In recent years, it has become a popular method of reproduction among wealthy Germans and same-sex couples to have children abroad, particularly in the United States. The refusal to disclose the exact circumstances only reinforces such assumptions.
So-called “baby fairs” have for years been openly held, with surrogacy agencies worldwide actively targeting LGBTQ audiences. The United States is considered the gold standard of the industry, not only because of prices starting at more than 100,000 euro per child, but also because of the high level of legal certainty, especially for homosexual men.
In almost all US states, surrogacy is permitted. Numerous states even allow two men to be listed as parents on a birth certificate without the mother being mentioned at all. In California, three men have even been entered as equal fathers of a child.
So why mention mothers at all?
In Germany, there is no legal way for two men to become joint fathers of the same child. Under German law, the woman who gives birth to the child is the mother, with all corresponding rights. Anyone who goes abroad does so in order to circumvent German law.
Once the two men return to Germany with the child, they will face not only legal debate but also political questions within the CDU, which explicitly opposes reproductive methods such as egg donation and surrogacy. Both are prohibited in Germany.
Circumventing the Law by Elected Representatives?
The Streeck case has thus become a political issue that will pose a challenge for the CDU. Are German lawmakers allowed to circumvent German law?
German courts have so far taken a relatively accommodating approach to surrogacy arrangements concluded abroad. In general, parenthood is subsequently recognized in a legally secure manner. In effect, German courts “reward” those who circumvent domestic law abroad by creating faits accomplis. Many rulings in such cases are based on the child’s best interests. Because proceedings often take time and the child is already living with those who commissioned it, removal is seen as harmful and potentially traumatic. Little weight is given to the fact that the child has already been separated from the mother and thus subjected to an initial trauma.
As early as 2023, a German Social Democratic Party (SPD) member of parliament openly publicized his use of surrogacy with his partner. Johannes Arlt had a child carried by a surrogate and later complained in the media that, as a father of a newborn, he was not entitled to statutory maternity leave as women are. What kind of physical recovery he expected as a man remains his own secret.
Both cases raise the question of whether elected representatives in particular should be expected to comply with German law. Yet these cases are not dealt with in court but presented in the tabloid press as entertainment and as feel-good stories accompanied by baby pictures. This is part of a broader strategy not only to normalize but, where possible, to legitimize the global trade in children and the exploitation of women through surrogacy.
To date, German society has barely taken notice of the rapidly growing global surrogacy market and the associated reports of exploited women. Instead, attention focuses on images of baby happiness. Surrogacy is thus not treated as an issue of trafficking and exploitation, but increasingly reframed as a question of discrimination against childless individuals or same-sex male couples. A supposed “right” to a child is often asserted, as if there were an entitlement to reproduction or even to legal or financial support from society in fulfilling the desire for a child.
The Streeck case illustrates the importance of tightening Germany’s legal framework on surrogacy, following the model of Italy. There, after several high-profile cases, the government under Giorgia Meloni expanded the national ban into a universal prohibition for all Italian citizens. “Reproductive tourism” abroad has thus been effectively curtailed and is subject to severe consequences upon return. Anyone who obtains a child through surrogacy abroad now risks not only substantial fines but also the removal of the child by the authorities. Italy thus relies on deterrence rather than the subsequent judicial regularization of unclear parental relationships.
The CDU Remains Silent
Finally, Hendrik Streeck now presents a problem for his party and, as drug commissioner, even for the Merz government once he returns to Germany and resumes his mandate. Firmness on issues related to the protection of life remains one of the last commitments the Christian Democrats have not abandoned. Accordingly, the silence within the CDU is striking. No one has yet entered the widely covered debate. There have been no congratulations, as in other cases, and no critical voices. The party is aware of the dilemma and cannot avoid it indefinitely.
Initial voices are now calling for a clear CDU position. The party categorically rejects surrogacy and outlines significant ethical, legal and practical concerns in its policy papers. It highlights the risks of exploitation, circumvention and abuse. It cannot ignore a case from its own ranks that appears to contradict both party policy and German law without once again undermining its credibility. Sooner or later, the CDU will have to take a position.
Expectations of clear language or consequences, however, should remain low. The Merz government is already weathering far more significant reversals in migration, energy and fiscal policy. From that perspective, a newborn child of unclear origin appears to be a minor issue. For voters to whom questions of the protection of life still matter, this may further deepen the sense of alienation.
