Overview of Big Fertility Exposed: The Dark Side of Modern Surrogacy
This Weekend Edition episode of Morning Wire (Daily Wire) features host John Bickley with guest Katie Faust, founder and president of Them Before Us and spokeswoman for the Greater Than campaign. The conversation centers on alarming examples from California that expose systemic problems in the commercial surrogacy industry—cases of mass procurement of children, weak parentage laws, and the broader moral, legal and national-security implications of today’s largely unregulated “big fertility” market.
Key takeaways
- A recent California case revealed a Chinese couple housing 21 surrogate children (15 under age 3), allegedly operating a surrogacy agency out of their mansion; investigators were alerted after an infant with signs of abuse was taken to a hospital.
- Them Before Us argues this is not isolated “surrogacy gone wrong” but rather the predictable outcome of permissive surrogacy laws and technology that detach children from their biological parents and treat them as commodities.
- California’s parentage statutes are among the most permissive in the U.S., allowing unrelated adults to acquire children without the screening required for adoption.
- There is a significant foreign demand for U.S. surrogacy, notably from Chinese clients; the episode cites reporting that a Chinese billionaire procured around 100 children through U.S. surrogates to obtain U.S. citizenship for them.
- Katie Faust and allied groups link permissive parentage law shifts to post-Obergefell legal changes (same-sex marriage ruling) that removed biological distinctions in parentage statutes and prioritized adult autonomy—arguing this has intensified children’s commodification.
- Adoption and surrogacy operate under very different legal frameworks: adoption prioritizes the child (background checks, home studies), while commercial surrogacy often prioritizes adult desires with minimal vetting of who receives custody.
Case study: California surrogacy ring
- Facts presented: discovery of 21 children in a California mansion, many toddlers with evidence of abusive treatment (footage allegedly showing nannies slapping/forcing children to sit for long periods), frequent visitors and reception-like operations inside the home.
- The couple reportedly ran the surrogacy agency used to procure the children. Their stated motive (building a large family) is disputed by investigators and advocacy groups.
- Legal consequences: child-abuse charges were brought in relation to mistreatment, but advocacy groups emphasize the wider structural failure that allowed the situation to occur.
Legal and policy context
- California is described as having some of the most permissive surrogacy and parentage laws in the U.S.; statutes can allow “intent-based” parentage that severs biological ties and hands custody to unrelated adults without adoption-level screening.
- The guest links these legal changes to the fallout of the Obergefell decision (same-sex marriage), arguing that law redefinition removed biological criteria from parentage statutes and thereby created pathways for commodification.
- The podcast notes that bans or limits on commercial surrogacy have been struck down in recent times, and there are few U.S. states with surrogacy laws that place the child’s best interest ahead of adult reproductive autonomy.
International and national-security concerns
- The episode highlights foreign demand—particularly from China—for U.S. surrogacy services because children born here obtain U.S. citizenship.
- Cited statistic: a large fraction of Chinese surrogacy clients are single men over 40 (about 40% per the guest’s claims).
- The Wall Street Journal reporting referenced alleges a Chinese billionaire (named in the episode) acquired a very large number of U.S.-born children via surrogates, raising concerns about foreign actors procuring U.S. citizens through commercial fertility markets.
Comparison: surrogacy vs adoption
- Adoption: rigorous vetting (background checks, fingerprints, references, home studies, training), decisions made in the child’s best interest.
- Commercial surrogacy: market-driven, centered on adult desires (intended parents and fertility industry), often lacks background checks or post-placement oversight; legal frameworks can allow end-to-end acquisition via contracts and reproductive technology.
- Them Before Us frames big fertility as the inverse of adoption: adoption protects children; big fertility commodifies them.
Notable quotes
- “This is surrogacy as designed.” — Katie Faust, on how permissive laws and technology make commodification possible.
- “Surrogacy is designed to completely detach children from their genetic parents and assign them to any and every adult who has the money to acquire them.” — Katie Faust
- “The technology itself was operating as it was designed to operate.” — on the mismatch between technology and protections for children.
Actions & recommendations discussed
- Them Before Us and the Greater Than coalition are pushing legal reform to prioritize children’s rights over adult autonomy in parentage law.
- Advocacy goals include: re-evaluating intent-based parentage statutes, pushing for laws requiring background checks and vetting for adults acquiring children via surrogacy, restricting or banning commercial surrogacy especially for foreign purchasers, and restoring legal recognition of children’s rights to be known by biological parents.
- The guest mentioned that lawmakers have reached out for guidance after recent reporting, indicating political momentum for reform.
Resources and where to learn more
- Them Before Us (Katie Faust’s nonprofit) — works on children’s rights and legal challenges to commercial surrogacy.
- Greater Than campaign — coalition advocating legal change around parentage and children’s rights.
- Wall Street Journal reporting referenced in the episode for investigative detail on large-scale foreign procurement of U.S.-born children.
- Contacting congressional representatives or following legislative developments in states with permissive surrogacy laws for concrete reform proposals.
Note: this summary presents the episode’s claims and the guest’s perspective. The show frames the issue as an urgent children’s-rights concern and a call for legal reform; listeners/readers may wish to consult additional reporting and primary legal sources for fuller context and differing viewpoints.