Article content continued

Before it was passed, critics raised several issues with the bill, many of which were addressed by amendments to the legislation that legal experts explained to the National Post:

1) Some people said the bill prevented people from being called mothers and fathers on birth certificates. This is not the case, nor was it ever, but it has since been clarified that, while the legislation uses “birth parent” instead of mother (at least in part because of the rise of surrogacy), birth certificates still allow people to pick the titles they like.

2) The original wording of the bill made it theoretically possible for a rapist to sue his victim for parental rights. The bill was amended so that only fathers of offspring born of sexual intercourse — which requires consent — are covered.

3) The bill has been clarified to better protect sperm donors, whether they give a sample in a lab or in the usual way. As a spokesperson for the attorney general explained, a sperm donor whose offspring is conceived with the use of assisted technology would automatically be covered. In addition, sperm donors are protect “when a child is conceived through sexual intercourse, if, before the child is conceived, both parties agreed in writing that the person providing the sperm does not intend to be a parent of the child.”

4) A few experts worried about the bill’s reaffirmation of a clause in the law that says surrogates can’t officially sign over custody until seven days after birth. But fertility lawyer Cindy Wasser said this has long been the case and surrogacy agreements always ensure the intended parents have control over medical decisions during that time; the clause is more intended to allow the surrogate to heal than to give her a chance to change her mind.