Surrogacy Laws by State

Alabama law does not directly address surrogacy, but at least one court has acknowledged the parental rights of non-biological participants in a surrogacy arrangement. The issue of surrogacy agreements involving lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender (LGBT) individuals has not yet been considered by the courts.

The Alaska statutes are silent with regard to surrogacy agreements, and the only reported state court case that touched on the issue was decided on unrelated grounds. The issue of surrogacy agreements involving lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender (LGBT) individuals has not yet been considered by the courts.

Arizona law prohibits both traditional surrogacy agreements (in which the surrogate mother is the biological contributor of the egg) and gestational surrogacy agreements (in which the surrogate mother is not the biological contributor of the egg), but part of that statute has been ruled unconstitutional by an appellate court. The issue of surrogacy agreements involving lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender (LGBT) individuals has not yet been considered by the courts.

Arkansas law provides for surrogacy contracts, but it is unclear how courts would apply the law to surrogacy situations involving lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) individuals and couples.

California is accepting of surrogacy agreements and would likely uphold agreements that include lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) individuals. While the state has no statute directly addressing surrogacy, California’s courts have used the state’s Uniform Parentage Act to interpret several cases concerning surrogacy agreements. In fact, one of the most influential cases in the country regarding surrogacy rights (Johnson v. Calvert) was decided in California.

There are no Colorado statutes that deal directly with the issue of surrogacy. The issue of surrogacy agreements involving lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender (LGBT) individuals has not yet been considered by the courts.

Surrogacy law in Connecticut is uncertain, but favorable. The statutes are silent with regard to surrogacy agreements, but various cases have looked favorably on such agreements, including a case concerning a same-sex couple.

All surrogacy agreements, regardless of the sexual orientation of the individuals involved, are prohibited by law in the District of Columbia.

While the Delaware statutes do not address surrogacy agreements, the ruling of at least one court suggests that those agreements go against the public policy of the state. The issue of surrogacy agreements involving lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender (LGBT) individuals has not yet been considered by the courts.

Florida law explicitly allows both gestational surrogacy agreements (in which the surrogate mother is not the biological contributor of the egg) and traditional surrogacy agreements (in which the surrogate mother is the biological contributor of the egg), but neither is available to same-sex couples.

It is unclear how Georgia law would treat a surrogacy agreement that includes lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender (LGBT) individuals because there are no statutory provisions or published cases dealing with the issue of surrogacy.

It is unclear how Hawaii law would treat a surrogacy agreement that includes lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender (LGBT) individuals because there are no statutory provisions or published cases dealing with the issue of surrogacy.

The Idaho statutes do not address surrogacy agreements, but case law indicates such contracts may be enforceable in the state. The issue of surrogacy agreements involving lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender (LGBT) individuals has not yet been considered by the courts.

Illinois law allows gestational surrogacy agreements (where the surrogate mother is not the biological contributor of the egg), but does not address traditional surrogacy agreements (in which the surrogate mother is the biological contributor of the egg). The issue of surrogacy agreements involving lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender (LGBT) individuals has not yet been considered by the courts.

Indiana law declares that all surrogacy contracts, regardless of the sexual orientation of the individuals involved, are against public policy and unenforceable.

Iowa law seems to implicitly accept surrogacy agreements, but no statute directly addresses the topic. The issue of surrogacy agreements involving lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender (LGBT) individuals has not yet been considered by the courts.

It is unclear how Kansas law would treat a surrogacy agreement that includes lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender (LGBT) individuals because there are no statutes regarding surrogacy. However, two attorney general opinions indicate that surrogate parenting agreements in general are unenforceable in the state.

There is no statutory provision in Kentucky directly addressing the validity of surrogacy agreements, but a Kentucky Supreme Court case and an Attorney General opinion indicate that uncompensated agreements may be permissible. The issue of surrogacy agreements involving lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender (LGBT) individuals has not yet been considered by the courts.

Louisiana has a statute that holds compensated traditional surrogacy agreements (in which the surrogate mother is the biological contributor of the egg) void and unenforceable, but does not address uncompensated agreements or gestational surrogacy agreements (in which the surrogate mother is not the biological contributor of the egg). The issue of surrogacy agreements involving lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender (LGBT) individuals has not yet been considered by the courts.

It is unclear how Maine law would treat a surrogacy agreement that includes lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender (LGBT) individuals because there are no statutory provisions or published cases dealing with the issue of surrogacy.

While Maryland does not have a specific law that addresses surrogacy agreements, related laws might hold compensated agreements unenforceable. The issue of surrogacy agreements involving lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender (LGBT) individuals has not yet been considered by the courts.

Massachusetts statutes are silent with regard to surrogacy agreements, but various cases have looked favorably on such agreements, although no case has addressed the issue with regard to lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) individuals.

It is unclear how Minnesota law treats surrogacy agreements because there are no statutory provisions or published cases dealing with the issue of surrogacy. However, there is an unpublished court opinion and anecdotal evidence suggesting the law would look favorably on surrogacy agreements involving lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender (LGBT) individuals.

It is unclear how Mississippi law would treat a surrogacy agreement that includes lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender (LGBT) individuals because there are no statutory provisions or published cases dealing with the issue of surrogacy. However, the blatant discrimination of Mississippi’s adoption law, which states that “couples of the same gender” may not petition to adopt a child, suggests that the law would not look favorably upon a surrogacy agreement involving LGBT individuals.

Missouri law does not directly address surrogacy agreements; however, it is possible that they are in violation of the state’s “child trafficking” laws. The issue of surrogacy agreements involving lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender (LGBT) individuals has not yet been considered by the courts.

It is unclear how Montana law would treat a surrogacy agreement that includes lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender (LGBT) individuals because there are no statutory provisions or published cases dealing with the issue of surrogacy.

Nebraska law declares compensated surrogacy agreements void and unenforceable, but it is possible that the law would uphold uncompensated agreements. The issue of surrogacy agreements involving lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender (LGBT) individuals has not yet been considered by the courts.

Nevada law explicitly permits married people to enter into a surrogacy agreement, but the enactment of the Nevada Domestic Partnership Act raises questions about the possibility of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) individuals who are in domestic partnerships entering enforceable surrogacy agreements.

New Hampshire law allows surrogacy agreements, but it is not completely clear that lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) individuals can enter into enforceable surrogacy agreements.

In light of recent New Jersey case law (December 2009) it would appear that surrogacy is not a viable alternative in New Jersey.

New Mexico law appears to only permit uncompensated surrogacy agreements. The issue of surrogacy agreements involving lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender (LGBT) individuals has not yet been considered by the courts.

All surrogacy agreements, regardless of the sexual orientation of the individuals involved, are void and unenforceable under New York law.

North Carolina has no laws directly regarding surrogacy; however, other laws appear to allow surrogacy arrangements that do not include payment beyond the surrogate’s medical and related expenses. The issue of surrogacy agreements involving lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender (LGBT) individuals has not yet been considered by the courts.

Under North Dakota law, traditional surrogacy agreements (in which the surrogate mother is the biological contributor of the egg) are void and unenforceable, but gestational surrogacy agreements (in which the surrogate mother is not the biological contributor of the egg) are legal and enforceable. The issue of surrogacy agreements involving lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender (LGBT) individuals has not yet been considered by the courts.

Ohio surrogacy law is unsettled; however, various court decisions seem to indicate that some surrogacy agreements are considered lawful.

Oklahoma has no statutes that directly address surrogacy, but an Attorney General opinion indicates that compensated surrogacy agreements run afoul of state’s law against “trafficking in children.” However, uncompensated surrogate agreements or agreements that only provide compensation for medical and other basic expenses may be permitted. The issue of surrogacy agreements involving lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender (LGBT) individuals has not yet been considered by the courts.

Oregon surrogacy law appears to allow only uncompensated surrogacy arrangements. The issue of surrogacy agreements involving lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender (LGBT) individuals has not yet been considered by the courts.

Pennsylvania surrogacy law is ambiguous. It appears that a compensated surrogacy agreement would be held unenforceable; however, an arrangement established through a legally recognized agency seems to be legal. The validity of informal arrangements is even less certain.

Rhode Island law does not directly address surrogacy, but it appears to approve of at least some forms of surrogacy. The issue of surrogacy agreements involving lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender (LGBT) individuals has not yet been considered by the courts.

There are no provisions in South Carolina law regarding surrogacy, but the limited case law indicates an acceptance of surrogacy contracts. The issue of surrogacy agreements involving lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender (LGBT) individuals has not yet been considered by the courts.

It is unclear how South Dakota law would treat a surrogacy agreement that includes lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender (LGBT) individuals because there are no statutory provisions or published cases dealing with the issue of surrogacy.

Tennessee law appears to give surrogacy agreements legal consequence, but the law claims neither to approve nor forbid these agreements. It seems unlikely that the law will look favorably on a surrogacy agreement involving lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender (LGBT) individuals because “surrogate birth” is defined by statute to occur only when the surrogate is gestating a fetus for a married couple.

Texas law explicitly allows gestational surrogacy (in which the surrogate mother is not the biological contributor of the egg) agreements, but it appears to exclude same-sex couples.

Utah law explicitly allows gestational surrogacy (in which the surrogate mother is not the biological contributor of the egg) agreements, but it also appears to exclude same-sex couples.

It is not abundantly clear that Vermont law recognizes surrogacy agreements, but it appears that such agreements are lawful. Furthermore, it is likely that surrogacy agreements are available to lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) individuals and couples in Vermont.

Virginia law explicitly approves of uncompensated surrogacy, but it appears to exclude same-sex couples from participation in these arrangements.

Washington allows uncompensated surrogacy arrangements but deems illegal and unenforceable any agreement involving any payment to the surrogate mother other than medical and legal expenses. The issue of surrogacy agreements involving lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender (LGBT) individuals has not yet been considered by the courts.

West Virginia has no laws directly addressing the legality of surrogacy contracts. The issue of surrogacy agreements involving lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender (LGBT) individuals has not yet been considered by the courts.

Wisconsin law does not directly address the legality of surrogacy contracts; however, at least one court case has recognized the parental rights of someone who is not genetically related to their child. The issue of surrogacy agreements involving lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender (LGBT) individuals has not yet been considered by the courts.

It is unclear how Wyoming law would treat a surrogacy agreement that includes lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender (LGBT) individuals because there are no statutory provisions or published cases dealing with the issue of surrogacy.