The Few, the Proud, the Surrogates

"Womb For Rent": Readers were perplexed by the phenomenon and rate of military wives bearing babies for others. "We should be ashamed as Americans that our military members are so underpaid that the main reason these women are becoming surrogates is for the money," one said. Whereas a retired airman wanted to know "Why taxpayers should pay for it," one nonmilitary surrogate going for her third birth underscored the altruistic. "Knowing that by giving just a year of my life to an infertile couple will give them a lifetime of happiness makes it all worth it."

On '"I'm Sorry We Couldn't Do More"': "Michael Hastings's memoir about Iraq and the tragic death of his fiancée-to-be was emotionally brilliant and honest. I have friends in Iraq, and can only imagine how I'd feel if they died there, much less if it was the love of my life."
Azriel Satani, Olympia, Wash.

Women Having Babies for Others"
Couples, straight and otherwise, can pay $20,000-plus to a military wife to carry and give birth to their child ("The Curious Lives of Surrogates," April 7). One reason these women agree to become surrogates is that their deployed husbands make less than that in a year. The surrogate's health care is funded by the comprehensive coverage provided to military wives, but her formerly deployed husband is not eligible for a college education funded by the government. So for a year's salary the wealthy can rent a woman's body with government assistance in the form of health care provided to the surrogate, but those risking their lives for their country don't deserve a government-funded education, the benefits of which could last a lifetime.
Debra Rakar
West Mifflin, Pa.

How can anyone justify using the military's medical budget to fund surrogate babies? Isn't this unlawful? The child is never intended to become a military dependent. I don't understand how my tax dollars can be used to fund the "employment" of someone's womb. A military wife who chooses to do this must pay for the medical bills. Their husbands were never told that the military would pay for their wives' employment expenses.
M. Newbegin
Sanford, Fla.

I am an obstetrician who has been delivering babies for 31 years. I am neutral on the ethics and insurance issues with respect to surrogate motherhood, but I think regulation is needed. Of the seven surrogate mothers in your article, two had single babies, four had twins and one had triplets. My experience has been that these surrogates are not fully informed of the increased risks associated with multiple births: diabetes, hypertension, pre-eclampsia, prematurity, C-sections and hemorrhage. And even if they were, the costs of their care falls not to them or the biological parents, but to society at large via insurance. The babies in these multiple gestations are almost always born prematurely, sometimes so early that long-term handicaps result. In much of Europe physicians aren't allowed to transfer more than one embryo in any IVF patient. This should also be the legislated policy in the U.S. to protect the babies and the surrogates.
Joseph A. Walsh, M.D.
Farmington, Conn.

I have been involved in the field of reproductive medicine for 18 years, including serving as a surrogate mother of twins. The experience was life altering. Why a woman chooses to become a surrogate mother is a very personal decision, whether altruistic, financially driven or a combination of both. The majority of health-insurance providers do not cover surrogate pregnancies; Tricare is one of the few. Most couples purchase an insurance plan specifically for the surrogates' pregnancy costing them approximately $25,000. If Tricare changes its policy, many people may be unable to have a family through surrogacy due to the cost of insurance.
Amy Kaplan, Founder
West Coast Surrogacy
Aliso Viejo, Calif.