Watch this free on-demand webinar to learn more about the overturn of Roe v. Wade and how it will affect the third-party reproduction industry.

Join FSC CEO Staci Swiderski and ART Law Attorney Ryan C. Ferrante as they discuss all things Roe and Dobbs and the decision’s impact on the world of third-party reproduction. Learn about the changes we’ve seen thus far and what to expect in the weeks, months, and years to come.


I’m really thrilled to introduce you to our guest speaker today. He is a wonderful surrogacy and egg donor donation attorney here in Illinois, Ryan Ferrante. He works very closely with intended parents, gestational carriers, and egg donors through the entire process of drafting and negotiating the direct agreements for those candidates.

So today we’re gonna speak about the unfortunate Roe V Wade case. As we all know, there’s a lot of information, a lot of scary tactics that are going around in our field. We feel that having an attorney here on this webinar will really

Provide a sense of comfort for our intended parents and our gestational carriers moving forward. So Ryan, I’m going to leave this to you, and I will certainly interject if I have questions, but we are excited to hear from you.


Great. Thanks a lot, Staci. As Staci mentioned, I am an assistant reproduction attorney based in Chicago. But this is not just a professional endeavor for me. I was an intended parent myself, before I abandoned boring old corporate tax law. And so, I started my own practice to advance these very matters. I have two children that were carried by a gestational surrogate. Eddie is almost five, and Josie’s 15 months.

Both were carried by a surrogate for whom my wife, Lindsay, and I are eternally grateful. So I can imagine that in this audience, there are some intended parents. And so I once sat where you were, and I can empathize with some of the concerns that you may have as a result of what happened a couple of weeks ago.

So as you’re going to hear today from me, there are still a lot of unknowns about the impact of the opinion in the Dobbs case, which is the opinion that was released a couple of weeks ago. And we may not have all the answers right now, but I can share what I know right now.

Let’s get one thing out of the way, so we don’t have to keep coming back to this. This isn’t great news. Let’s get that out of the way. It’s not great news. I’m not going to sugarcoat it and say that everything’s going to be just fine. Lawyers always tend to think about the worst-case scenarios, as they should, because if there’s a greater-than-zero chance of an occurrence of something, then we need to be able to advise our clients.

So you’ll hear some worst-case scenarios, and you will continue to hear them after this call from more people. But it’s not all bad news. Remember that everyone here should talk to a lawyer in your state about what all of this means and how your own state is reacting as you’re going to hear from me in a little bit.

But something else I really want to focus on in this discussion. And that is, I’ve been thinking about something said to me earlier in my career, which is that there is no substitute for a genuine lack of preparation. So here we go. We need to be prepared for what could come next. And that’s what I hope is the big takeaway here.

Anytime I have a conversation like this, I always think it’s really important to lay a foundation for a conversation like this that has so much nuance to it. There’s a lot of details and there are changes in specific jurisdictions, whether they’ve occurred already, or we anticipate them occurring in the future, that makes it so a common understanding at a high level best serves these discussions.

And for this audience, I think the best way to break that down is to understand really where we were first, what happened and what do we know now?

We had the draft opinion, but most people were holding out hope that was just some bizarre leak. It didn’t turn out that way.

So first, where were we? We certainly don’t have the time here to tell the story of the Supreme court. But briefly, since the Supreme court’s decision in 1973, In the case of Roe v Wade, it has been held that there is a constitutional protection of the right to an abortion.

I don’t want to get too far into the weeds here, but if you don’t know this, there’s nothing in the text of the constitution that specifically states that it protects the right to an abortion. And that’s because it was written 200 years ago.

So in Roe v Wade, that constitutional protection of the right to an abortion was provided through an analysis of the 14th Amendment. (You’re going to keep hearing about the 14th Amendment over and over again when you hear about Dobbs.) The 14th Amendment to the constitution was founded in the form of a fundamental right to privacy.

Another phrase you’re going to hear quite often, turning on this word Liberty in the due process clause of the 14th Amendment — I promise I will not turn this into a constitutional law class — but just know that constitutional law, constitutional protections for an abortion was implicit in the right to privacy. And that right has been protected for 50 years.


I think Ryan, where a lot of people really are confused just throughout the world, whether it’s third party reproduction or not, is just then if that’s the case and there was that protection in place. How did this all come about? So I think that’s where a lot of the confusion really lies.


Right. So what happened? The makeup of the court was such that they decided to hear a case, the Mississippi case of Dobbs versus Jackson women’s health organization. When they released their opinion, in this case in June, not only did they uphold a Mississippi law that banned abortion after the 15th week of gestation in Mississippi, they went even further.

They took a closer look at Roe v Wade. And Planned Parenthood versus Casey, which is another landmark case. These are the two landmark cases that confirmed and upheld in the past, the constitutional right for women to access abortion and make decisions about their pregnancies.

So in the DA’s opinion, this recent opinion, they ruled that there is no longer a constitutional protection for abortion; no such constitutional right exists.

But the important point that people ask all the time is — did they ban abortion? The answer to that is no. They did not ban abortion. They only answered that one question, which is whether or not there was a constitutional protection for abortion.

So what they said at a high level was that the United States constitution does not provide that protection.

I mentioned that this right was found in the inherent right to privacy in the due process clause of the 14th Amendment. So if overturning Roe didn’t ban abortion, what was the impact? What were the consequences of that? What did it do?

So here comes another amendment. (I promise I’m not going to spend too much more time on the law.)

There’s another amendment to the constitution, the 10th Amendment, which tells us in so many words that these decisions or the path forward, like when a right is taken away, such as in the Dobbs case, these decisions are now sent to the state legislatures to decide for themselves and their states, if and when an abortion can be performed.

So some states have already passed laws defining the constitutional right to an abortion under their own state constitutions, like here in Illinois where our governor signed the reproductive health act back in 2019, which established a fundamental right to reproductive healthcare, including abortion.

So indulge me, I’ve shared this analogy; it’s a very clumsy analogy, but it’s one that I think illustrates what happened with the Dobbs decision. So for 50 years, Roe v Wade granted this protection by lifting an umbrella over all of the states. It protected that right? This huge umbrella.

Now with the Dobbs decision, the Supreme court, what did they do? They just closed it. They closed the umbrella, leaving no constitutional protection for this medical treatment.

Now some states lifted their own umbrellas, preserving the right to access an abortion. States like mine here in Illinois, or as we will see in other states where each state is going to make their own decision as to whether abortion is available or restricted. Do they lift an umbrella or do they keep it closed?

By the way something important. I just realized this. I wouldn’t talk about umbrellas with other lawyers. They will tell you they don’t know what they’re talking about. They don’t talk about umbrellas in law school. Keep it real, right?

Some states have not lifted an umbrella to protect the right at the state level, and contrary to states like Illinois, they’ve begun to ban abortions through these preexisting trigger laws. As you can imagine, this has created an enormous amount of headaches. It’s created this sort of a beginning of this patchwork of laws across the states.

Now this is something that needs to be considered, because I know that this is on the minds of some in this audience and others elsewhere. The concern isn’t just about answering that one question with that one answer. What other impacts does the Dobbs decision have on decision-making when it comes to family building?

I have to go back to the 14th Amendment really quickly. Remember. In Roe v Wade and Planned Parenthood versus Casey, those two landmark cases? As I mentioned, the court relied on the Liberty interest or the due process clause to protect certain private decision-making. You guys don’t need to remember that, right?

This court, the 2022 Supreme court uses its own language, saying that there was no history or tradition of abortion access, basically ignoring the last 50 years, which is something that we’ll probably be studying and arguing over for 50 more years.

I think that’s the hard part to really accept. They made their own interpretation of the protections provided in the constitution. So considering that, here is a connected concern. The same reliance on the due process clause of the 14th Amendment was also used to protect other intimate decision-making in cases like access to contraception and the right to same-sex marriage.

So should we be concerned there? Maybe.

In the opinion, and I am not telling anyone they should read it, but you should if you want to, in the opinion, Justice Alito went out of his way to say that they were only answering that one question about whether there was a constitutional protection to an abortion.

In other words, he was trying to say, we are only answering one question. And that question is whether there’s a constitutional right to an abortion, nothing else. And of course the answer we now know, according to this court is no, there is no constitutional protection for the right to an abortion.

But this is where it gets a little nasty. It’s not until you get to Clarence Thomas’ concurring opinion to the majority. He said that there are now other cases that we should be reconsidering, including Griswold vs Connecticut, which is the case that protects the right to buy and use contraceptives. And Oberfeld vs Hodges, we all know, found that there is a fundamental right to marry that is guaranteed the same-sex couples.

So what he is suggesting is if someone brings a case or controversy to the Supreme court regarding these rights and decisions in the past that they would probably consider taking them up.

So here’s the bottom line.

They answered that one question, but they have given us reason to be on high alert about what the current makeup of the court may be thinking about in the future. So here’s now. Pivoting back to that preparation. This is where we need to really start thinking about the future and the impact of this decision.

So what do we know now?

Right now, there are already states that are enforcing their trigger bans on abortion in most cases. There’s a term that I have heard in the fertility treatment context in the past. But never as frequently as I have heard it recently. And that’s “reproductive tourism” — I find that phrase fascinating — where individuals cross borders for treatment, meaning state borders in this context.

But how about IVF? What is the impact of this decision and its fallout?

State law. So remember, in the 10th Amendment, we’re sending it back to the states, right? If there’s no power granted by the United States, it’s reserved for the states. So here we are. State law is generally silent about IVF and their abortion laws.

Any of these new abortion laws don’t touch on IVF, because the focus of those abortion laws is on the pregnancy itself, or ending a pregnancy right now. That could all change. That’s why this is all very fluid. However, one could expect that these laws, because they are silent on IVF would not extend to the IVF process.

This is where I remind you again, talk to a lawyer in your state. Make sure that you understand what the impact of the trigger laws are in your state. Or there may be emerging laws that we don’t even know about that could have an impact on your family-building journey.

Now let me repeat this: There are no current laws in enacted in the United States that address IVF. But this is the big concern. We need to keep our eyes out for, and what we are bracing for right now is what are called personhood bills. This is where life is defined at as beginning at fertilization. We should be concerned about any of these new state abortion bans that may somehow capture IVF in the abortion ban in some states.

I’ll give you one example, and people can read up on this on your own. This is my memory of what occurred. Just thinking of this back in May, I think may, whenever the draft opinion got leaked, it was right around that time, Louisiana considered a bill in their state legislature that would’ve made it possible for prosecutors to bring criminal charges against women who ended any pregnancy. That bill was scrapped. They didn’t even they didn’t even debate. They may have ended the debate very early on it because my understanding of what goes on in Louisiana is that even the anti-choice advocates in Louisiana didn’t support that idea of jailing women for an abortion.

So here’s the bottom line on these personhood bills. The personhood bills are the concern because they could limit the number of embryos that get created at one time. And then, all of a sudden, assisted reproduction becomes more limited.

It certainly would become more expensive, and access to treatment would become more difficult. Something that’s near and dear to my heart is the access to treatment and expanding access to treatment. And so any measures that would be taken in 2022 to restrict or limit access to treatment just doesn’t seem like it would be possible, but here we are.


I have a question with that while we’re on that topic. It falls back to the privacy, right? The privacy of all of the patients. Did that just go out the window? What happened with that? And then following that is, and this may be more of a question for the fertility centers, but I don’t think clinics, they’re not required to report the number of embryos, correct? So this would become a really messy area if you’re only allowed to create so many embryos. It’s almost impossible to confirm that reliably, right?


You’ve nailed one of the great unknowns here. What is the fallout going to be as it trickles down to the family building process through IVF? And the impact on fertility clinics. Does it matter where the fertility clinic is? Certainly, I would think so.

And so they’re the right to privacy, let’s get one thing outta the way. I agree that should be between the doctor and a patient about medical decisions regarding a woman’s health. And the last thing you want is for another lawyer weighing in on that. And we’ve already heard six that don’t think so.

But that’s a really good question, because I think that what a lot of people here might be really concerned about, and there is a connection, is what’s the immediate impact on surrogacy? How does surrogacy get immediately impacted based on what is happening on July 13th, 2022.

I think, and Staci, I’m sure that you’re dealing with this, the matching process remains the same, right? In the sense that agencies like Family Source Consultants are still going to only be matching intended parents and surrogates if they’re on the same page and they are like-minded when it comes to the intended parents’ right to request a potential termination of a pregnancy. And then ultimately relying on a physician’s advice about whether or not a termination procedure should be performed and the safe way to perform these medical procedures. And that’s really where it falls, where it should be.


That’s right. And I think surrogacy or just IVF, the termination factor, it’s scary because just as you had mentioned the the laws really haven’t counted for the IVF piece, moreso the pregnancy. But we’ve fallen back 50 years.

So what’s to say now they’re not going to trickle down to the IVF piece. And I think that really is such a concern for the intended parents and just patients going through IVF in general. We have to be prepared. Preparation, like you said in the beginning, that’s always key.


The physician’s advice — we shouldn’t be intervening in a doctor/patient relationship. Lawyers and politicians (this is personal opinion) should be staying out of those decisions, but I digress.

Another thing about surrogacy, beyond the matching phase, we want to match like-minded people so that like-minded parties so that we are mitigating the the surprises when it comes to a request to terminate.

And these are, by the way I don’t know who your entire audience is, but I would say most of them probably don’t know that termination procedures in surrogacy happen in extremely rare circumstances.


I was going to chime in and say, obviously going through this process, the last thing they really want to do is have to terminate a pregnancy. So that’s right. I think in almost 16 years, it’s probably affected our agency maybe less than five times. I think it’s still preparation, like you said.


I can tell you I remember how desperate I was to have a family. And so I know that I would not have come to that decision very lightly if it did come up. And plus, the science has advanced in a way that the science has helped us avoid having to make those decisions. And so that’s really helpful.


You had mentioned the science, and that’s something I wanted to include in here as well. Because obviously, going through IVF or gestational surrogacy, it’s not just for the infertility piece. You have the LGBTQ community. You have patients that maybe want to start or grow their family later on in life. Or it could be a cancer situation where they really don’t have another choice.

I would say at least 95% of our clients move forward with the genetic testing of the embryos. So I think this is also a really concerning point for intended parents going through the process is what if they do start attacking more the embryo stage versus the pregnancy. And I think that’s what is scary to a lot of our audience.


This is all tying back to that idea of we need to keep an eye on these state laws. We know the states that have enhanced protections like the Illinois and the Californias and the Washingtons and Oregons the usual suspects, New York, New Jersey.

It may be disguised under some other name, but when we start to hear about personhood bills, that’s when we start to think about the impact on the fertility clinic, and on the cryo preservation of embryos, and how many embryos can we have stored?

Do these become questions? That remains to be seen. And there are other impacts on surrogacy itself, right? An obvious one is that in surrogacy arrangements, the lawyers are still going to include provisions in the gestational surrogacy agreements contemplating the possibility that a surrogate may have to travel if necessary to another state where it is safe and legal to have the procedure performed.

So there is a constitutional right to travel. Sounds familiar, right? We have a constitutional right to that. And so we just expect that’s going to remain, but here we go again.

Here’s our hope, right? Here we go. Again the minority opinion, the Sotomayor, the Kagan opinion, they did ask this question. They said (and I’m paraphrasing) but this is the way I read it out in my head. Hey majority, while we’re on the topic, can a state bar women from traveling to another state to obtain an abortion?

And so, I think they answered their own question and they said no, of course not. Women can’t be barred from traveling for those purposes because the constitution protects travel and interstate commerce. And so there’s not as much confidence in the words “constitution protects” as there was three weeks ago, but let me just follow up on that point because the majority also addressed this point about travel.

Kavanaugh addressed it in a way where he said that this should not let me think about what did he say? He said, in my view, the answer is no whether or not this bans travel to another state based on the constitutional right to interstate travel. Another thing that the minority discussed was the disproportionate impact of forcing people to travel because it disproportionately impacts those who don’t have the means to travel to have a procedure done.

So there’s a societal impact as well, forcing women to travel amongst this sort of patchwork to a place where they can exercise decisions about their own bodily autonomy. That is, it is crazy.

And by the way, I was just reading something this morning that said, in response to what Kavanaugh said about the right to interstate travel, the governor of South Dakota, who wants to ban abortion in its entirety said, oh we’ll debate that. And so they’re ready to have debates about whether or not women should be permitted to travel between states to have these procedures done.

I say that’s something we definitely need to keep an eye on. Is this sort of idea of the constitutional right to travel.

And speaking on that, of that travel, I want to kind of piggyback because prior to just three weeks ago, several months prior, was the whole Texas debate. Remember that anybody who assisted that woman to travel to terminate the pregnancy also was found that they could be found guilty. Is that happening in other states as well?

There are a number of states that are concerning to me based on their reaction over the last couple of weeks. I’m not going to pick on any one specifically, but again, you really should be keeping your eye on what the impact is in your state.

Actually, I’ll pick on one — Oklahoma that is some really dangerous language in Oklahoma. That’s concerning. I think otherwise, “impact to human fetus” almost.. that’s where they’re really trying to push that. It’s pretty scary.

There was discussion of a personhood bill in a state that’s not one of the usual suspects. It was Pennsylvania. And so there’s concern there. Now what are we supposed to do? How do we, how there’s there?

There are a number of solutions. There are organizations, and there are associations that are organizing the fight at the state level against these personhood bills that could have a really devastating impact on IVF.

Find them. Support them. Talk to your lawyer in your state or the state where your surrogate lives. Have those conversations.

The Supreme court, by the way, they always seem to talk in code. And that’s why people don’t read these opinions, because it’s like in another language. A lot of people don’t understand. A lot of answers are in the footnotes, by the way, just a little trick. The answers are there. The state legislatures are the ones who are now deciding whether to lift that umbrella or, metaphorically make it rain.

There are a number of organizations — RESOLVE being one of them. I remember I was thinking about it this morning. I can’t remember who said it to me, but they said, you know what, nobody fights personhood bills the way RESOLVE fights, personhood bills. I was like, oh yeah, that, yeah, that, that makes a lot of sense to me.

So find an organization, if it’s meaningful to you to advocate for not just your interests, but everyone’s interest when it comes to standing the way of these bills getting passed. There are ways to stop them.


If you don’t mind just to back up a little bit, you did touch on obviously the matching process. So obviously the termination, all of that is
fully discussed before even a match confirmed.

So just for the audience to understand as well, the attorneys have always drafted contracts direct agreements where the termination language is in there. So it’s protected.

Can you share now, moving forward, have attorneys decided add more language? Have you found the need now? Did you have you had to change anything with those agreements?


You certainly can’t say that a gestational surrogate has a constitutional right anymore. Yes. And out window, right? Yes. That’s out the window. So you have to get creative there. But many months ago, many lawyers that I work with were doing this, which was including a clause in the contract that states that the gestational surrogate would be willing to travel to another state to have a termination procedure, if it was safe and legal in another state, not in hers.

And so this assumes that we’re talking about a match where the intended parents request the termination, and then the gestational surrogate has previously shared her intent in the contract to defer to the intended parents request regarding those potential terminations.

But yeah, there are definitely moving pieces when it comes to any discussion about termination or selective reduction, because some of it’s just not valid language anymore. It’s just not, it’s just not right to say that she has the constitutional right. She may have a state constitutional. But it’s not a blanket statement.


And it’s constantly changing as well.


And it’s constantly changing. Yeah.


You know, I think that, obviously there’s so much unfortunate about this, but definitely when intended parents go through this process, there’s already so much anxiety. It’s stressful. Yes. It’s expensive. All of that.

And then, so if they did have to make this decision. That just piles up, because then you have — let’s talk finances, financial, there’s the cost of the surrogate, traveling to another state. And then with that goes lost wages, childcare, all of the invasive procedure fees, and it just adds up and it’s just, obviously as we would all agree, it’s not fair.


For all the surrogates any potential gestational surrogates on this call, just know that everything that we just talked about will always say at the intended parents’ expense. And so you’re not going have to make that decision on your own. You’re going make it with the intended parents’ support, with the support of the agency.

And these are very rare circumstances, but they do come up. So we need to contemplate them and be prepared in the event that it is something that we need to have an answer for.


And it does affect the surrogate, other than, obviously, the financial piece, that is the intended parents. But the surrogate, she has to take time off of her work or travel away from her family. And it’s just something that nobody would’ve ever expected this to come up. It’s unfortunate.

So I think the information that you’re sharing today is just so valuable across the board. And then one more question I have for you. And then if you wanna summarize any of this, please feel free to.

Do you feel that now the states who allow termination/abortion, do you feel those are going to be the states that really are going to be the the most valued states in intended parent eyes to have a surrogate from those states?

I’m gonna take my lawyer hat off for that one and I’m gonna put my intended parent hat on.

I’m gonna tell you that from my perspective, as an intended parent, it’s obviously not my only just my decision. It’s my wife and my decision about whether or not a match is a good fit for us. And I think that our collective thought on the match process would be in this environment would be let’s look at some of those states that are friendly to termination versus matching with someone where we may have to make a decision about travel and, maybe the travel would be banned. I just don’t know.

I’m being honest about my perspective as an intended parent, what I would be thinking about. Now some others may have a much higher risk tolerance and they don’t care. And they may meet someone and say, I don’t care where she lives. She’s fantastic. And she’s a perfect fit for us. It shouldn’t matter where she lives.

And that’s also fine, but as long as you are prepared. You need to understand what the possible outcomes are here and what the solutions or the remedies are in those very specific circumstances.


And this could even trickle down to the fertility center itself as well, working with the fertility center in one of those states.


Yeah that’s when we start to get into that discussion about the personhood bills again, and whether or not there’s a intended or unintended consequence on the fertility clinics, but that would be to me a very deliberate attempt to limit what the fertility center could do. I don’t know that anyone is that concerned about that yet, but we had a right taken away for the first time ever, so we’ll see happens

I did wanna address, we have a few questions, but I’ll please, most of ’em, we pretty much already covered. What we discussed, but there was one and we really, we did touch on this a little bit, but does the overturn impact pregnancy of surrogate if abnormality discovered with fetus?

And the answer is, I think this is gonna depend on the state.


Yeah, it’s gonna depend there’s some states only have the exception for the health of the mother. This is outside the bounds of surrogacy, but nit doesn’t even contemplate the possibility that there’s an exception for rape or incest. And so that is in play.

We’ve all seen the story about the 10-year-old girl who left Ohio because it was after six weeks and had to go to Indiana, which again would not seem to be the most logical place to seek refuge. But that’s, this is the country we’re living in. And so again, that’s just a demonstration of how the laws are going to be a patchwork across state lines for quite some time.


Yeah. Agreed, agreed. And again, with the states with the laws changing and all the unknowns. So what would you say if you were to summarize this webinar from an intended parent perspective?


I would ask a lot of questions in the matching process about what’s important to you. Does matching with someone, obviously matching with someone who has similar views is critically important, but are you willing to make exceptions on that because you found somebody who lives in a state that may make this complicated?

It’s all about your risk tolerance. And so make sure you’re gaining the comfort and having out all of the answers to the questions about plan A, B and C, when it comes to all of those worst-case scenarios. That should be laid out to you by your lawyer. If this happens, we need to contemplate the possibility of going to D, E, or F. And those are all things that need to be weighed.

Keep an eye on state laws. Keep an eye on your own state laws. Keep an eye on the state laws of where your surrogate lives.

Have a really good understanding about the fallout of the Dobbs decision. Have that discussion about a potential termination. What happens if there is a circumstance in which you would ordinarily have requested a termination of the fetus? What’s going to happen now? Does she have to travel? Can she do it in her own state?

These are all questions that you should have answers to prior to an embryo transfer — prior to a match, really. And just be very careful and make sure that you’re speaking to somebody who has knowledge of the laws of the jurisdictions that have sufficient connections to your arrangement.


Very important. And the majority of the questions were from, it seems to be prospective intended parents, but I do want to ask, and I promise you, this is the last one. I won’t keep you much longer.

There was a specific question from a gestational surrogate, and I think it’s important that we addressed that. She asked “We had an order that identified the parents pre-birth, which showed I am not the mother, but the carrier. How does that affect the right to access of treatment?”


I’m curious what state and which what was the contract in? Did the parties agree? This all goes back to what was the party’s intent prior to entering into the agreement? That order and so does it impact — remember surrogates need to remember


This is Indiana by the way.


What surrogates need to remember is that intended parents can’t bar a surrogate from having a termination procedure.

If there’s an impact on her healt, an imminent impact to her health or life, she can make that decision. And so that needs to be considered. And order or not, you should still be able to make that decision if there is an imminent threat to your health or life.

Of course, if time allows, you want to have a conversation with the intended parents, but you’re the one that has the conversation with the physician about proceeding with the termination. You consult with the intended parents, but you make the decision.

Again, this is an extremely rare circumstance, but we need to contemplate it.


And then it all falls down to, again, to the laws in each state now.

Anything else you would like to add or close on?


Well, not today because I’m afraid if I say something it’ll be changed in a day. So maybe we do this again.


We may have to do it monthly, Ryan.


Do an update on this to talk about what has changed, and we can bring on experts and other jurisdictions too. And talk about what they’re hearing, right? Because like I mentioned Oklahoma, I only know what I hear, through media or through colleagues who are like, get a load of this!

And so there, there may be new information that becomes available as legislatures are reacting to this new power that they’ve been granted. And so we’ll see.

But listen, and we promise we’ll keep everybody up to date as much as we can. As remember it’s not all bad news. There is bad news here. It’s not all bad news. Just be prepared, talk to a lawyer and be prepared for all of the possible scenarios.


Thank you so much! We really appreciate your expertise.


My pleasure.

Staci Swiderski, CEO and owner of Family Source Consultants has been involved in the field of reproductive medicine since 2002. Staci has vigorously grown the comprehensive egg donation and gestational surrogacy agency to become a worldwide leader in the third-party reproduction field. Staci is a former intended parent herself. She and her husband welcomed their son via gestational surrogacy in 2005. Additionally, Staci had the experience of assisting an infertile couple (AKA Recipient Parents) build their family through her efforts as an egg donor, with her donation resulting in the births of their son and daughter.