Surrogacy in Germany: Exploitation and Resistance
Germany's fight against surrogacy exposes a dark underbelly of exploitation pushed under the guise of 'bodily autonomy', writes Caoimhe Wilson.
On the weekend of the 18th and 19th of October the streets of Cologne played host to a commanding sight: outside the Sartory-Säle, one of the largest event halls in the city, gathered a group of defiant women clad in the famous red costumes from The Handmaid’s Tale. Striking against their crimson cloaks were their laminated white placards, displaying their message clearly: ‘surrogacy is the exploitation of women’ (Leihmutterschaft ist Ausbeutung von Frauen.), ‘stop child trafficking!’ (Kinderhandel stoppen!), and ‘pregnancy is not a business model!’ (Schwangerschaft ist kein Geschäftsmodell!).
This protest, organised by the prominent feminist groups Frauenheldinnen and Lass Frauen Sprechen, opposed the holding of the ‘Wish for a Baby’ surrogacy fair. Despite surrogacy, and the advertising thereof, being entirely illegal in Germany, the halls chose to host the event which featured ‘international fertility clinics, sperm and egg banks, support groups, and agencies for surrogacy and adoption’ (‘internationale Kinderwunschkliniken, Samen- und Eizellbanken, Selbsthilfegruppen sowie Agenturen für Leihmutterschaft und Adoption’). Alongside the trade stalls, confidential consultations were offered for those wanting to discuss their options in private. Filming and photography were expressly prohibited throughout the event.
This is not the first time the fair has been held in Cologne, nor the first time it has been opposed. In 2021, the feminist magazine Emma investigated it, followed by a protest by Let Women Speak in 2023. This year, alongside the protest at the venue, Frauenheldinnen launched a legal campaign. Firstly, they filed a preliminary injunction against the city of Cologne, aiming to prevent the fair from taking place, or, at a minimum, to enforce stricter conditions upon the organisers. The court, however, refused to prevent the fair from going ahead, and stated the conditions in place were sufficient. Emma had thoroughly reported on advertising and facilitation back in 2021 after sending in an undercover journalist, but the fair and its traders were not prosecuted. This year, undercover visits from Frauenheldinnen members again found that the fair had both promoted surrogacy and facilitated contacts. The organisation has filed an appeal: ‘We are hoping to force the city of Cologne to admit they should have put stricter conditions on the exhibitors,’ Eva Engelken, chair of Frauenheldinnen, tells me, ‘and it would also be a signal for the upcoming fairs that exhibitors offering surrogacy services aren’t allowed, which of course would make the whole fair useless [because it] is designed to bring together exhibitors and people looking for those services.’
Alongside the injunction, Frauenheldinnen, in addition to several private individuals, have filed criminal charges against the city of Cologne as well as the fair’s organisers, FiveSensesMedia. They are yet to receive a response from the public prosecutions office. Now they are seeking to address the other organisations intending on holding events at Sartory-Säle, informing them that the venue has hosted active supporters of criminal activity, and to gain as much publicity as possible. Their overall aim for Germany, Eva explains, is ‘to ban these fairs from being held.’
Another ‘Wish for a Baby’ fair is scheduled to be held in Berlin in March next year. Both Berlin and Cologne are dominated by left-wing, ‘progressive’ parties and movements, and it is these parties - Alliance 90/The Greens, the SPD and the FDP - which have supported legalising surrogacy, under the branding of inclusiveness, bodily autonomy and family rights. Their push for legalisation typically only concerns ‘altruistic surrogacy’, in which a woman becomes a surrogate without formal compensation. ‘Altruistic surrogacy’ is the version you are most likely to encounter in the media; think Phoebe having triplets for her brother in Friends, or the episode of the widely-praised 2025 medical drama The Pitt showing a woman generously giving birth to a baby that was swiftly handed over to her deeply grateful gay male friends.
However, by promoting the idea of surrogacy as a morally good act of kindness or generosity, these depictions obfuscate reality, sanitise public perception and constitute an emotional manipulation of women. In September, the UN Special Rapporteur on violence against women and girls, Reem Alsalem, called for the global abolition of surrogacy, decrying it as being ‘characterised by exploitation and violence against women and children’. Her report highlighted that the ‘reimbursement’ of altruistic surrogacy (supported by the FDP) often amounts, in effect, to formal compensation, and that this is typically the case in countries where commercial - but not altruistic - surrogacy is banned. Indeed, the report states clearly that virtually all surrogacy arrangements are in practice commercial.
Moreover, the report highlights the psychological manipulation women face; it states clearly that many women are pressured into becoming surrogates ‘by its presentation as an exercise in demonstrating the values of “love” and “solidarity” – particularly in relation to homosexual couples’. It further argues that the media contributes to this manipulation through its ‘largely positive coverage’ that aligns with ‘broader social narratives framing the desire for a child as a legitimate dimension of the right to family life, including for men in same-sex relationships’. In light of this, it is no surprise that the two ‘progressive’ cities of Cologne and Berlin have hosted the ‘Wish for a Baby’ fairs. Engelken informs me that the city of Cologne’s reply to Frauenheldinnen’s opposition largely concerned the ‘need’ to think of unfortunate childless couples. ‘It’s completely one-sided,’ she tells me; the focus is entirely on the feelings of the ‘intended parents’ - neglecting to consider the impact on the surrogate or the child, and presenting opposition as unkind or inconsiderate.
Many ‘liberal’ feminists argue that women should be free to choose to be surrogates as part of a twisted belief in bodily autonomy. Even German media presents surrogacy in foreign countries as an expression of empowerment, as well as charity. The same arguments are used to support prostitution (generally referred to using the sanitised term ‘sex work’). Such notions of ‘empowerment’ and individual choice can be seen as a bleed over of American values and politics, in which individualism and free market capitalism reign. The fact that prostitution is already legal in Germany could lend weight to this argument and its use in pushing for legalisation of surrogacy.
Alongside its discussion of emotional manipulation, Alsalem’s report also undermines the ‘freedom of choice’ position through emphasising that many women feel surrogacy is their only option due to their financial situation, and that they are often not told of the potential consequences by agencies, therefore their consent ‘is neither free nor informed’. It highlights the unequal power dynamics between surrogates and the agencies and intended parents; ‘most surrogate mothers come from lower-income backgrounds and have less social status compared with the commissioning parents’ and surrogate mothers often receive significantly less money than the intermediaries from agencies. The practice is a lucrative industry - expected to be worth $100bn by 2033; it is motivated by financial opportunity, not empowerment.
Moreover, the report states that even if consent could be freely given, surrogacy would not become acceptable; people cannot consent to having their human rights violated (including through ‘human trafficking, the sale of organs, slavery or torture’), and this equally applies to surrogacy. After all, what difference is there, really, between selling one’s organ and renting out one’s uterus? Both come with risks to the life of the ‘lessor/seller’, and both, also, challenge society’s understanding of bodily integrity, seeing humans as constitutive parts, rather than as a whole.
Some people, foolishly, argue that we all rent our bodies as workers, but to suggest that surrogacy or prostitution is the same as working in an office job or even as a manual labourer is ridiculous. The UN report highlights the many ways in which surrogacy is fundamentally different to acceptable forms of labour, such as the absence of distinction between working and personal life (a woman ‘cannot take leave from pregnancy’) and restrictions on freedom of movement. Other examples included constant monitoring by the intended parents and contractually imposed medical procedures, such as embryo ‘reduction’ and abortion. Such invasion of privacy is rightly unacceptable in normal forms of work, but crucial in surrogacy. The report consequently determined that surrogacy is ‘outside the realm of freedom of contract’.
Moreover, in many cases surrogacy is explicitly tied to slavery and human trafficking. Earlier this year, Georgian authorities announced they would be investigating a human trafficking ring who were harvesting eggs from Thai women. A Chinese couple in California are under investigation after 21 young children of whom they are the legal parents - most believed to be born via surrogacy - were rescued in July. Underground surrogacy laboratories have been uncovered in China, with women referred to by codes rather than their names and often forced to undergo surgery without anaesthesia. It is worth noting that surrogacy is legal in Georgia and California, and has an ambiguous status but is not illegal in China; the legalisation of surrogacy therefore does not prevent slavery and trafficking from taking place. This is hardly surprising; countries where prostitution is legal are associated with higher rates of human trafficking than those where it is prohibited. Legalisation increases demand, leading to a need for a greater supply, which is then obtained through trafficking.
Alongside the harm done to the surrogate mother, it is important to regard how damaging the practice is to the child. The Alsalem report states that children born through surrogacy are more likely to have health problems such as low birth weight than those who are not. It also recognises that breastfeeding is crucial for healthy development, but is denied to infants born through surrogacy. The WHO states that breastfed children are less prone to diabetes and obesity, and perform better on intelligence tests. Olivia Maurel, who was born through surrogacy and is now the spokesperson for the Declaration of Casablanca (which seeks the eradication of surrogacy), has openly discussed the psychological trauma and identity problems that these children face. Surrogacy commodifies children, which is completely unethical. Emma’s 2021 report described a representative of a Russian surrogacy agency confirming that a potentially disabled fetus would be aborted, with the next attempt at surrogacy being cheaper. Intended parents can often select the sex of the child, and in many cases can choose eggs from categories based on the appearance or health of the donor. Having a child is no longer a miracle of life, but a tailored shopping experience. ‘The organ trade is banned in Germany,’ Engelken states, ‘but it is possible to buy a whole child.’
Frauenheldinnen will continue to fight against the fairs next year, as well as the wider normalisation of surrogacy and the commodification of women and children. Engelken succinctly sums up what we should all remember:
‘There is absolutely no right to a womb, and no right to a child.’
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Caoimhe Wilson is a third year student studying European Studies (German Pathway) at King’s College London.
 | A guest post by
|
I see many problems in Germany... From a case of a woman who was raped and spoke out against the man online... Only to be given a longer prison time than the man that raped her... Her crime... Exposing him to the world...
Much like the UK.. Freedom of speach is lost....