Paid surrogacy no longer a crime in Michigan after Whitmer signs MI Family Protection Act into law

For over 30 years, individuals in Michigan who sought to build a family through the assistance of a paid surrogate might have encountered potential legal repercussions, including imprisonment or financial penalties.

Under a series of bills signed into law on Monday by Gov. Gretchen Whitmer, that is no longer the case.

Michigan Family Protection Act

The Michigan Family Protection Act is comprised of nine bills—House Bills 5207 through 5215. Together, these bills support parents, children born through surrogacy or IVF, and LGBTQ+ parents who deserve to be treated equally. Specifically, the bills will:

• Legalize and regulate surrogacy, allowing Michiganders to have children in an environment that protects the children, the parents, and the surrogates.
• Align with the best practices by ensuring that individuals who serve as surrogates are fairly compensated, have their own legal representation, and are screened by medical professionals before entering into an agreement.
• Ensure children born by surrogacy and assisted reproductive technology (including IVF) are treated equally under the law.
• Change outdated state law to treat LGBTQ+ families equally and eliminate the need for them to go through a costly and invasive process to get documentation confirming their parental status. Even if they move to a state that does not respect these basic rights, these bills help ensure they cannot be denied their relationship to their child.
• Make it easier and cheaper for all Michigan families to get formal recognition of their parental relationship to their children.

“Seeing these bills through to the governor has been one of the most challenging, emotional and rewarding efforts of my legislative career. I couldn’t have done it without my partners at the Capitol, around Michigan and across the nation who have worked so hard to make this long-overdue change to state law,” said state Rep. Samantha Steckloff (D-Farmington Hills), lead sponsor of the package.

“For the couples that have relied on IVF to start or grow their families; for those who wanted to turn to surrogacy but couldn’t execute a contract; for parents struggling to adopt their own biological children — today is a new day. With protections for IVF, legal surrogacy contracts and clear legal links between parent and child, Michigan is a freer and more welcoming state today than we were yesterday.”

“Today marks an exciting moment in our ongoing fight to protect people’s freedom to decide when and how to start a family,” said state Rep. Penelope Tsernoglou (D-East Lansing). “Having personally experienced the life-changing impact of IVF, I know the profound significance these treatments can provide people. That’s why I’m so proud that we’re safeguarding these rights in Michigan. This is a promise to every individual and couple that they have the right and autonomy to plan their pathway to parenthood — and experience the joy of bringing life into this world, if they choose.”

“This bill package is important for Michiganders, and today is a memorable and very significant day as it becomes law,” said state Rep. Amos O’Neal (D-Saginaw), sponsor of HB 5215. “Michigan is the last state in the nation to legalize contractual surrogacy. As a father of three, I know how important and meaningful it is to grow your family, and today we are allowing Michiganders the choice to determine when, how or if they will grow a family. Dems are committed to securing your reproductive health rights.”

Protecting Reproductive Freedom

As other states seek to restrict IVF, ban abortion, and make it harder to start a family, Michigan is supporting women and protecting reproductive freedoms for everyone.

In 2022, the United States Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, taking away the constitutional right to abortion that American women had for half a century. Many states either passed or had preexisting bans on abortion that went into effect. Michigan had a pre-existing law on the books banning abortion without exceptions for rape or incest and criminalizing nurses and doctors for providing reproductive health care.

In November 2022, Michiganders voted overwhelmingly to pass Proposal 3, which enshrined the right to reproductive freedom in the Michigan constitution. This action protected the right to prenatal care, childbirth, postpartum care, contraception, sterilization, abortion, miscarriage management, and infertility in the Michigan constitution.

Since then, attacks on reproductive freedom have continued. Last month, Right to Life Michigan filed a lawsuit challenging Proposal 3, threatening access to IVF, prenatal care, and other reproductive health care.

More recently, the Alabama Supreme Court’s ruling to take IVF away from families put this procedure used by millions of Americans to have children every year at risk. There have been bills introduced in over a dozen other states and at the federal level that would ban IVF.

Source

The Call With the  Question we Anticipate in Today’s Environment

Question: Can I start a surrogacy handmaid tale type of business in Michigan now that it’s not a crime? How much does it pay?

Answer: That is not our field of law. We suggest you ask the Govenor, Attorney General and refer to the new laws. Call us when you get arrested.

Related Articles

More Posts

Better Made vs. Cannabis Companies: A Michigan Trademark Dispute

Summary

Better Made, is embroiled in a legal battle with over a dozen cannabis businesses in the state. The lawsuit, filed in March 2024, centers on allegations of trademark infringement. Better Made claims a cannabis brand named “Better Smoke” is using a logo confusingly similar to their own, potentially misleading consumers and damaging their brand reputation.

Trademark Infringement Claims

Better Made asserts that the “Better Smoke” logo replicates key elements of their established trademark. This includes a similar design layout and potentially the use of a similar color scheme. The lawsuit argues that this similarity is likely to cause consumer confusion, leading people to believe the cannabis products are somehow affiliated with Better Made potato chips.

Protecting Brand Identity

The core of Better Made’s case rests on the concept of trademark infringement. Trademarks are symbols or designs that identify a specific source of goods or services. By establishing a trademark, companies gain legal protection against others using confusingly similar marks that could mislead consumers.

Dangers of Dilution

Beyond simply avoiding confusion, Better Made also claims trademark dilution. This legal concept protects against uses that weaken the distinctiveness of a brand, even if there’s no immediate confusion. In this case, Better Made argues that the “Better Smoke” brand chips away at the unique identity they’ve built for their own products.

Legal Repercussions

Better Made seeks both monetary damages and an injunction. An injunction is a court order prohibiting the defendants from using the allegedly infringing logo. If successful, this could force the “Better Smoke” brand to redesign its packaging and marketing materials.

The Road Ahead

The outcome of this lawsuit will be closely watched by businesses in both the food and cannabis industries. A win for Better Made could set a precedent for how established brands can protect themselves from potential confusion caused by cannabis businesses using similar names or logos.

Real Questions from Real Calls

Question: I smoked several joints and consumed too many marijuana edibles at a concert in the park.  Is that legal??

Answer: If it was not a state licensed consumption event the answer is no. It is unlawful to smoke marijuana in public places. The Gov needs to get their cut.

333.27954 Scope of act; unauthorized activities with marihuana and marihuana accessories; limitations; application of privileges, rights, immunities, and defenses under other marihuana laws; employer rights; property owner rights.

Sec. 4. 1. This act does not authorize:

(e) consuming marihuana in a public place or smoking marihuana where prohibited by the person who owns, occupies, or manages the property, except for purposes of this subdivision a public place does not include an area designated for consumption within a municipality that has authorized consumption in designated areas that are not accessible to persons under 21 years of age;

Read the Law

https://www.legislature.mi.gov/documents/mcl/pdf/mcl-Initiated-Law-1-of-2018.pdf

Related Articles

More Posts