Kenya's Senate awaits public opinion on assisted reproductive technology bill

Kenya’s Senate is seeking public opinion regarding the Assisted Reproductive Technology (ART) Bill, which recently passed the country's National Assembly. But the country requires a deeper moral reckoning regarding how to support families without treating children like technological commodities.  

Key Takeaways:

• Kenya's Senate is set to consider a reproductive technology bill already passed in the National Assembly, but it wants the public to weigh in first.

• Though commercial surrogacy is already illegal in Kenya, the bill would regulate "altruistic" surrogacy along with IVF, and licensing/oversight of assisted reproductive technology.

• A better choice would be for the government to address the country's infertility issues by focusing on making restorative reproductive medicine (which addresses root causes) more available, along with encouraging adoption of children who need stable families.

• Reproductive technologies treat newly conceived humans as commodities rather than as human beings with rights.

The Details:

The Assisted Reproductive Technology (ART) Bill, sponsored by National Assembly Minority Whip Millie Odhiambo and co‑sponsored by Nominated Senator Catherine Mumma, now awaits Senate action following public input.

The Senate hopes to set up a legal framework for assisted reproductive technology (ART) services, including in‑vitro fertilization (IVF) and surrogacy, and to regulate clinics and professionals participating in such activities. 

”Assisted reproductive technology refers to all techniques that attempt to obtain a pregnancy by handling the sperm or the oocyte (egg) outside the human body and transferring the gamete or embryo into the reproductive system of a woman,” Odhiambo stated. 

Proponents claim the bill will:

• regulate surrogacy arrangements

• safeguard commissioning parents, surrogate mothers, donors, and children

• establish an institutional framework for the licensing and oversight of ART facilities

The bill would require the Kenya Medical Practitioners and Dentists Council to set up an Assisted Reproductive Technology Committee to define standards, accredit facilities, and document embryos and their development.​

Despite this, Kenyan law explicitly criminalizes commercial surrogacy, the sale of gametes or embryos, sex selection, and more, under penalty of possible jail time for violations. Surrogacy is allowed only on an “altruistic” basis, with strict age and health conditions for surrogate mothers to meet, as well as an unambiguous transfer of legal parenthood to commissioning parents at birth.

Media outlet Streamline stated:

“The Act stipulates that... a surrogate mother cannot receive financial compensation beyond the reimbursement of medical expenses. Furthermore, these services are now exclusively available to Kenyan citizens, effectively ending the practice of foreigners commissioning surrogacies in the country.

Lawmakers argued this was necessary to protect vulnerable women from exploitation and to prevent potential abuses such as child trafficking and organ harvesting. The law also establishes strict eligibility criteria. Intended parents must be Kenyan citizens aged between 25 and 55. Surrogate mothers are required to be between 25 and 45 years old, must have at least one child of their own, and are mandated to undergo comprehensive medical and psychological evaluations.

The definition of a commissioning 'couple' as a man and a woman in a marriage recognized under Kenyan law effectively excludes same-sex couples and single men from accessing surrogacy.” 

Around 10-15% of Kenyan couples struggle with Infertility, based on figures from the Kenya Association of Urological Surgeons.

Advocates of ART claim that the rising demand for these technologies is due to a desire for children in a culture that deeply values parenthood and family. Yet a deeper issue is whether Kenya should treat the technological manufacturing of new life as the default answer to couples’ struggles with childlessness.

In a health system still grappling with rudimentary maternal care and maternal mortality, earmarking considerable public resources toward costly ART procedures risks prioritizing high‑end technology over basic healthcare that could prevent or treat many causes of infertility, as well as support vulnerable pregnant mothers. 

The bill itself conceded that, for years, the lack of clear regulation has given rise to the exploitation of surrogate mothers and uncertain legal status for children born through surrogacy in Kenya. 

Although this proposal is an attempt to curtail the worst abuses of the fertility industry, it still trivializes the storage and manufacturing of human embryos outside the body, including their possible disposal when regarded as “unnecessary.” This mindset toward embryos and reproduction goes against the biological reality that each embryo is already a human life with inherent dignity.

By expanding insurance coverage for ART and integrating it into national and county health systems, as the bill suggests, the state risks channeling scarce resources into high‑cost technological procedures instead of more basic, widely beneficial reproductive healthcare. 

For a country still battling maternal mortality, lack of basic obstetric services and uneven access to primary care, the Kenyan government’s decision to focus on artificial assisted reproductive technologies deserves serious scrutiny.​

A Better Way:

While Kenya’s leaders are rightfully concerned about the country’s birth rates and infertility issues, their decision to use advanced reproductive technologies to deal with such problems is misguided.

Rather, they should focus on channeling resources into preventive and restorative reproductive medicine to treat underlying causes of infertility, including infections, environmental factors and difficult access to medical treatments. 

The government could benefit people by championing ethical fertility treatments that do not involve the creation and disposal of embryos, and by setting aside resources to encourage adoption so that existing vulnerable children can find permanent, loving homes.​

In light of this, churches, faith‑based organizations, medical professionals and ordinary citizens who value the sanctity of life can show compassion for couples suffering infertility while maintaining that the response to infertility must never undermine the dignity of the child or the integrity of motherhood and fatherhood.​

Citizens can call on senators to object to the anti-life provisions of this bill.

The Bottom Line:

At the moment, Kenya lies at a crossroads where it must determine if laboratory‑based reproduction is really the approach it hopes to depend on to tackle infertility and low fertility trends.

Every attempt to address infertility should honor the dignity of the child from conception and public funds should place a greater emphasis on holistic, life‑affirming care instead of high‑tech reproductive markets.