Oregon lawmakers are currently considering a bill that could end the anonymity of sperm and egg donors, allowing children conceived from these donations to learn the identities of their donors. This move is akin to the rights that adopted children have to discover the identities of their birth parents.
Senate Bill 163 would require clinics collecting sperm, egg, or embryo donations to gather and maintain a registry of donor information, including names, birth dates, addresses, phone numbers, emails, and medical histories. This information would remain secure in a state registry even if the clinics ceased operations. Once the children born from these donations turn 18, they would have the right to access this information.
Robin Pope, a Portland lawyer specializing in assisted reproductive technology law, explained to the Senate Judiciary Committee that this proposal is not significantly different from the rights granted to adoptees. In 1998, Oregon voters approved Ballot Measure 58, which allows adopted children to obtain an unsealed birth certificate with their parents’ names when they turn 21. Senate Bill 163 seeks to expand upon that by providing more information at an earlier age—18 instead of 21.
Pope noted that by the time donor-conceived children reach 18, the provided addresses, emails, and phone numbers may be outdated. However, having the donor’s name would typically allow children to locate them more easily.
While some individuals express concerns that ending donor confidentiality might deter future donors, Pope remains optimistic. She has assisted many people in connecting with their donors or surrogates, and nearly all have shown a desire to connect, even if they were initially hesitant. “I think it’s lovely,” she said, “because then the children get answers to the questions they have.”
Colorado was the first state to implement such a law, effectively banning anonymous donations in 2022. This law has faced some backlash, with ongoing legislative proposals that aim to roll back certain provisions. Colorado’s legislation emerged after a series of alarming stories highlighted the implications of donor anonymity, including a Dutch sperm donor who fathered hundreds of children. In Oregon, a sperm donor filed a lawsuit against OHSU in 2019 after discovering he had fathered 17 offspring from his donations, a number that later increased to at least 19.
Donor identity laws vary significantly from state to state. Some states have made adjustments to encourage information sharing but do not mandate it. For example, Washington’s law requires fertility clinics to “make a good faith effort” to provide adult children with their donors’ identifying information, but it also allows donors to opt for anonymity.
No senators on the committee commented during the discussion of Senate Bill 163, which is not sponsored by any individual lawmakers but was filed by the committee itself. A public hearing is scheduled for later this month to discuss the details of the amended bill, which was developed based on recommendations from an ad hoc work group of attorneys and practitioners that convened for over two years.
The bill is extensive, spanning 222 pages, and clarifies various aspects of state law concerning parentage, including child support, adoption, surrogacy, and genetic testing. Allowing children to discover the identities of sperm, egg, or embryo donors marks a significant shift in Oregon law.
Pope emphasized that the anonymity of genetic donors is increasingly compromised due to the rise of DNA testing services, which can uncover biological parents or relatives of donor-conceived children. “In this day and age, if kids want to figure it out, they do,” she said. “They just go on to 23andMe, swab their cheek, and connect with people.”
If the bill is enacted, it will reduce the effort required for children to identify their donors. However, implementation will take time; if the bill becomes law and is set to take effect in late 2025 or early 2026, it may not be until 2044 that the first 18-year-olds can utilize this right.
Pope remarked that if the proposal passes, “going forward, what donors will know: In Oregon, you are going to give up some of your privacy. You’re not going to be a secret anymore.”
