This bill adds a new criminal statute to Title 18 (new §2250A) that makes it a federal offense for a person who is a sex offender required to register under the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (SORNA) to use an instrumentality of interstate or foreign commerce to enter into a surrogacy arrangement if the person intends to exercise parental rights over the resulting child. The statute also criminalizes entering a surrogacy arrangement via interstate commerce and committing a sex offense during the period between that use of commerce and the child’s birth.
The maximum term of imprisonment is 18 years and a fine may apply.
The change federalizes a slice of assisted-reproduction activity tied to registered sex offenders and draws criminal-law lines around how surrogacy arrangements are created when interstate or foreign commerce is involved. That raises operational consequences for fertility clinics, surrogacy agencies, intended parents, and carriers who transact across state or national lines, and it creates new prosecutorial discretion for federal authorities.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill amends chapter 109B of Title 18 by adding §2250A. It criminalizes using an instrumentality of interstate or foreign commerce to enter into a surrogacy arrangement where a person required to register under SORNA intends to exercise parental rights, and it also criminalizes committing a sex offense between the use of commerce and the child’s birth. Penalties include a fine or up to 18 years imprisonment.
Who It Affects
The rule targets individuals who meet SORNA’s definition of a sex offender and anyone who uses interstate commerce to set up a surrogacy arrangement with intent to parent, plus clinics, agencies, and intermediaries that facilitate cross‑border or interstate reproductive arrangements.
Why It Matters
The measure brings federal criminal law into the domain of assisted reproduction, tying contraception/gestational arrangements to criminal liability when interstate communications are used and SORNA status applies. That imports registry distinctions into reproductive practice and could alter how clinics and intermediaries screen clients and structure transactions.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The bill creates a discrete federal crime aimed at surrogacy arrangements that involve people listed under SORNA. It focuses on two pathways to liability.
First, it makes it illegal for a sex offender required to register under federal law to use any instrumentality of interstate or foreign commerce — the draft text covers phone, internet, mail or other cross‑border tools by its wording — to enter into a surrogacy arrangement if the person intends to exercise parental rights over the child carried by another person. Second, it makes it a crime for any person who uses interstate commerce to enter into a surrogacy arrangement and then commits a sex offense at any point from that initial use until the child is born.
The statute gives its operative definitions by reference to SORNA for the terms “sex offender” and “sex offense,” and separately defines “surrogacy arrangement” as a situation where someone agrees to carry a child (and the pregnancy is not yet initiated when the agreement is made) with the expectation that the carrier will not exercise parental rights and another person will. The bill attaches a maximum prison sentence of 18 years and allows fines, mirroring the structure used elsewhere in Title 18 for serious offenses.Because the prohibition hinges on use of an instrumentality of interstate or foreign commerce, common modern practices — negotiating contracts by email, arranging cross‑state transfers of gametes, or using international agencies and payment systems — can trigger federal jurisdiction.
The text requires proof that the person intended to exercise parental rights; prosecutors will therefore need to show intent at the time of the arrangement. For the second pathway, prosecutors must tie a later sex offense to the temporal window that runs from the covered use of commerce through the birth of the child.Mechanically, the bill amends chapter 109B of Title 18 by adding a new section (§2250A) and updates the chapter’s table of sections.
It does not create a private-right-of-action, set out civil remedies, or specify evidentiary rules; enforcement would proceed through federal criminal prosecution under existing procedures. Practically, the text invites changes in how clinics and agencies screen prospective intended parents and how they document communications that cross state or national lines.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill inserts a new §2250A into chapter 109B of Title 18 making it a federal crime for a person required to register under SORNA to use interstate or foreign commerce to enter a surrogacy arrangement with the intent to exercise parental rights.
Conviction under the new section carries a punishment of a fine or imprisonment for up to 18 years, or both.
Subsection (b) separately criminalizes any person who uses interstate or foreign commerce to enter a surrogacy arrangement and then commits a sex offense at any time from that use until the child’s birth.
The statute adopts SORNA’s definitions for ‘sex offender’ and ‘sex offense’ (referencing 34 U.S.C. 20911) and defines ‘surrogacy arrangement’ as an agreement to carry a child where the pregnancy has not been initiated when the agreement is made and the carrier is expected not to exercise parental rights.
The prohibition depends on the use of an ‘instrumentality of interstate or foreign commerce,’ so ordinary cross‑state or international communications, transfers, and contracts can bring conduct within the federal statute.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Short title
Provides the act’s name, the 'No Surrogacy for Sex Offenders Act.' This is purely nominal but frames the statutory purpose in the bill text; it has no operative effect on scope or enforcement.
Crime for registered sex offenders who use interstate commerce to enter surrogacy arrangements
Adds the primary prohibition: a person who is a sex offender required to register under SORNA commits a federal offense if they use an instrumentality of interstate or foreign commerce to enter a surrogacy arrangement and intend to exercise parental rights. The provision creates an intent element (to exercise parental rights) that prosecutors must prove and fixes maximum penalties at 18 years and/or a fine. Because the triggering conduct is the use of interstate commerce, the provision imports federal jurisdiction into transactions that cross state or national lines.
Crime tied to a subsequent sex offense during pregnancy window
Establishes a separate offense for any person who uses interstate or foreign commerce to enter a surrogacy arrangement and then commits a sex offense during the period beginning with that use and ending with the child’s birth. This creates temporal liability: the later commission of a qualifying sex offense within the specified window converts the arrangement into a federal prosecutable offense even if the person was not a registrant at the time of the arrangement.
Definitions and cross-reference to SORNA
Defines key terms by reference and in-text: it uses SORNA (34 U.S.C. 20911) to supply the meanings of 'sex offender' and 'sex offense.' It also defines 'surrogacy arrangement' to cover agreements made before pregnancy initiation where the carrier is expected not to exercise parental rights. Those definitions limit the statute’s reach but also tie federal coverage to how SORNA classifications operate across jurisdictions.
Chapter table of sections updated
Requires a technical amendment to the table of sections in chapter 109B to add the new §2250A entry. This is a drafting housekeeping step that integrates the new offense into the chapter’s organizational structure for Title 18.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Criminal Justice across all five countries.
Explore Criminal Justice in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Gestational carriers (surrogates): The prohibition reduces the prospect that a person required to register under SORNA can lawfully use interstate communications to become an intended parent, which lowers the risk—at least as framed by the statute—of placing a carrier into a contractual relationship with a registrant who intends to parent.
- Children born from arrangements covered by the statute: By targeting attempts by registrants to use surrogacy as a route to parental status, the law aims to prevent situations where a child might be placed into the custody or care of someone with a qualifying sex-offense history.
- Federal prosecutors and investigators: The bill supplies an explicit federal criminal statute to charge cross‑border surrogacy arrangements involving registrants, giving federal actors a clear statutory hook for investigations tied to interstate communications.
- State regulators and some clinics: Clinics and state regulators concerned about liability or reputational risk may find clearer grounds to enforce screening policies and to refuse to facilitate certain arrangements involving SORNA registrants.
Who Bears the Cost
- Fertility clinics and assisted‑reproduction agencies: They face increased compliance costs and operational uncertainty as ordinary communications (email, wire transfers, international agency use) can create federal exposure; clinics may need to implement registrant screening or refuse clients, disrupting business models.
- Intended parents who are registered sex offenders: Registrants lose an avenue to pursue parenthood via surrogacy across state or national lines and face criminal exposure if they attempt to do so using interstate communications.
- Surrogacy intermediaries and lawyers: Agencies and attorneys that facilitate cross‑state or international contracts will bear due‑diligence burdens and potential legal risk if they fail to identify SORNA status or to avoid triggering the interstate‑commerce element.
- Federal courts and probation systems: New federal prosecutions, convictions, and sentences would create downstream burdens on courts, defense counsel, and correctional resources.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is protecting surrogates and children from contact or parenting by individuals with qualifying sex‑offense histories versus preserving reproductive autonomy, contractual freedom, and established assisted‑reproduction practices; the statute aims to prevent harmful outcomes but does so by imposing broad federal criminal rules on everyday interstate communications and by importing SORNA’s registration scheme into private family‑building arrangements.
The bill imports federal criminal law into assisted reproduction by using two bright-line hooks: SORNA status and the use of an instrumentality of interstate or foreign commerce. That construction creates several practical and legal uncertainties.
Proving the statutory intent element—showing the registrant intended to exercise parental rights at the time of the arrangement—will hinge on documentary evidence and communications; routine negotiation emails or standard form contracts may be ambiguous. The alternative pathway in subsection (b) depends on linking a later sex offense to a window that begins with the interstate communication and ends with birth; establishing temporal causation and relevance between the intervening offense and the original arrangement could be factually complex.
The statute’s reliance on SORNA classifications raises cross‑jurisdictional problems. SORNA coverage and registration requirements vary by offense, by time, and sometimes by state implementation; someone who is a registrant in one jurisdiction but not another may create thorny enforcement questions.
The statutory definition of 'surrogacy arrangement'—requiring that pregnancy is not initiated when the agreement is made and that the carrier is expected not to exercise parental rights—also leaves room for disputes about when an arrangement is 'initiated' and about how parties record their expectations. Finally, the provision’s reach via 'instrumentality of interstate or foreign commerce' is broad; ordinary online and financial interactions can establish federal jurisdiction, which may chill legitimate cross‑border family‑building arrangements and prompt constitutional challenges over overbreadth, vagueness, or conflicts with state reproductive‑law frameworks.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.