Italy criminalizes surrogacy from abroad

 Italy has banned its citizens from accessing surrogacy in other countries where it is legal.  It will be interesting to see how they enforce this. (But of course gay couples will have fewer opportunities to skirt the law than couples who could pretend to have had a pregnancy..)

The NYT has the story:

Italy Criminalizes Surrogacy From Abroad, a Blow to Gay and Infertile Couples. The new law was pushed by the party of Giorgia Meloni, Italy’s conservative prime minister. by Emma Bubola

"Italy passed a law on Wednesday that criminalizes seeking surrogacy abroad, a move the country’s conservative government said would protect women’s dignity, while critics see it as yet another crackdown by the government on L.G.B.T. families, as the law will make it virtually impossible for gay fathers to have children.

"Surrogacy is already illegal in Italy. But the government of Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni has vowed to broaden the ban to punish Italians who seek it in countries where it is legal, like in parts of the United States."

###########

Earlier:

Thursday, August 22, 2024  Surrogacy under continued attack in Italy

Surrogacy under continued attack in Italy

The language of repugnance is strong in these latest developments.

The NYT has the story:

Has Power Moderated Italy’s Leader? Not to Same-Sex Parents.  Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni has mostly shown a pragmatic streak abroad. But at home, her government is plunging many gay families into panic. 

"Surrogacy is already illegal if conducted in Italy. But the government of Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni wants to expand the prohibition. It has promoted a bill that would also punish Italians who make use of surrogacy even in places abroad where it is legal, like in parts of the United States. Those Italians who do could face up to two years in prison and be fined the equivalent of about a million dollars.

"Italy’s lower chamber of Parliament approved the bill last summer, and the Senate’s justice committee greenlighted it last month. The Senate is expected to vote on it as soon as the fall.

...

"No one can convince me that it is an act of freedom to rent one’s womb,”  [Prime Minister Meloni] said in the spring at an event in Rome. “No one can convince me that it is an act of love to consider children as an over-the-counter product in a supermarket.”

“Uterus renting is a shameful, inhuman practice,” she said. “It will become a universal crime.”

##############

Earlier

Wednesday, April 5, 2023

Surrogacy under siege in Italy

Same sex unions take a limited step forward in Hong Kong

 The Washington Post has the story:

Hong Kong court hands rare victory to advocates of same-sex unions, By Lily Kuo and Vic Chiang September 5, 2023 

"In a partial victory for Hong Kong’s LGBTQ community, the city’s top court on Tuesday ordered the government to give same-sex couples some form of legal recognition.

"The surprise ruling, which stopped short of meeting demands for full marriage equality, stated that the Hong Kong government had violated gay citizens’ constitutional rights by not granting them an “alternative framework” such as civil unions or civil partnerships.

"The majority verdict decided by five judges on the Court of Final Appeal gave Hong Kong two years to create a new framework that would confer “legal recognition” on same-sex relationships “in order to provide them with a sense of legitimacy, dispelling any sense that they belong to an inferior class of persons whose relationship is undeserving of recognition.”

...

“We are not addressing the question of whether in terms of social policy for Hong Kong same sex unions should be recognized with rights and obligations similar to those presently enjoyed by heterosexual couples. That is a question for the government and the legislature; and social policy is not a question for the court to decide,” wrote Justice Johnson Lam."

Repugnance watch: same sex weddings in Nigeria are illegal even for guests

 The NYT has the story:

Nigeria Arrests Dozens Over Same-Sex Wedding. A 2014 law makes such unions illegal in the country. Anyone found guilty of taking part can also face up to 10 years in prison. By Emma Bubola 

"The police in Nigeria have arrested over 60 people who were in attendance at what the authorities claimed was a same-sex wedding, reinforcing a crackdown on L.G.B.T.Q. people in Africa’s most populous nation.

"The police also broadcast the identities of some of those arrested on social media and encouraged members of the public to help “uphold the moral standards of the society” by providing relevant information — moves that raised concern that those who attended the event would be subjected to stigma or violence.

"Under a 2014 law, anyone entering a same-sex marriage or civil union in Nigeria can be imprisoned for up to 14 years. Those who administer or witness such a ceremony can face up to 10 years in prison. At the time it was enacted, the U.S. secretary of state, John Kerry, said the law violated basic human rights protections."

Surrogacy under siege in Italy

 Opposition to surrogacy in Italy has taken aim at the babies of same sex couples.

The NYT has the story:

Surrogacy Emerges as the Wedge Issue for Italy’s Hard Right. Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni has ordered municipalities to stop certifying foreign birth certificates for same-sex couples who used surrogacy, leaving some babies in a legal limbo.  By Jason Horowitz

"the government of Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni ordered municipalities to obey a court ruling made in December and stop certifying foreign birth certificates of children born to Italian same-sex couples through surrogacy, which is illegal in Italy.

"The decision has left Martino Libero and several other children suspended in a legal limbo, depriving them of automatic Italian citizenship and residency rights like access to the country’s free health care system and nursery school.

...

"Milan, a city that has long served as a cosmopolitan haven for same-sex couples in Italy, has for now complied with the Meloni government order and suspended issuing Italian birth certificates.

"Without official recognition, Libero Martino, 2 months old this month, will have to leave and re-enter the country every few months to remain legal. A court could eventually recognize one of the men as the biological father — they decline to say which one is the sperm donor — and then they could start a separate adoption process for the other.

...

"Ms. Meloni’s government has sought to shift the issue away from the status of the children to the practice of surrogacy, which, while legal in the United States and Canada, is illegal or restricted in much of Europe outside of Greece, Ukraine and a few other countries. In Italy, home of the Vatican, it is not only illegal, but it is also widely opposed, including among Catholic corners of the center-left opposition.

...

"Prominent members of Ms. Meloni’s Brothers of Italy party have called surrogacy a crime “even worse than pedophilia,” in which gay couples, one of whom is usually the biological father, seek to “pass off” children as their own and mistake “children for Smurfs,” saying gay couples can uniquely afford surrogacy, even though it is overwhelmingly used more by heterosexual couples.

"The party is floating a proposal, made by Ms. Meloni when she was a member of Parliament, to make Italians’ seeking of surrogate births abroad — what she had called “procreative tourism” — illegal and “punishable with three months to two years of prison and a fine of 600,000 to a million euros.”

...

"In an interview shortly before her election, as her young daughter ran around her in a Sardinia courtyard, Ms. Meloni said she opposed gay marriage, not because she was homophobic — “I’ve got many, many homosexual friends” — but because she saw it as a step to same-sex adoption, which she opposed, and which the Roman Catholic Church successfully lobbied to exclude from a civil unions law passed in 2016.

********

Earlier:

Monday, February 20, 2023

Will Italy criminalize foreign surrogacy?

Biden Signs Bill to Protect Same-Sex Marriage Rights

 With little delay after the Senate passage of the bill, the House followed, and now President Biden has signed into law a bill protecting same sex marriage from easily reversing the decision of a previous Supreme Court to make it legal throughout these United States.  The new bill requires states to recognize marriages made legally in other states...

Here's the NYT on the story:

Biden Signs Bill to Protect Same-Sex Marriage Rights. Proponents of the legislation argued that Congress needed to be proactive in ensuring a future Supreme Court would not invalidate same-sex marriages around the country.  By Michael D. Shear

"President Biden signed the Respect for Marriage Act into law on Tuesday, mandating federal recognition for same-sex marriages and capping his own personal evolution toward embracing gay rights over the course of a four-decade political career.

...

"The landmark legislation, passed by a bipartisan coalition in Congress, officially erases the Defense of Marriage Act, which a quarter of a century ago formally defined marriage as between a man and a woman. The new law prohibits states from denying the validity of out-of-state marriages based on sex, race or ethnicity.

...

"For Mr. Biden, who voted for the Defense of Marriage Act as a senator in 1996 and wavered on letting gay men and lesbians serve in the military, the signing ceremony was an indication of how much the president has changed when it comes to championing L.G.B.T.Q. equality.

"It is also another example of how Mr. Biden’s gradual transformation as a politician more broadly has matched the evolution of his own party since he started in public life as a junior senator on Jan. 3, 1973.

...

"Since the Supreme Court’s ruling in June to end the constitutional right to an abortion, Mr. Biden has been fervent in his condemnation of the decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization and has repeatedly called for legislation that would replace the 50-year-old court precedent with legal protections for the right of women to have an abortion.

...

"no issue represents Mr. Biden’s tendency to adapt to societal and political change as well as gay marriage. Polls show a sea change in public opinion across the political spectrum in the past decade, with nearly 70 percent of Americans now saying they support the right of same-sex couples to be married, with all the rights that heterosexual couples have under the law.

...

"But it is also a mark of ongoing fear that newfound gay rights may be fragile. The push for passage of the law was driven in part by the Supreme Court opinion overturning abortion rights, in which Justice Clarence Thomas raised the possibility of using the same logic to reconsider decisions protecting marriage equality and contraception rights."

Same sex marriage rights reaffirmed by the Senate

After a Supreme Court ruling in 2015, it seemed secure that the right to same sex marriage was the law of the land. However the recent Supreme Court decision overturning Roe v. Wade sent the question of abortion rights back to the states, and explicitly raised the question of whether other rights, such as marriage rights, might also be overturned. Justice Thomas, in his concurring opinion in the case (Dobbs) also mentioned that the rights to contraception and to same-sex sexual relations could be reconsidered, in his view.  

It appears that there will now be Federal legislation (and not just Court rulings) defending marriage rights. 

The NYT has the story:

Same-Sex Marriage Bill Passes Senate After Bipartisan Breakthrough. The 61-to-36 vote sends the legislation back to the House, which is expected to approve it and send it to President Biden.  By Annie Karni

"There was little question that the bill’s embrace in the Senate, where proponents had a breakthrough this month in drawing a dozen Republican supporters and overcoming a filibuster, gave it the momentum required to become law.

"The bill would repeal the Defense of Marriage Act, which denied federal benefits to same-sex couples. It prohibits states from denying the validity of an out-of-state marriage based on sex, race or ethnicity. 

...

"Its path represents a significant shift in American politics and culture in which same-sex marriage, once considered a divisive political issue, has become so widely accepted by members of both parties that a measure to protect has managed to attract decisive, bipartisan majorities in both the Senate and the House.

...

"Still, more than seven out of 10 Republican senators voted against the bill, underscoring how the party has continued to cater to religious conservatives who oppose same-sex marriage long after large majorities of the American public have come to support it.

...

"In the end, 12 Republicans voted for the measure

...

"The push to pass the legislation began over the summer, after Justice Clarence Thomas suggested in his opinion in the ruling that overturned Roe v. Wade, which had established a constitutional right to abortion, that the court also “should reconsider” precedents enshrining marriage equality and access to contraception.

***********

Earlier posts:

Friday, June 26, 2015

An ancient repugnance crumbles: Same sex marriage is a right, in all 50 of the United States

This Supreme Court term has many cases on repugnant transactions and controversial markets

 The newly conservative-dominated Supreme Court is ready for its second term, and has a docket full of what readers of this blog know I think of as controversial markets and repugnant transactions.  While previous court decisions have expanded individual rights on these subjects, such as abortion, the present court seems to view them not as individual rights but as States' rights.  But that may be too simple a characterization of this brand of conservative jurisprudence. We're going to learn more about that as the term plays out. (I'm personally most worried about what decisions will be made about election law, because of the effect those decisions may have on future decisions.)

Here's the NYT on the coming caseload:

As New Term Starts, Supreme Court Is Poised to Resume Rightward Push. The justices return to the bench on Monday to start a term that will include major cases on affirmative action, voting and discrimination against gay couples. Several will take on questions about race.  By Adam Liptak

"The last Supreme Court term ended with a series of judicial bombshells in June that eliminated the right to abortion, established a right to carry guns outside the home and limited efforts to address climate change. As the justices return to the bench on Monday, there are few signs that the court’s race to the right is slowing.

"The new term will feature major disputes on affirmative action, voting, religion, free speech and gay rights. And the court’s six-justice conservative supermajority seems poised to dominate the new term as it did the earlier one.

...

"Several of the biggest cases concern race, in settings as varied as education, voting and adoptions.

"They include challenges to the race-conscious admissions programs at Harvard and the University of North Carolina. As in last term’s abortion case, Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, longstanding precedents are at risk.

"The court has repeatedly upheld affirmative-action programs meant to ensure educational diversity at colleges and universities, most recently in 2016. In an interview that year, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said the issue had been permanently settled.

...

"Mr. Trump went on to name three members of the Supreme Court, including Justice Amy Coney Barrett, who succeeded Justice Ginsburg after her death in 2020.

"Those changes put more than 40 years of affirmative action precedents at risk, including Grutter v. Bollinger, a 2003 decision in which the Supreme Court endorsed holistic admissions programs, saying it was permissible to consider race as one factor among many to achieve educational diversity. Writing for the majority in that case, Justice Sandra Day O’Connor said she expected that “25 years from now,” the “use of racial preferences will no longer be necessary.”

"The court seems poised to say that the time for change has arrived several years early in the two new cases, Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard, No. 20-1199, and Students for Fair Admissions v. University of North Carolina, No. 21-707. They are set to be argued on Oct. 31.

...

"A challenge to the constitutionality of the Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978, which makes it hard for non-Native Americans to adopt Native children, may also turn on whether the court views those safeguards as based on race, making them vulnerable to constitutional review. The law at issue in the case, Haaland v. Brackeen, No. 21-376, was a response to a history of children being removed from their tribes and heritage; arguments will be heard on Nov. 9.

*******

I think the two university affirmative action cases are no longer as closely linked as they were before the appointment by President Biden of Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, who has two degrees from Harvard, and may have to recuse herself. See this cryptic note from the Supreme Court's website: 20-1199 STUDENTS FOR FAIR ADMISSIONS V. PRESIDENT AND FELLOWS OF HARVARD COLLEGE

*********

Earlier:

Wednesday, June 8, 2022

What might the assisted reproduction gray market look like, post Roe?

Tuesday, June 11, 2019

Adoption is complex even when it doesn't include State and Tribal rights...

Gay couples, surrogacy, IVF and health insurance

 The Guardian has a story about the obstacles consulting a married gay couple in New York. They have an ongoing lawsuit regarding discrimination in health insurance for IVF. (Much of the article is also about the debate over whether surrogacy is ethical or exploitative):

‘We are expected to be OK with not having children’: how gay parenthood through surrogacy became a battleground  by Jenny Kleeman

"That’s when they first became aware of the eye-watering cost of biological parenthood for gay men. Maggipinto reels off the price list in a way that only someone who has pored over every item could. There’s compensation for the egg donor: no less than $8,000 (£6,600). The egg-donor agency fee: $8,000-10,000. The fertility clinic’s bill (including genetic testing, blood tests, STD screening and a psychiatric evaluation for all parties, sperm testing, egg extraction, insemination, the growing, selecting, freezing and implantation of the resulting embryos): up to $70,000. And that’s if it all goes well: if no embryos are created during a cycle, or if the embryos that are don’t lead to a successful pregnancy, they would have to start again.

"Then there’s the cost of a surrogate (called a “gestational carrier” when they carry embryos created from another woman’s eggs). Maggipinto and Briskin were told agency fees alone could stretch to $25,000, and the surrogates themselves should be paid a minimum of $60,000 (it is illegal for surrogates to be paid in the UK, but their expenses are covered by the intended parents). “That payment doesn’t include reimbursement for things like maternity clothing; lost wages if she misses work for doctors’ appointments or is put on bed rest; transportation; childcare for her own children; [or] lodging.” It takes 15 minutes for Maggipinto to run me through all the expenses they could incur if they tried to have a child genetically related to one of them. The bottom line? “Two hundred thousand dollars, minimum,” he says.

...

"Briskin used to work for the City of New York as an assistant district attorney, earning about $60,000 a year. His employment benefits had included generous health insurance. But when they read the policy, they discovered they were the only class of people to be excluded from IVF coverage. Infertility was defined as an inability to have a child through heterosexual sex or intrauterine insemination. That meant straight people and lesbians working for the City of New York would have the costs of IVF covered, but gay male couples could never be eligible.

...

"There’s a stark contrast between American and Ukrainian surrogates, Maggipinto says. “Here you have to be a woman who has already had children, who is over a certain age, who can prove that she is independently financially capable of sustaining herself without her surrogate compensation. You effectively cannot be a poor surrogate.” He is referring to the American Society for Reproductive Medicine’s guidelines, but with no official regulation in the US, there’s no compulsion for anyone to follow them.

...

"The EEOC will rule on whether the terms of Briskin’s health insurance were discriminatory within a few weeks. The City of New York has so far defended its policy. The couple’s attorney, Peter Romer-Friedman, tells me: “They say their healthcare plan doesn’t provide surrogacy for anyone, so it’s not discrimination to deny it to Corey and Nicholas.” Just like everyone else, the city’s first response was to assume this was all about access to surrogacy."

Singapore to repeal law against sex between men.

 The Guardian has the story:

Singapore to repeal law that criminalises sex between men. Scrapping of colonial-era section 377A law hailed as ‘a win for humanity’ by LGBTQ+ rights groups  by Rebecca Ratcliffe

"Singapore will repeal a colonial-era law that criminalises sex between men, a landmark decision described by LGBTQ+ groups as “a win for humanity”.

"In a national address on Sunday, the prime minister, Lee Hsien Loong, said that scrapping section 377A of the penal code would bring the law into line with current social attitudes and “provide some relief to gay Singaporeans”.

"However, Lee added that the government did not want “wholesale changes in our society”, including changes to the legal definition of marriage.

“Even as we repeal 377A, we will uphold and safeguard the institution of marriage. Under the law, only marriages between one man and one woman are recognised in Singapore,” he said.

"Section 377A, which was introduced under British colonial rule, criminalises “any act of gross indecency with another male person”. The law carries a sentence of up to two years in prison, though it is not believed to have been enforced for more than a decade."

Same sex marriage in Colorado: then and now

In 1975, as the county clerk of Boulder County, Cela Rorex issued several marriage licenses to same sex couples, before the State Attorney General ruled against them.  When she died earlier this month, she was remembered by the current Colorado governor, and his husband.

Clela Rorex, Clerk Who Broke a Gay-Marriage Barrier, Dies at 78. In 1975 she issued a gay couple a license to marry in Colorado, becoming a hero to some and an object of hate for others.  By Neil Genzlinger

"Colorado’s governor, Jared Polis, who is gay, was among those paying tribute to Ms. Rorex.

“So many families, including First Gentleman Marlon Reis and I, are grateful for the visionary leadership of Clela Rorex,” he wrote on Facebook, calling her a woman “ahead of her time.”

Japanese court upholds ban on same sex marriage

 The Japan Times has the story:

In LGBTQ rights setback, Japan court says barring same-sex marriage not unconstitutional   June 20, 2022

"An Osaka court on Monday ruled that Japan's ban on same-sex marriage was not unconstitutional, dealing a blow to LGBTQ rights activists in the only Group of Seven nation that doesn't allow people of the same gender to marry.

"Three same-sex couples — two male, one female — had filed the case with the Osaka District Court, only the second case to be heard on the issue in Japan. In addition to rejecting their claim that being unable to marry was unconstitutional, the court dismissed their claim for ¥1 million per person in damages.

"The plaintiffs said they will appeal Monday's ruling to a higher court.

"The latest case revolved around the interpretation of marriage in Article 24 of the Constitution, which stipulates, "Marriage shall be based only on the mutual consent of both sexes and it shall be maintained through mutual cooperation with the equal rights of husband and wife as a basis."

Same sex marriage now legal in Switzerland, by popular referendum

 The BBC has the story (it happened last month, but I wasn't paying attention):

Switzerland same-sex marriage: Two-thirds of voters back yes

"Some 64% supported the measure, making it one of the last countries in western Europe to legalise same-sex marriage.

...

"In the build up to the vote, church groups and conservative political parties opposed the idea, saying it would undermine the traditional family.

"Switzerland has allowed same-sex couples to register partnerships since 2007, but some rights are restricted.

"The measure will make it possible for same-sex couples to adopt unrelated children and for married lesbian couples to have children through sperm donation.

"It makes Switzerland the 30th country in the world to adopt same-sex marriage.

...

"Justice Minister Karin Keller-Sutter said the first same-sex marriages would take place in July next year.

"Whoever loves each other and wants to get married will be able to do so, regardless of whether it is two men, two women, or a man and a woman," she said.

...

"Over the last 20 years, most countries in western Europe have recognised same-sex marriage. However, in Switzerland many big decisions go to a nationwide ballot, and this can slow down major changes to social legislation.

"The new law, which had the backing of the Swiss government and all major political parties except the People's Party, was passed by parliament in December."

Surrogacy in Israel: now available to same sex couples (and single fathers)

 Here's the story from the Washington Post:

Israel’s high court opens the way for same-sex couples to have children via surrogacy  By Claire Parker

"A decision by Israel’s supreme court Sunday paved the way for same-sex couples to have children through surrogacy, capping a decade-old legal battle in what activist groups hailed as a major advance for LGBTQ rights in Israel.

"Restrictions on surrogacy for same-sex couples and single fathers in Israel must be lifted within six months, the court ruled, giving authorities time to prepare for the change while making clear that it is a definitive one

...

"Surrogacy was already permitted for heterosexual couples and single women. The law excluded same-sex couples, however, and some who couldn’t have kids with surrogate mothers in Israel turned to surrogates overseas.

...

"Israel is considered a leader in the Middle East on LGBTQ rights: The state recognizes same-sex marriages performed abroad, and LGBTQ-identifying individuals serve openly in the military and the parliament. Same-sex couples cannot be married in Israel, however, and ultra-Orthodox communities and politicians remain hostile to LGBTQ rights"

Trans as a gender identity

 New freedoms continue to be recognized.

It is not so long ago that sexual orientation and then same sex marriage were at the forefront of the cultural clash between individual rights and freedoms, and social repugnance.  Those battles aren't over, but the rights of individuals to love who they love have won important legal and cultural battles.

Lately, sexual identity is drawing increasing attention, with a growing recognition that some people's brains aren't wired the way their genitalia would suggest.  Two articles in the NY Times help (me at least) to understand some of the issues.

The first is written under a pseudonym by the mom of a transgender child, who notes that many people are trans starting as young children.  The second, by a trans man, argues that we should think of transgender a a gender identity of its own, not as a transition from one traditional gender to another. 

Where in the World Are All the Trans Children? Everywhere. By Marlo Mack

"I learned that while many transgender people do not transition until adolescence or adulthood, significant numbers of young children are aware of their gender identity from a very young age. Dr. Kristina Olson, a psychologist at Princeton University who studies gender development in children, says, “Research shows that there are a set of trans people who first identify with their gender by the toddler or preschool years and continue to do so throughout their lives.”

...

"But if transgender children are a global phenomenon, so are their struggles. Just as in the United States, parents who have spoken publicly are often harassed and threatened. (For safety reasons, I am not naming them.) Nearly all saw relationships with friends and family members disintegrate when their children came out as trans. Several families immigrated to countries that felt safer for their children. “When my daughter is older,” said one mother who left Mexico for the United States, “I’ll tell her the real reason we left.”

"These kinds of moves are likely to become more common, as courts and legislatures around the United States and in other countries chip away at transgender rights, restricting access to gender-affirming (and lifesaving) medical care for children like mine. On my social media feed, parents around the world are asking one another: Where can we go now? Where will my child be safe?

"It is not always easy to stay hopeful while raising a transgender child in a world that so rarely chooses to welcome her. I wonder what I would do if my own state passed a law making her medical care illegal. I worry about where she will be able to live and travel safely when she is older. I worry about the children who live in places where being transgender remains a crime.

"Yet I am hopeful, because I have witnessed the ferocious, protective love of parents around the world. And that is not a liberal Western fad."

************

What I Saw in My First 10 Years on Testosterone  By Thomas Page McBee

"I also wanted it known that despite the media fixation on a trite narrative about what it meant to be trans, I was not “a man trapped in a woman’s body or any cliché like that,” as I emailed my friends and family. I was a man and I was born trans, and I could hold both of those realities without an explanation that could be written on the back of a napkin.

“I will not become a different person,” I wrote in that email, defiantly and, as it turns out, correctly. “I am myself. I just want to feel more like me.”

Blood donation, risk groups, and blood tests

 Before blood tests were developed for hepatitis virus and later for HIV, it made sense to screen potential blood donors by whether they were members of broad risk categories.  As tests have improved (and I think we still don't have those for prion based diseases like mad cow disease), it makes more sense to rely on testing, although risky behavior that might have recently resulted in infection, not yet detectable by blood tests, is still a screening factor.

All this is by way of saying that the current U.S. limitation on donation by homosexual men is out of date. Martha Gershun points me to this recent op-ed in the Baltimore Sun:

As a sexually active gay man, I can’t donate blood or tissue in America. That’s ridiculous | By GREG BRIGHTBILL

"My blood type is O negative, I am healthy, I can run a half-marathon, I do not smoke or use drugs, I only have two to three drinks a week, and I am in a committed relationship. Yet, due to homophobic stereotypes and outdated policies, gay men like myself  -- termed “MSM” or “men who have sex with men” -- cannot freely donate blood and soft tissue in America.

"According to the most recent Food and Drug Administration guidance, updated last year, MSMs must undertake a three-month deferral from male-to-male sexual activity before blood donation. Shockingly, that’s an improvement on the original full ban on blood donation implemented in 1985 (for any male who had a sexual encounter with another male after 1977) and the 2015 version of the policy, which required a 12-month deferral.

*********

In the UK, the guidelines have been changed, this month, to reflect the increased availability of testing. Here's the latest from the UK's NHS Blood and Transplant:

Landmark change to blood donation eligibility rules on today’s World Blood Donor Day  

"New eligibility rules that will allow more men who have sex with men to donate blood, platelets and plasma come into effect this week, marking an historic move to make blood donation more inclusive while keeping blood just as safe."

"From today (Monday) – World Blood Donor Day – the questions asked of everyone when they come to donate blood in England, Scotland and Wales will change. Eligibility will be based on individual circumstances surrounding health, travel and sexual behaviours evidenced to be at a higher risk of sexual infection.

"Donors will no longer be asked if they are a man who has had sex with another man, removing the element of assessment that is based on the previous population-based risks.

"Instead, any individual who attends to give blood - regardless of gender - will be asked if they have had sex and, if so, about recent sexual behaviours. Anyone who has had the same sexual partner for the last three months will be eligible to donate.

...

“We screen all donations for evidence of significant infections, which goes hand-in-hand with donor selection to maintain the safety of blood sent to hospitals. All donors will now be asked about sexual behaviours which might have increased their risk of infection, particularly recently acquired infections. This means some donors might not be eligible on the day but may be in the future."

...

"Under the changes people can donate if they have had the same sexual partner for the last three months, or if they have a new sexual partner with whom they have not had anal sex, and there is no known recent exposure to an STI or recent use of PrEP or PEP. This will mean more men who have sex with men will be eligible to donate.

"Anyone who has had anal sex with a new partner or with multiple partners in the last three months will be not be able to give blood right now but may be eligible in the future. Donors who have been recently treated for gonorrhoea will be deferred. Anyone who has ever received treatment for syphilis will not be able to give blood."

Controversial Markets: Public lecture at the Zurich Center for Market Design (video)

 A video of my April 13 lecture on Controversial Markets is now available at the Zurich Center for Market Design. (The talk proper is about an hour, and then includes some Q&A about compensation for donors, among other things, starting at around minute 56.)

Here's a direct link:

Same sex marriage in Japan takes a step forward

In The U.S., court decisions paved the way for same sex marriage.  Now there's a court decision in Japan. The NY Times has the story:

Landmark Ruling Cracks Door Open for Same-Sex Marriage in Japan. A court found that it was unconstitutional for the country not to recognize the unions. But change would come only if Parliament passes legislation. By Ben Dooley and Hisako Ueno

"A Japanese court on Wednesday ruled that the country’s failure to recognize same-sex marriages was unconstitutional, a landmark decision that could be an important step toward legalizing the unions across the nation.

"The ruling, handed down by a district court in the northern city of Sapporo, came in a civil suit against the Japanese government by three same-sex couples. 

...

"The ruling will not, however, change the law. Same-sex marriages will be recognized in Japan only if Parliament enacts legislation, Mr. Dmitrenko said. Lawmakers have repeatedly declined to take up such a bill.

"Still, activists saw the court’s decision as an important step in tearing down barriers to normalizing gay marriage in Japan, the only country in the Group of 7 nations that has not legalized same-sex unions.

"The unions are not explicitly banned in Japan, but they are not recognized by the national government or most localities. In recent years, some local governments have moved to provide gay couples with certificates acknowledging their marriage, but the documents have little legal or practical value.

"National authorities have long argued that their position is supported by a provision in the country’s constitution that stipulates marriage can occur only with the consent of both sexes, a provision that was intended to stop Japan’s once common practice of arranged marriages."

What Motivates Paternalism? By Ambuehl, ,Bernheim and Ockenfels in the AER

 I have long been interested in repugnant transactions, which some people would like to engage in and others, not themselves involved in the transaction ('third parties') think should be forbidden.  That's a big class of phenomena (even when we exclude transactions that third parties object to because they might suffer negative externalities). In some cases (e.g. opposition to same sex marriage) there seems to be a lack of empathy with those who want or need to transact in ways that third parties object to. In other cases (e.g. opposition to surrogacy) there often seems to be a desire to protect vulnerable parties  (e.g. potential surrogate mothers) from entering into a transaction that the objecting third parties believe would harm the surrogates.  This latter kind of objection often falls under the label "paternalism."

Here's a paper in the latest AER that explores and finds paternalism in the lab.

What Motivates Paternalism? An Experimental Study By Sandro Ambuehl, B. Douglas Bernheim, and Axel Ockenfels, American Economic Review  March 2021, 111(3): 787–830, https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.20191039

Abstract: "We study experimentally when, why, and how people intervene in others' choices. Choice Architects (CAs) construct opportunity sets containing bundles of time-indexed payments for Choosers. CAs frequently prevent impatient choices despite opportunities to provide advice, believing Choosers benefit. They violate common behavioral welfare criteria by removing impatient options even when all pay-offs are delayed. CAs intervene not by removing options they wish they could resist when choosing for themselves (mistakes-projective paternalism), but rather as if they seek to align others' choices with their own aspirations (ideals-projective paternalism). Laboratory choices predict subjects' support for actual paternalistic policies. "

Bernard Cohen (1934-2020), who convinced the Supreme Court that bans on inter-racial marriage were unconstitutional

 Flags flew at half staff in Virginia last month, marking the death of Bernard Cohen, and also marking how much has changed in Virginia and the U.S. since he argued in the Supreme Court against the Virginia law that forbid inter-racial marriage. (The legalization of same sex marriage was still decades in the future.)

Va. flags to be half-staff Friday in memory of late Bernard Cohen, lawyer in Loving v. Virginia case   by MATTHEW BARAKAT, AP 

"Cohen and legal colleague Phil Hirschkop represented Richard and Mildred Loving, a white man and Black woman who were convicted in Virginia in 1959 of illegally cohabiting as man and wife and ordered to leave the state for 25 years.

"Cohen and Hirschkop represented the Lovings as they sought to have their conviction overturned. It resulted in the Supreme Court’s unanimous 1967 Loving v. Virginia ruling, which declared anti-miscegenation laws unconstitutional."

**************

In a 1963 appeal, the Virginia trial judge declared:

“Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, Malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents, and but for the interference with His arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages,” the judge wrote in upholding the sentence. “The fact that He separated the races shows that He did not intend for the races to mix.”

*************

Here's the Supreme Court decision 

LOVING  v. VIRGINIA , SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, 388 U.S. 1

June 12, 1967, Decided

"Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival. To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discriminations. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.

"These convictions must be reversed."