![yosef mashinsky yosef mashinsky](https://simchaspot.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/Photo_1629040364362-1068x1315.jpg)
The position of the High Court is that the guiding considerations in this matter are similar to those on the basis of which ripeness is examined in constitutional law. There may be circumstances in which it is not appropriate to adopt this course, whether because the postponement is likely to cause serious harm to the petitioners or to allow a wrong that requires immediate correction to remain unaddressed, or whether because the chances of the legislative initiative actually changing the normative framework are slim.
![yosef mashinsky yosef mashinsky](https://i.ytimg.com/vi/uC4WXNMeNgs/mqdefault.jpg)
The Court also believes, inter alia, that it must act with caution in postponing its decision on a pending petition due to a legislative initiative. In this context, the High Court of Justice is of the opinion that there is nothing wrong in the actual advancement of legislative initiatives as a response to or in connection with proceedings being conducted in the Court – as long as the motives are relevant and proper. This position stems from the judicial restraint that is required in sensitive matters such as this, and because implementation of such a decision at this time would raise difficulties. The position of the High Court is that the passage of the Bill in a first reading and its being sent for preparation for its second and third reading has created a new situation that justifies granting the legislature a certain grace period to complete the legislative process with respect to extending access to surrogacy in Israel to family units that are not presently included, prior to deciding on the merits of the entire petition. As for expanding the scope of the circle of those eligible for surrogacy to single men and to male couples, this issue must remain without a final decision at present, due to pending legislation and in light of the principle of mutual respect between the branches of government. The petition with respect to the requirement for a genetic link is denied. The High Court of Justice ( per Deputy President S. These Petitioners object to the requirement for a genetic link in the surrogacy process.
![yosef mashinsky yosef mashinsky](https://www.theyeshivaworld.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/IMG_8058.jpg)
Petitioner 5-6 are single women who, due to medical problems, are not able to carry a pregnancy nor to donate their own ova for fertilization and implantation in the womb of a surrogate. They emphasize that the Bill does not provide a solution for the Petitioners – single-sex couples and single men (Petitioners 1-4). According to the Petitioners, there is no justification for waiting for an additional, lengthy period to allow for the progress of the legislative process. According to Respondent 1, in view of the introduction of the Bill, the petition does not establish cause for judicial intervention.
![yosef mashinsky yosef mashinsky](https://vinnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/5nac-725x404.png)
Under this Bill, the circle of women eligible for the surrogacy process in Israel would be extended to include single women who are suffering from a medical problem due to which the process is necessary, on condition that the genetic link between the prospective mother and the newborn is preserved. 2) Bill, 5777-2017, passed its first reading in the Knesset. On July 17, 2017, the Embryo Carrying Agreements (Approval of Agreement and Status of the Newborn) (Amendment no. This petition seeks to increase access to the surrogacy process in Israel, which is in major part regulated in the Embryo Carrying Agreements (Approval of Agreement and Status of the Newborn) Law, 5756-1996 (hereinafter: Agreements Law), such that it will also apply to single-sex couples and to single people, either with or without a genetic link to the newborn.