Documenting the West’s descent into Satanic receivership.
Baby surrogacy industry’s rose by another name
Ceaseless in its march to medicalize everything — whether a social, psychological, or physical condition, or even the human condition itself — the medical industry has coined a new term recently so as to enable rainbow people to more easily get their hands on other people’s babies: “socially infertile.”
Via Springer Nature (emphasis added):
In the United States, single individuals and LGBTQ couples who wish to conceive biological children are considered to be “socially infertile” due to their relationship status. Due to the high cost of infertility treatments and inadequate insurance coverage, the socially infertile has minimal access to assisted reproductive technology (ART). Under the current medical definitions of infertility, even in states with infertility insurance mandates, only heterosexual couples with physiological infertility are covered for ART. It is well documented that infertility interferes with many aspects of the human experience and reduces the quality of life for involuntarily childless individuals regardless of whether the infertility is physiologically or socially based. Physiological infertility was initially considered to be a private issue before being recognized as a medical diagnosis and has since legitimized heterosexual couples’ access to ARTs. The medical diagnosis of infertility not only affirms that their intention to conceive biological children is justifiable but also confirms that it is a condition that can and should be treated with current medical interventions. Expanding the current definition of infertility to include social infertility will elevate it to a treatable medical condition, justifying the use of ART for such individuals and potentially alleviating the negative impacts of infertility. Thus, states with infertility insurance mandates should provide the same infertility coverage to socially infertile individuals as physiologically infertile heterosexual couples.
In summary, a pair of “socially infertile” gay men, even ones with fully intact, functional reproductive organs — which is to say, not infertile — want to play house.
In order to get their insurance company and/or the government to subsidize their acquisition of the baby they need to run their facsimile of a nuclear family, the medical industry has invented a new medical diagnosis to facilitate that, which is not actually based on any medical fact but rather a social one.
Via Wildflower (emphasis added):
Social infertility is a newer term used to describe situations where people want to become parents but are not biologically able due to social or relational circumstances. This includes factors like sexual orientation, relationship status, and life circumstances, which might necessitate fertility treatments. In support of this movement, in the fall of 2023, the American Society for Reproductive Medicine (ASRM) updated their definition of infertility to include “anyone needing medical interventions to achieve a successful pregnancy either as an individual or with a partner” (ASRM 2023). Additionally, in 2022, Illinois updated its legal language around infertility to be more inclusive of the LGBTQIA community and single people, recognizing one of the definitions of infertility as “a person’s inability to reproduce either as a single individual* or with a partner without medical intervention” (Illinois General Assembly 2022). This change mandates many (though not all) insurance plans within Illinois to cover fertility treatments for people experiencing social infertility.
*“Reproduce as a single individual”? The entire basis of human reproduction, which you learn in the first grade, is a dyad of male and female.
Related: Illinois Gov Launches Historic LGBTQ Hotline For Persecuted Rainbow People
Accordingly, since there’s not and can never be a medical treatment for social infertility because it’s not a medical condition, the only remedy for “socially infertile” alphabet people is surrogacy — i.e., an economic arrangement in which a mother is paid to carry a baby to term and then hand it over.
Via Angelus (emphasis added):
The diagnosis of infertility triggers a cascade of “goods” ranging from societal sympathy to insurance coverage of hugely expensive artificial methods like in vitro fertilization (IVF) and surrogacy.
Two, some progressive activists, in the name of inclusion, hope to lift every sexual arrangement to the social level of the naturally occurring family, the only arrangement that “organically produces children through the complementarity of the sexes.
What makes an individual or a couple socially infertile? Simply wanting a child for 12 months and failing to conceive, even when the individual or couple has done nothing that would naturally lead to pregnancy (heterosexual intercourse) is enough to trigger a “diagnosis” of social infertility.
This redefinition of infertility would allow same-sex couples to be diagnosed as infertile, even though they are perfectly healthy and could reproduce in an opposite-sex relationship…
Progressive bioethicists propose redefining the word “treatment.” Instead of reversing or mitigating a physiological impediment, treatment would mean the artificial production of a baby, because the only way for the socially infertile to reproduce is through the very expensive (and ethically dubious) means of egg buying, embryo creation, and surrogacy.
Business is booming — and expected to further explode exponentially by 2034.
“The global surrogacy market was estimated at USD 22.4 billion in 2024. The market is expected to grow from USD 27.9 billion in 2025 to USD 201.8 billion in 2034, at a CAGR of 24.6% during the forecast period,” reports Global Market Insights
Opposing advocacy groups have reported extensively on the potential and actual abuses associated with the rapidly expanding industry.
Via International Coalition for the Abolition of Surrogacy (emphasis added):
It is clear that women – whether they migrate from their country of origin to another country to be used as ‘surrogate mothers’ or oocyte donors, or are recruited once there – present very similar profiles. The vast majority of them, if not all, are in a situation of great economic, professional and social insecurity. This explains why intermediaries find it so easy to recruit them in exchange for financial remuneration, or merely a promise of remuneration that is not always fulfilled.
We believe that the great precariousness in which these women find themselves also explains why it is so easy for traffickers to lure them (often by deceiving them about the reasons for their contact), to sequester them and to make them victims of human trafficking by moving them against their will from one state to another, and by forcing them to carry a pregnancy. These women become victims of human trafficking and reproductive exploitation through forced pregnancies, but also of sequestration and physical and psychological abuse. In the eyes of their traffickers, these women are nothing but machines for producing babies that can be sold on the illegal adoption market.
All the actors involved in this practice – intermediaries, clinics, laboratories, lawyers, bankers, psychologists, etc., and the clients who commission them – shamelessly take advantage of the vulnerability of these women to achieve their respective ends, which are, for the former, financial gains and for the latter, a child; a child which is bought as a commodity and also, in many occasions, is a victim of trafficking.
As in the case of transgenders commandeering women’s sports, the surrogacy industry has made strange bedfellows of legacy female feminists and social conservatives, pitting them against advocacy groups aligned with the biomedical industry and the LGBTQ movement.
Via Newsweek (emphasis added):
Conservative policy groups and feminist advocates rarely agree on what women should be allowed to do with their bodies. One side tends to defend traditional roles; the other insists on self-determination and autonomy. But on the thorny question of surrogacy, they’ve come to the same conclusion: it should end.
This unlikely alignment sharpened into public view in April, when Reem Alsalem, the United Nations Special Rapporteur on violence against women and girls, delivered a stark proposal to the UN General Assembly: that all forms of surrogacy—paid or unpaid, domestic or international—should be abolished outright.
She argued that the practice inflicted “multiple forms of violence” on women, reducing pregnancy to contract labor and their bodies to delivery systems for those with greater wealth and power. She likened surrogacy to prostitution and human trafficking, saying that even though women must consent to carry another person's child, the practice still commodifies them…
The proposal quickly drew criticism from surrogacy advocates, LGBTQ+ family groups, and reproductive rights lawyers, who accused Alsalem of ignoring evidence about ethical frameworks and erasing the voices of surrogates who describe their experiences as empowering.
Other critics, including nonprofit leaders and academics, described the report as ideologically motivated and disconnected from the realities of modern surrogacy practices in countries like Canada, the United States and Mexico.
“This is like saying there are horrible cases involving sex workers around the world, so let’s ban sex. Who in their right mind would think that’s a good idea?” Ron Poole-Dayan, executive director of Men Having Babies—one of the largest international organizations supporting ethical surrogacy for LGBTQ+ families—told Newsweek.
