Analyse
The statement correctly notes that **no international human rights treaty or major legal framework** (e.g., UN, EU, ECHR) classifies surrogacy as a fundamental right. However, the claims about **exploitation** and **commodification** are **subjective and debated**: some studies (e.g., from *The Lancet*, *Journal of Medical Ethics*) argue that **regulated surrogacy can mitigate exploitation**, while others (e.g., feminist critiques like *Corea’s ‘The Mother Machine’*) align with De Sutter’s view. Belgium’s **2022 draft law** (which she influenced as Deputy PM) indeed **bans commercial surrogacy**, but ethical opinions vary widely across Europe (e.g., UK’s **altruistic model** vs. Ukraine’s **commercial framework**).
Achtergrond
Surrogacy laws vary globally: **Commercial surrogacy is legal in some U.S. states, Ukraine, and Georgia**, while **banned in France, Germany, and (as of 2022) Belgium**. The **European Parliament** has no unified stance, though a **2021 resolution** warned of **exploitative practices** in unregulated markets. De Sutter, a **gynecologist and Green Party member**, has long opposed commercial surrogacy, citing **bioethical concerns** and **women’s rights**—positions reflected in Belgium’s **2022 legislative proposals**.
Samenvatting verdict
Petra De Sutter’s claim that surrogacy is **not a universally recognized fundamental right** is accurate, but her framing of exploitation and commodification is **contested** and lacks universal consensus among legal, ethical, and medical experts.