Coda on the Baby-Selling Ring: Do We Know Who Got Taken?

You may recall that last summer there was a lot of publicity (and a lot of discussion here) about an illegal surrogacy ring that amounted to baby-selling.   I won’t rehearse all the details–it was a complicated scheme.   (You can find the post if you search for “Erickson.”)   Two of the three main actors in the case were lawyers, both well-established in the ART community.   This is part of what made it so alarming.

One thing perplexed me through the whole story.   The babies were offered to couples for $100,000.  Now that sounds like a lot, but that is in the ballpark for what you might pay in a surrogacy case.   And the women who gave birth–I won’t call them surrogates, because they don’t fit the description–they were reasonably well paid.    Indeed, I recall that their compensation was actually greater than the going rate for a surrogate.

So the question this raised for me was why do this?   If you’re charging something in the range of ordinary fees (the 100K) and paying out something in that range, where’s the incentive to take the risk of committing fraud?

Perhaps this tells us something of the answer.     Someone did get ripped off here, and it may not have been the intending parents or the prospective surrogate.   It was the health care system.   A hospital system and the state run medical program are both seeking compensation from Erickson for costs of delivery and medical care.   I think ordinarily these costs would be covered by insurance obtained by the IPs.   Somehow in this scheme there was no insurance and the IPs wouldn’t be liable for the costs of the faux surrogate giving birth.

But I have to say, I’m not really convinced that Erickson could make so much  money by failing to get insurance that it was worth the risk of criminal fraud.   So this isn’t really a satisfactory answer.  But at least it alerted me that her sentencing is February 24.


2 responses to “Coda on the Baby-Selling Ring: Do We Know Who Got Taken?

  1. I don’t think she really looked at it as fraud. I think your not suppose to be named on the birth certificate of a child delivered by a surrogate unless its your genetic child and I think California has just been really freaking lazy about enforcing that and someone had their coffee that morning and noticed. While they were at it they noticed that the woman was receiving aid for pregnant women, which is apparently not something they do if they are aligned with a couple ahead of time. I bet that goes on all the time too. How could it not. The cost to deliver a baby in cash must be astronomical. I can’t imagine what it would be or that a surrogate birth would be covered by anybody’s insurance. Hey I know maybe they can adopt the surrogate because you can keep your kids on your kaiser insurance until they’re 23.

    • No, I think there was serious fraud. She lied about where people lived in order to get insurance. That’s the fraud on the insurance plans. She also lied to the court about the order in which things happened–which is legally significant. I think California law will allow the names of IPs to appear on the birth certificate under proper circumstances, but these weren’t it. She was an experienced lawyer who knew exactly what she was doing.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s