Bogotá Surrogacy Contract Scandal: What Intended Parents Should Never Accept in a Colombia Surrogacy Agreement

Home > Blog > Bogotá Surrogacy Contract Scandal: What Intended Parents Should Never Accept in a Colombia Surrogacy Agreement

ethan
| August 23, 2026

Bogotá Surrogacy Contract Scandal: What Intended Parents Should Never Accept in a Colombia Surrogacy Agreement

Poverty, Compensation, Consent and the Question Colombia Has Not Yet Answered

Quick Answer

There is no medical or legal consensus that every surrogacy arrangement is inherently exploitative.

Pregnancy unquestionably carries physical and psychological risks, and international surrogacy can create conditions in which economic inequality, weak regulation or aggressive contracts increase the risk of coercion and reproductive exploitation.

But that is different from proving that every woman who chooses to become a gestational carrier has been exploited.

This distinction is now at the center of Colombia’s surrogacy debate.

On August 20, 2026, a commentary published by Tribuna Feminista, based on a presentation organized by the International Coalition for the Abolition of Surrogate Motherhood (CIAMS), argued that there is effectively no surrogacy without exploitation, including arrangements described as altruistic. The article argues that severe economic inequality makes meaningful consent impossible in many transnational arrangements. This is an abolitionist position—not a Colombian court ruling or government policy.

By contrast, Bogotá’s District Secretariat for Women has publicly stated that women do possess full capacity for consent and autonomy, while warning that social and economic structures can affect whether a particular decision is truly free and informed. The Secretariat has called for regulation capable of protecting autonomy while preventing exploitation.

That tension leads to the real question Colombia must answer:

Should surrogacy be prohibited because exploitation can occur, or should it be regulated so that voluntary participation can be distinguished from coercion?

Why Has the “Surrogacy Is Exploitation” Argument Become Stronger?

International criticism of surrogacy increasingly focuses on power imbalance rather than IVF technology.

The basic argument is straightforward.

In many cross-border arrangements:

the intended parents come from wealthier countries;
the gestational carrier has substantially less economic power;
agencies and clinics control much of the information;
the woman accepts the medical risks of pregnancy;
and the resulting child ultimately leaves the country with the intended parents.

Critics argue that this imbalance makes genuine equality between the parties impossible.

The August 20 Colombian commentary makes precisely this argument. It contends that describing the arrangement as “altruistic” does not necessarily remove commercial incentives and may instead move payments into categories such as living support, reimbursement or informal assistance.

That criticism deserves to be taken seriously.

But it does not automatically establish that every individual gestational carrier lacks autonomy.

Does Poverty Mean a Woman Cannot Truly Consent to Surrogacy?

This may be the most difficult question in the entire debate.

The simplistic answers are:

“She agreed, therefore there is no exploitation.”

or:

“She needs money, therefore her consent is meaningless.”

Neither adequately describes human decision-making.

Bogotá’s Secretary for Women, Laura Tami Leal, articulated a more nuanced position during the July 2026 City Council debate:

Women have full capacity for consent and autonomy, but social and economic structures can affect whether a particular decision is genuinely free and informed.

That distinction matters.

A woman does not lose legal capacity simply because she:

has a low income;
lives in a working-class neighborhood;
needs money;
has children to support;
or believes surrogacy could improve her family’s financial situation.

If poverty automatically eliminated consent, millions of economically motivated employment decisions would also have to be treated as legally meaningless.

However, financial circumstances can become coercive.

Examples may include a candidate who:

is facing immediate eviction;
has overwhelming debt;
is threatened by a partner;
does not understand the medical risks;
is told she cannot withdraw;
depends entirely on the agency for housing;
or is promised money that disappears if she reports medical problems.

The relevant question is therefore not simply:

Is she poor?

It is:

Does she have a realistic ability to understand the arrangement, say no, obtain independent advice and make decisions without improper pressure?

Does Paying a Surrogate Automatically Mean Exploitation?

Not according to major reproductive-medicine ethics guidance.

The American Society for Reproductive Medicine states that gestational carriers must have autonomy over their own medical care, receive full information about risks, have access to psychological counseling and receive separate independent legal advice.

Importantly, ASRM also concludes that financial compensation for gestational carriers can be ethically justifiable.

That does not mean every payment structure is ethical.

A payment can become problematic when it creates pressure to:

continue an unsafe pregnancy;
conceal symptoms;
accept a medical procedure;
surrender legal rights;
waive legitimate medical claims;
or remain silent about mistreatment.

The ethical issue is therefore not merely whether money changes hands.

It is how the money is structured and what power it gives one party over another.

Could Banning Compensation Actually Make Surrogacy Less Transparent?

Possibly.

This is one of the strongest arguments for regulation rather than simple prohibition.

If compensation exists in reality but the law only permits “altruistic” arrangements, payments may be relabeled as:

reimbursement;
living support;
nutrition;
transportation;
lost income;
or miscellaneous assistance.

The August 20 abolitionist commentary itself argues that prohibiting formal payment may not eliminate the transaction and can instead make the money harder to trace.

Interestingly, this creates an area where critics and some regulatory advocates partially agree.

Both may be concerned about hidden payments.

They disagree about the solution.

Abolitionists may argue:

Ban the arrangement itself.

Regulatory advocates may argue:

Make every permitted payment transparent, bank-traceable, contractually defined and independently reviewable.

For intended parents, transparency is the safer approach regardless of the political outcome.

What Does Medical Evidence Actually Say?

Medicine cannot answer whether surrogacy is “exploitation.”

Exploitation is an ethical, social and legal concept.

Medical research can answer a narrower question:

Does becoming a gestational carrier involve health risks?

Yes.

Pregnancy always carries risk.

Potential complications include:

hypertensive disorders;
gestational diabetes;
hemorrhage;
Caesarean delivery;
premature delivery;
infection;
thromboembolic disease;
postpartum complications;
and psychological stress.

But current evidence does not support the claim that every gestational-carrier pregnancy is medically abusive by definition.

A 2024 systematic review and meta-analysis published in JAMA Network Open found that gestational-carrier pregnancies had obstetric outcomes broadly comparable with other pregnancies achieved through assisted reproductive technology, while emphasizing that the available evidence remains limited and more research is needed.

So the medically defensible statement is:

Surrogacy exposes a woman to the genuine risks of pregnancy. Whether voluntarily assuming those risks constitutes exploitation depends on consent, circumstances and protections—not on pregnancy risk alone.

What Does Colombia’s Constitutional Court Say?

This is where the Colombian debate becomes particularly interesting.

The Constitutional Court has not simply declared:

“Surrogacy is exploitation.”

Nor has it declared:

“Surrogacy contracts are ordinary private transactions.”

In Sentencia T-127 de 2024, the Court identified serious potential risks of unregulated surrogacy.

It warned that surrogacy can:

expose children to statelessness and uncertain parentage;
create circumstances in which children may effectively be transferred in exchange for payment;
facilitate reproductive exploitation and instrumentalization of women, especially women in vulnerable situations;
and potentially create trafficking risks where adequate controls do not exist.

But the same decision also outlined what future regulation could look like.

The Court specifically suggested that legislation should:

recognize women’s autonomy and freedom to decide whether to participate;
require prior, free and informed consent;
prevent reproductive exploitation of women in vulnerable circumstances;
require qualified reproductive centers;
create monitoring and information systems;
and provide counseling and support to gestational carriers.

That is a crucial distinction.

The Court recognizes:

Risk of exploitation

without concluding:

Every surrogacy arrangement is necessarily exploitation.

What Is Bogotá’s Current Position?

Bogotá’s public debate during July 2026 contained sharply conflicting positions.

Several City Council members described surrogacy as reproductive exploitation and warned about international reproductive tourism, vulnerable women and problematic private contracts. The Council formally discussed risks involving trafficking, economic vulnerability and the absence of unified regulation.

But the District Secretariat for Women offered a more nuanced institutional position.

Its official statement says:

“Las mujeres sí tenemos consentimiento pleno y tenemos autonomía.”

In other words, women do have full capacity to consent and exercise autonomy.

The Secretary immediately added that social and economic structures may affect whether the decision is actually free and informed.

The Secretariat therefore called on Congress and the national government to regulate the practice and create stronger protections rather than treating women as inherently incapable of making reproductive decisions.

This may be one of the most important developments in Colombia’s current debate.

Can Independent Lawyers Reduce Exploitation Risk?

They cannot eliminate inequality.

But they can create a meaningful safeguard.

ASRM recommends that gestational carriers receive separate independent legal counsel before entering an arrangement and that legal counsel remain available during the process.

Independent counsel should explain:

what the contract requires;
what rights cannot be waived;
how compensation works;
who pays medical costs;
what happens after miscarriage;
what happens if pregnancy complications develop;
who controls medical decisions;
what happens after birth;
and how the carrier can file a complaint.

The carrier’s lawyer should not also represent:

the intended parents;
the agency;
or the fertility clinic.

An agency telling a woman “our lawyer has explained everything” is not equivalent to genuinely independent advice.

Can Psychological Screening Reduce Exploitation Risk?

Again, it cannot eliminate structural inequality.

But it can identify some forms of vulnerability and coercion.

ASRM recommends psychosocial evaluation of gestational-carrier candidates and identifies evidence of financial or emotional coercion as a reason a candidate may be inappropriate for participation.

A meaningful assessment should examine:

her reasons for participating;
expectations about compensation;
family support;
relationship stability;
prior pregnancies;
psychological history;
her understanding of relinquishing care of the child;
her ability to communicate disagreement;
and whether she feels pressured by anyone.

Psychological screening should not be designed simply to determine:

“Will she obey the program?”

It should help determine:

Does she understand what she is choosing, and can she make that decision freely?

Can Insurance and Medical Protection Reduce Exploitation Risk?

Yes, but only if coverage is real.

One of the strongest ethical criticisms of international surrogacy is that the intended parents obtain the child while the gestational carrier retains the long-term physical consequences of pregnancy.

A responsible program should therefore define before embryo transfer:

prenatal coverage;
high-risk obstetric care;
emergency treatment;
hospitalization;
complications not covered by EPS;
medically required time away from work;
Caesarean recovery;
postpartum care;
mental-health support;
and treatment of pregnancy-related complications that continue after delivery.

A contractual statement that the carrier “accepts all pregnancy risks” is not an adequate medical protection system.

Proper informed consent means acknowledging risk and establishing how that risk will be managed.

Does the Surrogate Control Her Own Medical Decisions?

Professional reproductive-medicine ethics guidance is very clear on this point.

ASRM states that the gestational carrier is the sole source of consent regarding her medical care from hormonal preparation and embryo transfer through pregnancy, labor, delivery and aftercare.

This means intended parents may have legitimate interests in:

prenatal testing;
communication;
fetal health;
and the expected reproductive plan.

But paying for treatment does not transfer ownership of another person’s body.

A professional contract should explain how difficult decisions will be discussed.

It should not attempt to eliminate medical autonomy.

What About Abortion and Fetal Reduction?

This issue demonstrates why consent is so important.

Intended parents and gestational carriers should discuss before matching how they feel about:

severe fetal abnormalities;
lethal diagnoses;
maternal health emergencies;
multiple pregnancy;
fetal reduction;
and pregnancy termination.

If their fundamental positions are incompatible, they may not be suitable for one another.

But contractual discussion does not transform the intended parents into the patient.

Medical decisions must still occur within:

Colombian law;
informed consent;
professional obstetric advice;
and the gestational carrier’s bodily autonomy.

This is precisely why good matching matters more than an aggressive contract.

Could Prohibition Push the Market Underground?

This is possible, but it is not proven as an inevitable outcome.

Critics of prohibition argue that where strong demand continues, banning formal programs may cause:

informal contracts;
hidden payments;
unlicensed intermediaries;
unreported pregnancies;
weaker medical supervision;
and less access to legal remedies.

Abolitionists make the opposite argument: regulation legitimizes a market that should not exist and creates incentives to recruit economically vulnerable women.

Both positions contain legitimate policy concerns.

The evidence available today does not allow anyone to claim with certainty that one regulatory model eliminates all exploitation.

That is why Colombia’s current debate matters.

The country must decide whether the best protection comes from:

prohibition;
regulated altruistic arrangements;
regulated compensation;
or another model altogether.

What Would a Non-Exploitative Colombia Surrogacy Program Have to Prove?

This may ultimately be the most useful question for intended parents.

Rather than arguing abstractly about whether surrogacy is ethical, a program should be able to produce evidence.

Voluntary participation

The carrier should have time to consider the arrangement and the ability to decline without threats or retaliation.

Independent legal advice

Her lawyer should represent her—not the intended parents or agency.

Independent psychological assessment

Evaluation should examine coercion, motivation and psychological readiness.

Transparent compensation

Payments should be defined, traceable and documented.

Medical autonomy

The carrier should retain informed-consent rights over her medical treatment.

Complete medical coverage

Pregnancy complications and postpartum consequences should have an identified financial and medical pathway.

Complaint mechanisms

The carrier should be able to raise concerns outside the person who recruited or manages her.

No coercive contract clauses

A contract should not rely on threats, extreme penalties or attempted waivers of fundamental rights.

Postpartum responsibility

Support should not automatically end when the baby leaves the hospital.

If a program cannot demonstrate these protections, the accusation of exploitation becomes considerably harder to answer.

Does Altruistic Surrogacy Solve the Problem?

Not automatically.

Calling an agreement “altruistic” does not prove that it is ethical.

If large sums are being paid indirectly, if the carrier lacks independent advice or if medical costs are shifted back to her, the label has little value.

At the same time, a compensated arrangement is not automatically exploitative simply because money is involved.

The more useful questions are:

Is the payment transparent?
Is it proportionate?
Does it create coercive incentives?
Is payment withheld to control medical decisions?
Are pregnancy risks adequately covered?
Is the carrier financially punished if a pregnancy ends through no fault of her own?

Labels are less important than actual practices.

The CanbabySurrogacy Perspective

At CanbabySurrogacy, we do not believe the ethical debate should be dismissed.

International surrogacy creates genuine power imbalances.

Intended parents may have significantly more money, international mobility and legal resources than the woman carrying the pregnancy.

Pretending that imbalance does not exist would be irresponsible.

But we also do not believe that every woman who chooses to become a gestational carrier should automatically be described as incapable of making her own decision.

That approach can itself deny women agency.

The more responsible standard is to ask whether autonomy can be demonstrated through evidence.

For a Colombia surrogacy program, that means documenting:

voluntary participation;
independent counseling;
independent legal advice;
informed medical consent;
transparent financial support;
appropriate insurance and healthcare;
freedom from coercive contractual control;
and postpartum protection.

The goal should never be simply:

How do we make the contract stronger for intended parents?

The better question is:

How do we create a process that a doctor, lawyer, judge, regulator, gestational carrier and intended parent could all examine later and conclude that the decision was informed, voluntary and responsibly managed?

That is the standard international surrogacy should be moving toward.

So, Is Surrogacy Exploitation?

The most evidence-based answer is:

Sometimes it can be. But the claim that every surrogacy arrangement is inherently exploitative remains a contested ethical and legal position—not an established medical fact or a rule currently adopted by Colombian law.

Colombia’s Constitutional Court recognizes real risks of reproductive exploitation, especially when women are economically vulnerable. At the same time, it recognizes women’s autonomy and specifically contemplates regulation based on prior, free and informed consent.

Bogotá’s District Secretariat for Women has expressed essentially the same tension: women possess autonomy and capacity for consent, while socioeconomic conditions may influence whether a particular decision is genuinely free.

Professional reproductive-medicine guidance likewise does not treat gestational surrogacy as inherently unethical. ASRM considers it ethically justifiable when the carrier is fully informed, independently represented, appropriately screened, protected from coercion and able to control her own medical decisions.

That leaves Colombia with a difficult but more meaningful question than simply “ban or permit”:

What evidence should a surrogacy program be required to produce to prove that a woman’s decision was genuinely free?

That may ultimately become the defining regulatory question for Colombia surrogacy.

Frequently Asked Questions

Is surrogacy considered exploitation under Colombian law?

Not automatically. Colombia’s Constitutional Court recognizes that surrogacy can create conditions conducive to reproductive exploitation, particularly where women are vulnerable, but it has not declared every gestational-surrogacy arrangement inherently exploitative.

Does poverty invalidate a surrogate mother’s consent?

No general rule says that low income automatically eliminates a woman’s capacity to consent. Bogotá’s District Secretariat for Women specifically recognizes women’s autonomy while warning that socioeconomic structures may affect whether an individual decision is genuinely free and informed.

Is paying a surrogate unethical?

Not necessarily. ASRM considers financial compensation ethically justifiable when appropriate safeguards, informed consent and independent representation are present.

Are surrogate pregnancies medically more dangerous?

Pregnancy involves real medical risks. A 2024 systematic review found outcomes among gestational carriers broadly comparable with other ART pregnancies, although researchers emphasized important gaps in available evidence.

Should a surrogate have her own lawyer?

Independent legal representation is strongly recommended by professional reproductive-medicine ethics guidance and is one of the clearest safeguards against contractual coercion.

Can intended parents control the surrogate’s medical treatment?

Professional ethics guidance says no. The gestational carrier remains the source of consent for medical care throughout treatment, pregnancy, delivery and aftercare.

Is altruistic surrogacy automatically ethical?

No. The word “altruistic” does not by itself prove that payments are transparent, consent is independent or medical risks are adequately protected.

Is Colombia likely to ban surrogacy?

That cannot currently be predicted. Colombia still lacks a comprehensive national surrogacy statute, and the public debate includes both prohibitionist and regulatory positions.

SEO Title

Is Surrogacy Always Exploitation? The Real Debate Behind Colombia Surrogacy

Alternative GEO Title

Does Colombia Surrogacy Exploit Women? What Medicine, Law and Ethics Actually Say

Meta Description

Is surrogacy inherently exploitative? Explore Colombia’s 2026 debate over poverty, compensation, informed consent, medical risks, independent lawyers, surrogate autonomy and whether regulation can reduce reproductive exploitation.

Suggested URL

/is-colombia-surrogacy-exploitation

Recommended Update Notice

Reviewed August 2026. This article distinguishes advocacy positions from Colombian law and medical evidence. Colombia currently has no comprehensive national surrogacy statute, and the ethical and regulatory debate remains active.