This Week’s Big Picture

This week brought a mix of news: some genuinely significant updates on legislation that has been moving forward, a government funding shift worth understanding, and a few things to watch in the weeks ahead.
Let’s walk through it together.

1. Florida’s Foreign Surrogacy Ban: Sent to the Governor — Here’s What That Means

One of the most closely watched developments in U.S. fertility law reached a critical juncture this week. Florida’s state legislature approved HB 905 — the Foreign Interference Restriction and Enforcement (FIRE) Act — and sent it to Governor Ron DeSantis on the final day of Florida’s legislative session.
This bill, if signed into law, would prohibit surrogacy and adoption contracts in Florida if any party to the agreement is a citizen or resident of a country on Florida’s list of “foreign countries of concern.” That list currently includes China, Russia, Iran, North Korea, Cuba, Venezuela, and Syria.

This is a significant update from last week, when the bill was still being debated in the Florida Senate. It has now cleared both chambers and is sitting on the Governor’s desk.

Here’s the reassuring part: the bill has not become law yet. Governor DeSantis has not yet signed it. If he does sign it, the law would take effect July 1, 2026. And the bill’s sponsors have stated it is not intended to affect individuals who are already legal residents of Florida.

2. A Federal Bill Targeting Foreign Surrogacy: The SAFE KIDS Act Gets New Attention

Also gaining renewed media attention this week is a federal bill called the SAFE KIDS Act — formally, the Stopping Adversarial Foreign Exploitation of Kids in Domestic Surrogacy Act. Senator Rick Scott introduced this legislation in November 2025, and it is attracting fresh coverage in April 2026.

The SAFE KIDS Act would make it a federal crime for surrogacy brokers to knowingly facilitate commercial surrogacy agreements with citizens of adversarial nations — including China, Russia, Iran, and North Korea. There is an important exception: if at least one of the two intended parents is a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident, the arrangement would not be prohibited.

This bill has not passed Congress. It is a proposal, and its path to becoming law is uncertain. But the fact that it is receiving attention — alongside the Florida bill — shows a clear trend: legislators across the country are focusing on surrogacy and birth tourism as a national security issue.

3.Birthright Citizenship: Still Pending — But Here’s a New Piece of the Puzzle

We reported last week that the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments on April 1, 2026, in a case that could affect automatic birthright citizenship for babies born in the United States. The ruling has not come down yet — and a final decision is not expected until late June or July 2026.

This week, researchers at Georgetown University’s Center for Children and Families published an analysis of what a ruling against birthright citizenship could mean — not just for immigration status, but for a child’s access to healthcare programs like Medicaid and CHIP. The analysis underscores that the stakes of this case extend well beyond citizenship paperwork.

The good news remains the same: based on how the justices questioned both sides during oral argument, the Court appears more likely than not to uphold current birthright citizenship protections. Current nationwide court orders are blocking any change while the case is decided. Your child’s U.S. citizenship — if they are born in the U.S. — is protected under the law as it currently stands.

4. Government Funding for Reproductive Health Clinics: A Complicated Picture

This week, the Trump administration resolved a funding question that had left reproductive health clinics in limbo: federal Title X grant funding — which supports family planning clinics that serve lower-income patients — was restored after a period of uncertainty. The good news is that money is flowing again.

However, the administration also announced plans to shift the program’s focus beginning in 2027. The new direction would move Title X away from its traditional emphasis on hormonal birth control and toward “natural family planning” approaches. These changes would apply to funding issued for 2027 and beyond.

This doesn’t directly affect IVF or surrogacy services, which are not funded through Title X. But it does reflect a broader shift in how the federal government is approaching reproductive health programs — worth watching for anyone navigating fertility care in the years ahead.

5. Good News: More States Are Expanding IVF Coverage (Updates on Bills You’re Watching)

We have previously reported on fertility preservation bills advancing in Arizona and Hawaii. Both of those bills continue to move forward this week — through their respective second legislative chambers — and advocates remain optimistic about their passage.

These bills would require health insurers to cover fertility preservation services — like egg freezing or sperm freezing — for people who face medical treatment (such as cancer therapy) that could damage their ability to have children in the future. This is coverage that can be life-changing for young patients navigating a cancer diagnosis.

This alert is for general information only and does not constitute legal advice. If you have questions about your specific situation, please speak with an attorney.