications. Each dataset is analyzed in reference to the respective country, so as to devise local incidence scores that are then juxtaposed in inter-country comparison.

Results

The incidence of GS rises steeply in both countries. Though US surrogates are contracted by local and international, heterosexual and gay, and partnered and single intended parents, the relative incidence of GS is lower in the USA than in Israel, where only local heterosexual couples could contract a gestational surrogate. An exceptionally high rate of multiple births was observed in both settings, suggesting some overlooking of professional recommendations for elective single-embryo transfer.

Conclusion

GS incidence appears to resemble the ratio between the countries’ respective fertility rates. The paper underscores two main risks facing gestational surrogates: the risk of not conceiving and not being paid and the risk of carrying a multiple pregnancy, which is extremely prevalent in GS pregnancies, and sustaining the short- and long-term health complications that are more prevalent in such pregnancies.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Number of deliveries calculation: 2,341:0.307 = 7645

    DeliveriesInfants

    Singletons7645 − 2341 = 5313 ➔ 5313

    Twins + 2341 × 2 ➔4682+

    Total 9995+ ➔ possibly 14 triplets: 9995 + 14 = 10,009).

  2. The multiple birth percentage declined in the course of the years from 36% [48] in 1999–2013 to 30.7% [49] in 2010–2014.

  3. Single women gained access to domestic surrogacy only in 2018 and were therefore ineligible during the scrutinized period.

  4. (321 − 259) × 2/321 = 0.39; for the sake of clarity, we assumed that all multiple births were twins.

References

  1. Mitra S, Schicktanz S, Patel T, editors. Cross-cultural comparisons on surrogacy and egg donation: interdisciplinary perspectives from India, Germany and Israel. Cham: Springer International Publishing; 2018.

    Google Scholar 

  2. J. Sándor. Transnational surrogacy: an overview of legal and ethical issues. In Cross-cultural comparisons on surrogacy and egg donation: interdisciplinary perspectives from India, Germany and Israel., S. Mitra, S. Schicktanz, and T. Patel, Eds. Cham: Springer International Publishing, 2018, pp. 35–55.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Whittaker A. Merit and money: the situated ethics of transnational commercial surrogacy in Thailand. Int J Fem Approaches Bioeth. 2014;7(2):100–20.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Rudrappa S. Discounted life: the price of global surrogacy in India. New York and London: NYU Press; 2015.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Whittaker A. International surrogacy as disruptive industry in Southeast Asia. New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press; 2018.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Ferraretti AP, Pennings G, Gianaroli L, Natali F, Magli MC. Cross-border reproductive care: a phenomenon expressing the controversial aspects of reproductive technologies. Reprod BioMed Online. 2010;20(2):261–6.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Speier A. Reproductive travelers. Anthropol Newsl. 2017;58(1):e106–11.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Whittaker A, Speier A. ‘Cycling Overseas’: care, commodification, and stratification in Cross-border reproductive travel. Med Anthropol. 2010;29(4):363–83.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Birenbaum-Carmeli D. Thirty-five years of assisted reproductive technologies in Israel. Reprod. Biomed. Soc. Online. 2016; 2:16–23.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Gürtin ZB, Inhorn MC. Introduction: travelling for conception and the global assisted reproduction market. Reprod BioMed Online. 2011;23(5):535–7.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Pande A. Commercial surrogacy in India: Manufacturing a perfect mother-worker. Signs J Women Cult Soc. 2010;35(4):969–92.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Ragoné H. Surrogate motherhood: conception in the heart. Boulder, Col, Oxford: Westview Press; 1994.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Vora K. Life support: biocapital and the new history of outsourced labor. Minneapolis, Minnesota: University of Minnesota Press; 2015.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Twine FW. Outsourcing the womb: race, class and gestational surrogacy in a global market, Second edi. London and New York: Routledge; 2015.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Banerjee A. Race and a transnational reproductive caste system: Indian transnational surrogacy. Hypatia. 2014;29(1):113–28.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Deomampo D. Transnational reproduction: race, kinship, and commercial surrogacy in India. New York: NYU Press; 2016.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Pande A. ‘It may be her eggs but it’s my blood’: surrogates and everyday forms of kinship in India. Qual Sociol. 2009;32(4):379–97.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Bharadwaj A. Conceptions: infertility and procreative technologies in India. New York and Oxford: Berghahn Books; 2016.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Bharadwaj A. Biosociality and biocrossings: encounters with assisted conception and embryonic stem cells in India. In Biosocialities, genetics and the social sciences: making biologies and identities., S. Gibbon and C. Novas, Eds. London and New York: Routledge; 2008.

  20. Gibbon S, Novas C, editors. Biosocialities, genetics and the social sciences: making biologies and identities. London: Routledge; 2008.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Smietana M, Thompson C, Twine FW. Making and breaking families—reading queer reproductions, stratified reproduction and reproductive justice together. Reprod Biomed Soc Online. 2018;7:112–30.

    PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  22. Teman E, Berend Z. Surrogate non-motherhood: Israeli and US surrogates speak about kinship and parenthood. Anthropol Med. 2018;25(3):296–310.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Ivry T, Teman E. Pregnant metaphors and surrogate meanings: bringing the Ethnography of pregnancy and surrogacy into conversation in Israel and beyond. Med Anthropol Q. 2018;32(2):254–71.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Berend Z. The online world of surrogacy. New York and Oxford: Berghahn Books; 2016.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Jacobson H. Labor of love: gestational surrogacy and the work of making babies: Rutgers University Press; 2016.

  26. Berend Z. Handbook of gestational surrogacy: international clinical practice and policy issues. In: Sills ES, editor. The emotion work of a ‘labor of love. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2016. p. 62–9.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Teman E. Birthing a mother: the surrogate body and the pregnant self. Berkeley, Los Angeles and London: University of California Press; 2010.

    Google Scholar 

  28. van den Akker O. The importance of a genetic link in mothers commissioning a surrogate baby in the UK. Hum Reprod. 2000;15(8):1849–55.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Crawshaw M, Purewal S, van Den Akker O. Working at the margins: the views and experiences of court social workers on parental orders work in surrogacy arrangements. Br J Soc Work. 2013;43(6):1225–43.

    Google Scholar 

  30. MacCallum F, Lycett E, Murray C, Jadva V, Golombok S. Surrogacy: the experience of commissioning couples. Hum Reprod. 2003;18(6):1334–42.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Blake L, Carone N, Raffanello E, Slutsky J, Ehrhardt AA, Golombok S. Gay fathers’ motivations for and feelings about surrogacy as a path to parenthood. Hum Reprod. 2017;32(4):860–7.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  32. Golombok SE, Murray CE, et al. Fertil Steril. 2003;80(S3):50.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Golombok S, Readings J, Blake L, Casey P, Marks A, Jadva V. Families created through surrogacy: mother–child relationships and children’s psychological adjustment at age 7. Dev Psychol. 2011;47(6):1579–88.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  34. Jadva V, Blake L, Casey P, Golombok S. Surrogacy families 10 years on: relationship with the surrogate, decisions over disclosure and children’s understanding of their surrogacy origins. Hum Reprod. 2012;27(10):3008–14.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  35. Zadeh S, Ilioi EC, Jadva V, Golombok S. The perspectives of adolescents conceived using surrogacy, egg or sperm donation. Hum Reprod. 2018;33(6):1099–106.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  36. Gupta JA. Reproductive biocrossings: Indian egg donors and surrogates in the globalized fertility market. IJFAB Int J Fem Approaches to Bioeth. 2012;5(1):25–51.

    Google Scholar 

  37. Dickenson D. Property in the body: feminist perspectives. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press; 2007.

    Google Scholar 

  38. Widdows H. Border disputes across bodies: exploitation in trafficking for prostitution and egg sale for stem cell research. IJFAB Int J Fem Approaches to Bioeth. 2009;2(1):5–24.

    Google Scholar 

  39. Nahman MR. Reproductive tourism: through the anthropological reproscope. Annu Rev Anthropol. 2016;45(1):417–32.

    Google Scholar 

  40. Pande A. Wombs in labor: transnational commercial surrogacy in India. New York and Chichester: Columbia University Press; 2014.

    Google Scholar 

  41. Vora K. Potential, risk, and return in transnational indian gestational surrogacy. Curr Anthropol. 2013;54(S7):S97–S106.

    Google Scholar 

  42. Majumdar A. Conceptualizing surrogacy as work-labour: domestic labour in commercial gestational surrogacy in India. J South Asian Dev. 2018;13(2):210–27.

    Google Scholar 

  43. Gürtin ZB. Banning reproductive travel: Turkey’s ART legislation and third-party assisted reproduction. Reprod BioMed Online. 2011;23(5):555–64.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Norton W, Crawshaw M, Hudson N, Culley L, Law C. A survey of UK fertility clinics’ approach to surrogacy arrangements. Reprod BioMed Online. 2015;31(3):327–38.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Smietana M. Affective de-commodifying, economic de-kinning: surrogates’ and gay fathers’ narratives in U.S. surrogacy. Sociol Res Online. 2017;22(2):1–13.

    Google Scholar 

  46. Gugucheva M. Surrogacy in America. Cambridge: Council for Responsible Genetics (CRG); 2010.

    Google Scholar 

  47. Jacobson H. A limited market: the recruitment of gay men as surrogacy clients by the infertility industry in the USA. Reprod Biomed Soc Online. 2018;7:14–23.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  48. Perkins KM, Boulet SL, Jamieson DJ, Kissin DM. Trends and outcomes of gestational surrogacy in the United States. Fertil Steril. 2016;106(2):435–442.e2.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Perkins KM, Boulet SL, Levine AD, Jamieson DJ, Kissin DM. Differences in the utilization of gestational surrogacy between states in the U.S. Reprod Biomed Soc Online. Apr. 2018;5:1–4.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. König A. Parents on the move: German intended parents’ experiences with transnational surrogacy. In: Mitra S, Schicktanz S, Patel T, editors. Cross-cultural comparisons on surrogacy and egg donation: interdisciplinary perspectives from India, Germany and Israel. Cham: Springer International Publishing; 2018. p. 277–99.

    Google Scholar 

  51. Samama E. The Embryo Carrying Agreements (Surrogacy) Law: vision, policy and reality. Israel: Ben-Gurion University of the Negev; 2012.

  52. Shalev C. In the throes of revolution: birthing pangs of medical reproduction in Israel and beyond. In: Mitra S, Schicktanz S, Patel T, editors. Cross-cultural comparisons on surrogacy and egg Donation: interdisciplinary perspectives from India, Germany and Israel. Cham: Springer International Publishing; 2018. p. 327–49.

    Google Scholar 

  53. Nahman M. Repro-migration: lessons from the early days of cross-border migration between Israel and Romania. In: Mitra S, Schicktanz S, Patel T, editors. Cross-cultural comparisons on surrogacy and egg donation: interdisciplinary perspectives from India, Germany and Israel. Cham: Springer International Publishing; 2018. p. 351–70.

    Google Scholar 

  54. Rimon-Zarfaty N. Parochial altruism: a religion-sensitive analysis of the Israeli surrogacy and egg donation legislation. In: Mitra S, Schicktanz S, Patel T, editors. Cross-cultural comparisons on surrogacy and egg donation: interdisciplinary perspectives from India, Germany and Israel. Cham: Springer International Publishing; 2018. p. 371–93.

    Google Scholar 

  55. Dar S, Lazer T, Swanson S, Silverman J, Wasser C, Moskovtsev SI, et al. Assisted reproduction involving gestational surrogacy: an analysis of the medical, psychosocial and legal issues: experience from a large surrogacy program. Hum Reprod. 2015;30(2):345–52.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  56. White P. ‘One for sorrow, two for joy?’: American embryo transfer guideline recommendations, practices, and outcomes for gestational surrogate patients. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2017;34(4):431–43.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  57. Söderström-Anttila V, Wennerholm UB, Loft A, Pinborg A, Aittomäki K, Romundstad LB, Bergh C. Surrogacy: outcomes for surrogate mothers, children and the resulting families—a systematic review. Hum Reprod Update. 2016;22(2):260–76.

  58. Birenbaum-Carmeli D. The politics of ‘The Natural Family’ in Israel: State policy and kinship ideologies. Soc. Sci. Med. 2009; 69(7):1018–24.

    Google Scholar 

  59. Teman E. A case for restrictive regulation of surrogacy? An Indo-Israeli comparison of ethnographic studies. In: Mitra S, Schicktanz S, Patel T, editors. Cross-cultural comparisons on surrogacy and egg donation: interdisciplinary perspectives from India, Germany and Israel. Cham: Springer International Publishing; 2018. p. 57–81.

    Google Scholar 

  60. Teman E. The power of the single story: surrogacy and social media in Israel. Med Anthropol. 2019;38(3):282–94.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  61. Teman E. Surrogacy in Israel: state-controlled surrogacy as a mechanism of symbolic control. In: Sills ES, editor. Handbook of gestational surrogacy: international clinical practice and policy issues. Cambridge, United Kingdom, New York: Cambridge University Press; 2016. p. 165–73.

    Google Scholar 

  62. Almassi O. Surrogacy in Israel and abroad and its state funded cost components. Knesset, Israeli Parliament’s, Centre for Research and Information: Jerusalem; 2018.

    Google Scholar 

  63. Levine AD, Boulet SL, Berry RM, Jamieson DJ, Alberta-Sherer HB, Kissin DM. Assessing the use of assisted reproductive technology in the United States by non-United States residents. Fertil Steril. 2017;108(5):815–21.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  64. Montebruno P. Essays in economic geography: school vouchers, student riots and maternal surrogacy. The London School of Economics and Political Science (LSE). UK; 2016.

  65. Brinsden PR. Surrogacy’s past, present, and future. In: Sills ES, editor. Handbook of gestational surrogacy: international clinical practice and policy issues. Cambridge, United Kingdom; New York: Cambridge University Press; 2016. p. 1–8.

    Google Scholar 

  66. Spar DL. The baby business: how money, science, and politics drive the commerce of conception. Boston, Massachusetts: Harvard Business School Press; 2006.

    Google Scholar 

  67. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. 2014 assisted reproductive technology national summary report. Atlanta, Georgia, 2016.

  68. Israel Central Bureau of Statistics. Monthly Bulletin of Statistics—March 2019. 2012 Population Estimates, based on 2008 Census. B. Population. Table B/1. Population, by population group. 2019. [Online]. Available: https://www.cbs.gov.il/he/publications/doclib/2019/yarhon0219/b1.pdf. [Accessed: 07-Apr-2019].

  69. U.N. Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs. Demographic Yearbook. ST/ESA/STAT/SER.R/47. New York: United Nations, 2018; 2017.

    Google Scholar 

  70. Perkins KM, Boulet SL, Levine AD, Jamieson DJ, Kissin DM. State differences in gestational surrogacy, United States, 2009–2013 [13G]. Obstet Gynecol. 2016;127:62S.

    Google Scholar 

  71. U.S. Census Bureau Population Division. 2012 population estimates. Annual estimates of the resident population for selected age groups by sex for the United States, states, counties, and Puerto Rico Commonwealth and municipios: April 1, 2010 to July 1, 2012. 2014. [Online]. Available: https://factfinder.census.gov/bkmk/table/1.0/en/PEP/2012/PEPAGESEX. [Accessed: 07-Apr-2019].

  72. Agay-Shay K, Rudolf M, Rubin L, Haklai Z, Grotto I. Trends in fetal growth between 2000 to 2014 in singleton live births from Israel. Sci Rep. 2018;8(1):1089.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  73. Martin JA, Hamilton BE, Osterman MJK, Curtin SC, Matthews TJ. Births: final data for 2012. Natl Vital Stat Rep. Dec. 2013;62(9):1–68.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  74. U.N. Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs. 2013 Demographic Yearbook. Table 10. Live births by age of mother and sex of child, general and age-specific fertility rates: latest available year, 2004-2013. New York: United Nations, 2014.

  75. U.N. Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs, 2013 Demographic Yearbook. Table 4. Vital statistics summary and life expectancy at birth: 2009-2013 Aperçu des statistiques de l’état civil et de l’espérance de vie à la naissance : 2009-2013. New York: United Nations, 2014.

  76. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Women’s Health Care Physicians. Multiple Pregnancy. 2019. [Online]. Available: https://www.acog.org/Patients/FAQs/Multiple-Pregnancy?IsMobileSet=false#risk. [Accessed: 16-Jul-2019].

  77. Stanford Children’s Health. Complications of multiple pregnancy. [Online]. Available: https://www.stanfordchildrens.org/en/topic/default?id=complications-of-multiple-pregnancy-85-P08021&sid=. [Accessed: 16-Jul-2019].

  78. Neiger R, Grant-Kel J. Long-term effects of pregnancy complications on maternal health: A Review. J Clin Med. 2017;6(8):E76.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  79. White PM. Commercialization, altruism, clinical practice: seeking explanation for similarities and differences in Californian and Canadian gestational surrogacy outcomes. Womens Health Issues. 2018;28(3):239–50.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Nursing, University of Haifa, 3498838, Haifa, Israel

    Daphna Birenbaum-Carmeli

  2. Department of Geography, University of Cambridge, Downing Place, Cambridge, CB2 3EN, UK

    Piero Montebruno

Authors
  1. Daphna Birenbaum-Carmeli
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Piero Montebruno
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Daphna Birenbaum-Carmeli.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

The study is a secondary analysis of existing data and did not involve any human participants.

Additional information

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Birenbaum-Carmeli, D., Montebruno, P. Incidence of surrogacy in the USA and Israel and implications on women’s health: a quantitative comparison. J Assist Reprod Genet 36, 2459–2469 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10815-019-01612-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10815-019-01612-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation