IVF Tourism and the Reproduction of Whiteness

Fertility Holidays

IVF Tourism and the Reproduction of Whiteness

Amy Speier

Publication Year: 2016

Each year, more and more Americans travel out of the country seeking low cost medical treatments abroad, including fertility treatments such as in vitro fertilization (IVF). As the lower middle classes of the United States have been priced out of an expensive privatized “baby business,” the Czech Republic has emerged as a central hub of fertility tourism, offering a plentitude of blonde-haired, blue-eyed egg donors at a fraction of the price.

 

Fertility Holidays presents a critical analysis of white, working class North Americans’ motivations and experiences when traveling to Central Europe for donor egg IVF. Within this diaspora, patients become consumers, urged on by the representation of a white Europe and an empathetic health care system, which seems nonexistent at home. As the volume traces these American fertility journeys halfway around the world, it uncovers layers of contradiction embedded in global reproductive medicine. Speier reveals the extent to which reproductive travel heightens the hope ingrained in reproductive technologies, especially when the procedures are framed as “holidays.” The pitch of combining a vacation with their treatment promises couples a stress-free IVF cycle; yet, in truth, they may become tangled in fraught situations as they endure an emotionally wrought cycle of IVF in a strange place.

 

Offering an intimate, first-hand account of North Americans’ journeys to the Czech Republic for IVF, Fertility Holidays exposes reproductive travel as a form of consumption which is motivated by complex layers of desire for white babies, a European vacation, better health care, and technological success.

Acknowledgments ix Introduction 1 1. From Hope to Alienation: North Americans Enter the Baby Business 17 2. Virtual Communities and Markets 41 3. Intimate Labor within Czech Clinics 63 4. Contradictions of Fertility Holidays 101 5. Separate but Connected Paths 118 Conclusion: An Eye to the Future 143 Notes 151 Bibliography 153 Index 163 About the Author

Introduction In my small bed-and-breakfast room in Moravia, I interviewed April, a blonde, blue-eyed music educator, and her husband, Larry, a teddy bear of a man. The two sat side by side, squished on my maroon leather loveseat, as I perched across from them on the edge of my bed. They took turns answering my questions about their experience with infertility and the world of assisted reproduction. The ease and flow of the conversation indicated a close, loving relationship and their mutual support. High school sweethearts, April and Larry were ready to have a baby once they had been married several years. After a year of seeing what would happen when they stopped using contraception, they began to wonder. April started charting her temperature to find out when she ovulated, and they began having “timed relations.” After another six months of making a more concerted effort, April decided to speak to her ob-gyn. Sadly, they learned that Larry had “weak” sperm, and they were referred to a fertility specialist. April and Larry were frustrated at what they felt was an interruption in their planned life cycle. Larry’s low sperm count affected his sense of masculinity, while April panicked because she had always wanted children. As they watched the families of their close friends grow, they felt increasingly isolated in their struggles. April joined an online support group for infertility called RESOLVE, where she basked in the support and information shared among women. At the fertility clinic, the doctor suggested April and Larry begin with noninvasive intrauterine injections (IUIs) to give Larry’s sperm a “jump start.” They underwent three cycles of IUI, at which point they decided that April should take fertility drugs to help stimulate the growth of more eggs, aiming to increase chances for conception. After another three unsuccessful rounds of IUI, their doctor suggested they begin to think seriously about in vitro fertilization (IVF). The doctor sent April and Larry to the clinic’s business office, which handled payment issues. The woman at the business office tallied the 2 | Introduction costs of future office visits at $300 per visit, the various procedures they would need, such as intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI),1 and costly medications. With only partial insurance coverage, they found themselves having to pay for nearly everything out of pocket. The price tag kept climbing until it reached $15,000. The two of them decided to put off renovating their bathroom and dipped into their savings. When their first cycle was unsuccessful, the doctor suggested they try IVF using donor egg, which again increases the chance of conception. But the price tag for IVF using an egg donor skyrocketed to nearly $35,000. Their jaws dropped, and they felt like a concrete road barrier had crashed in front of them, ending all chances for a semibiological family. They knew they could not afford it. The clinic suggested that they remortgage their house. Once again, April, heartbroken, turned to her online support group. A fellow RESOLVE member told April about a company called IVF Holiday that was arranging IVF with donor egg in the Czech Republic at dramatically lower prices. At first, April thought traveling so far away was a crazy idea, and she dismissed it immediately. But she kept returning to the IVF Holiday website, reading testimonials about couples’ successful IVF cycles. The website proffered images of smiling white babies as well as beautiful European landscapes, claiming couples would have “plenty of time to see exactly what you want and leave with wonderful experiences.” One day she contacted IVF Holiday, whose owners gave her contact information for previous clients, whom she called to speak with about their experiences. April knew she could convince Larry to go abroad, simply because the price would be a third of the price of an IVF cycle at home. Also, they had always talked about traveling around Europe. Once again, April and Larry began to be excited about the prospect of trying to have a baby. April sent her medical history to the IVF broker, who arranged all their clinical appointments. Larry and April were assured they would be picked up at the airport and taken to a small town in Moravia where the clinic was located. They decided to stay at a pension, a small bed-andbreakfast. April and Larry were stunned by the dramatically lower costs of the medications they received in the mail from the Czech clinic. As April began her medications, Larry perused travel websites, fantasizing Introduction | 3 about trips to Prague or Vienna with thoughts of romantic castles on his mind. They were riding on clouds of hope. Early in June 2010, April and Larry flew to Prague, Czech Republic, where they met another couple—Jessica and Doug—who arrived the same day, rode with them to the eastern Czech town, and stayed in the same small, intimate pension, where they ate breakfast together every day for three weeks. During their stay in the Czech Republic, April and Jessica visited the clinic together and even had their embryo transfers the same day. The two couples shared stories of trying to get pregnant as they explored local attractions together. April and Larry were pleasantly surprised by the friendly owners of the bed-and-breakfast, a small family whose kindness and generosity were unsurpassed. They felt respected by the Czech doctors, whose names seemed unpronounceable but who spent a lot of time answering their questions, never rushing them. They felt like they had a navigator in their IVF brokers, who showed they truly cared by checking on them while they were in the Czech Republic. Everyone seemed to want April to get pregnant. Larry surprised April by booking a four-star hotel in Prague, directly under the castle, as a last splurge before heading home, hoping for pregnancy. They dined on the rooftop, serenaded by a quartet playing Dvořák and Smetana. April felt like a queen and was optimistic. She thought the music must be soothing to the two embryos recently transferred into her uterus. April and Larry were sad to say good-bye to Jessica and Doug, and the women vowed to stay in touch and keep track of one another’s progress. They joked that maybe their roads would cross once again if they decided to return to the Czech Republic for another round of IVF, trying for siblings of their future babies. Sadly, April and Larry’s cycle was not successful this time,2 although Jessica and Doug welcomed twin boys the following spring. Fertility Tourism? This is the story of a North American couple I met, who, like so many others, encountered financial barriers to accessing fertility treatment at home. Reproductive travel, what Briggs (2010:51) has referred to as “offshore (re)production,” has grown as one of the main forms of medical 4 | Introduction travel due to the high cost of infertility treatment in the United States (Spar 2006; C. Thompson 2005); the unavailability of gamete donors, as in Germany (Bergmann 2011); strict regulatory laws, as in Italy (Zanini 2011); or a lack of general access to biomedical technologies, as in Nigeria (Pennings 2002). Given the global scope of reproductive travel, there is a “wide range of very different forms of regulation, bans, and approvals as well as considerable differences in clinical practice, public or private financing, and moral or ethical reasoning” (Knecht, Klotz, and Beck 2012:12). Scholars have debated the terminology of fertility tourism, referring to it as “reproductive tourism,” “procreative tourism,” or “cross-border reproductive care” (Gürtin and Inhorn 2011; Whittaker and Speier 2010). Franklin has called it “reproductive trafficking” (2012:34), and many qualify the word “tourism” with quotation marks. The majority of scholars find the term problematic, since it connotes pleasure “and thus trivializes fertility problems” (Knoll 2012:265). Some argue that in the case of same-sex couples or unmarried individuals the label “reproductive exiles” is more appropriate, since they are forced to seek treatment abroad (Matorras 2005; Inhorn and Patrizio 2009). Most assume it is the wealthy who can afford to travel abroad for medical care, yet Elisa Sobo and her collaborators claim that “medical travelers seeking biomedical treatment overseas may be disproportionately representative of the working poor” (2011:133). Admittedly, because infertile couples are otherwise healthy, “IVF treatment can lend itself to a combination of treatment and tourism between appointments” (Whittaker and Speier 2010:370). I argue that since IVF Holidays are branded as vacations, the “tourism” terminology should be retained. Knoll is in agreement when she writes, “From my anthropological perspective, tourism is an analytic term that captures the complexities of various kinds of peaceful movements across borders” (2012:265) and, more specifically, that “the notion of reproductive tourism therefore captures new forms of choice and consumerism in health care that tend to undermine the distinction between tourism and health care” (267). Whatever term used, it is a phenomenon enabled by globalization and the commercialization of reproductive medicine (Gürtin and Inhorn 2011). Introduction | 5 The multitude of reproductive travel routes is “varied”; a recent symposium on cross-border reproductive care includes twenty-two nations and five continents (Gürtin and Inhorn 2011). Ironically, the United States is a destination site because of the scant amount of regulation, though laws do vary from state to state. California is a favorite destination for gay couples, as well as for surrogacy—but it is largely for the wealthy elite, with the cost of treatments estimated at $100,000. Typically, however, destination sites of fertility travel can offer medical infrastructure and expertise, certain regulatory frameworks, and lower wage structures, which allow reproductive technologies to be performed at competitive, lower costs. In addition to a sense of cultural familiarity (which may mean a common language), patients are often seeking specific services such as sex selection, surrogacy, or commercial ova donation (Blyth and Farrand 2005). Given the global scope of reproductive tourism, as well as the methodological complexities of tracing these travel routes, data are fragmented regarding this “patchwork of widely diverging national laws” (Klotz and Knecht 2012:284). It is impossible to know how many people are traveling internationally for this type of care (Nygren et al. 2010). There are well-established “hubs” of reproductive tourism. India is known for its surrogacy market, offering some of the most affordable cycles at $20,000. Thailand is a hot spot for couples wanting to select the sex of their offspring using preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD) on embryos (Whittaker 2011). Other areas of the globe involved in reproductive travel are South Africa, Mexico, and the United States. A reported 24,000 to 30,000 cycles of IVF are performed in Europe each year, serving 11,000 to 14,000 patients (Inhorn and Patrizio 2012). The Czech Republic is emerging as one of the top European destinations for reproductive travel because, unlike most countries, it offers anonymous egg donation. Spain is the largest and oldest provider of reproductive medicine to foreign patients, and the Czech industry largely mimics the Spanish model in terms of regulations. However, the Czech Republic presently has “gaps” in regulations. Bergmann has named these “two of the main European destinations for egg donation” (2012:333). There are 200 clinics in Spain, which attests to the fact that reproductive travel has been an established industry for much longer than 6 | Introduction in the Czech Republic. In addition, since 2006 Spanish clinics may not discriminate against any person as a potential client, whereas the 43 Czech clinics will treat only married heterosexual couples. Because the Czech Republic’s population is largely atheist, limiting treatment to couples is related not to religious belief but rather to heteronormative state policies. Czech clinical websites advertise in English, German, Italian, and Russian, promising a ready availability of student egg donors with only a three-month waiting period. The Czech reproductive medical field is profiting from its lower price structure and liberal legislation stipulating that sperm and egg donation must be voluntary and anonymous. Donors cannot be paid for their eggs but are offered attractive “compensatory payments” of approximately 1,000 euros ($1,134) for the discomfort involved in ovarian stimulation and oocyte retrieval. For North American patients traveling to the Czech Republic during the time of this research, treatment for IVF was $3,000, and for an egg donor cycle the cost was $4,000. North Americans spend, on average, $10,000 for the entire trip to the Czech Republic. In comparison, a round of IVF with egg donation in the United States costs between $25,000 and $40,000. The European reproductive medical industry oriented toward foreign patients seems to be expanding eastward, as several Eastern European countries have recently emerged in this global market with slight differences in regulation. The Ukraine allows for “virtually everything,” including surrogacy, while Bulgaria does not have legislation about surrogacy yet (Global IVF 2012). Like the Czech Republic, Hungary restricts clients to heterosexual couples. However, if a single woman suffers from a medical condition like cancer that requires chemotherapy, which will likely lead to infertility, a clinic in Hungary will allow her to undergo IVF. Romania used to provide gamete donation for foreigners, until the practice was outlawed in 2008 (Nahman 2013). The global market of reproductive technologies as painted here obviously offers a vast array of choices for patients aiming to create a family using reproductive technologies. As North Americans are shopping the globe for different destination countries, they are acting as consumers with respect to their health care. One objective of this book is to trace North American quests for parenthood along this global care route to the Czech Republic. Introduction | 7 Most assume that this phenomenon of reproductive travel needs no further explanation beyond cost-effectiveness. However, as consumers, North Americans do not decide to travel abroad only for lower prices: indeed, the Czech Republic does not offer the lowest prices in the market. Thus, much more needs to be understood about this recent phenomenon because it reveals the complex interplay between global neoliberal shifts in health care and individual experiences of reproductive travel. The existence of the global care chain between North America and the Czech Republic can be credited to two entrepreneurial Czech women, Hana and Petra, both of whom married American men and subsequently suffered infertility. Both transnational couples had been “return reproductive travelers” (Inhorn 2011) to their Moravian hometowns in the Czech Republic, where they had access to state-funded assisted reproductive technologies (ARTs). After receiving treatment, each woman created an IVF broker agency, hoping to help other North Americans unable to afford treatment in the United States. These fertility brokers, who began offering “fertility holidays” in 2006, are important new actors at the center of reproductive travel. Websites of IVF brokers must be considered “political economies of hope” (Rose and Novas 2005). Political economies of hope, which are propelled by organizations of infertile patients, extend the “hope” already embedded in reproductive technologies (Franklin 1997a). Brokers lure North Americans who desperately want a baby with the promise of white donors, a European vacation, and top-notch health care. Roughly two-thirds of the twenty-nine couples I met in the Czech Republic were pursuing IVF with an egg donor, rather than IVF with their own eggs. In addition, North Americans are seeking a European vacation alongside excellent health care. Doctors who care are painfully lacking in the United States’ profit-hungry “baby business” (Spar 2006). Couples who choose to follow the path of reproductive travel make decisions based on complex notions of kinship, health care, and what constitutes a vacation. However, hope is the underlying basis of all of these factors. Typically, North Americans traveling to the Czech Republic for in vitro fertilization are seeking gamete donation that will assure a biological connection with one parent and at least a physical resemblance to the other parent. We can distinguish these couples from those seeking children through international adoption from a country with children 8 | Introduction of markedly different ethnicity (Jacobson 2008). North Americans traveling to the Czech Republic are almost always seeking “white” babies from Czech egg or sperm donors (see also Kahn 2000:132; Nahman 2008). In using the term “white” I am referring to the dominant sociocultural logic of U.S. race and color lines. North Americans use the term “white” as if there is one variant of “white” (Rothman 2005:79). Racial categories label sets of physical characteristics that we can locate on the body (Rothman 2005:90). Notions of white have often been tied to ideas of purity, but in these cases whiteness is also tied closely to notions of relatedness. This desire for “white” babies reflects an “appeal of European heritage” (Nash 2003:184). Scholars of international adoption to Russia and Eastern Europe have written about the ways that North Americans assume they can forge a deeper kinship connection through “sharing whiteness with a child” (Jacobson 2008:42). Jacobson further elaborates that whiteness is often assumed to be stable and passed through bloodlines (2008:63). North Americans traveling to the Czech Republic are trying to ensure racial stability for their families. A Global Marketplace of Health Care A global reproductive tourism industry indicates shifts in global policies of health care. Whittaker bears witness to “neoliberal readjustments of societies across the world to meet the demands of economic globalization” (2008:273). Countries across the globe have been shifting away from nationalized systems whereby the government assumes responsibility in providing universal health care to all citizens. Transitioning toward neoliberal health care models is often touted for its efficiency. The way patients make the decision to travel abroad for health care reflects a strengthening of the global, neoliberal model of consumer health care. In this model, patients essentially become consumers “choosing” from various possible treatment options. As consumers believe themselves to be free actors, they are simply choosing from various possible menu items. Responsibility has fallen on them as ostensibly free actors in a global medical marketplace. As I traced North American fertility journeys halfway around the globe, I uncovered layers of contradiction embedded in global repro- Introduction | 9 ductive medicine. Scholars have already shown how reproductive technologies are “hope” technologies (Franklin 1997a) that both empower women, by offering new opportunities to try to have a baby, and disempower them, by pressuring women to continuously subject their bodies to these medical technologies with no end point in sight. Medical anthropologists have often examined the power inherent in biomedicine, and feminist scholars note further the power embedded in reproductive medicine (Martin 1989; Rapp 2000; Davis-Floyd 2003). Many anthropologists have written about medicalization as disempowering to women, in that it assumes management over their bodies (Martin 1989; Turiel 1998). Even further, Sandelowski (1991) has written of how the promises of reproductive technologies often “compel” women to keep trying. However, even though reproductive medicine may in fact disempower some women, Sundby (2002) has insisted on the recognition of the empowering nature of reproductive technologies. Though these technologies tend to be distributed unevenly, they do offer couples a chance to conceive. Feminist theory has often failed to consider the actual experiences of women suffering infertility (Sandelowski 1990). This book explores the extent to which reproductive technologies remain complicated and even more ambiguous in a foreign setting. This book focuses on the multiple contradictions that occur as reproductive travelers embrace an ideological vision of vacation proposed by brokers. These contradictions, largely embedded in the term “IVF holiday,” point to the tensions and disjunctures of a global marketplace for health care. As consumers, these patients must make difficult decisions regarding their health, and medical tourism brokers have packaged fertility holidays to aid in their decision making. This volume argues that reproductive travel exacerbates the hope embedded in reproductive technologies, especially when they are marketed as holidays. It frames reproductive travel as a form of consumption motivated by complex layers of desire for white babies, a European vacation, better health care, and technological success. Each of these desires is further mired within its own contradictions. The volume demonstrates that reproductive tourists must be diligent consumers within a global neoliberal market of health care that perpetuates stratified reproduction. 10 | Introduction Methods I first heard of IVF Holiday in 2008, when a friend sent me a link to the company’s website. I consider my initial foray into the world of reproductive travel somewhat akin to how most North Americans learn about it: through Google searches and word of mouth. This research is based on a multisited project conducted in North America and the Czech Republic between 2010 and 2012. It is the first in-depth ethnographic study of North American reproductive travel to the Czech Republic from the consumer’s point of view. I gathered data through participant observation, surveys, focus groups, and interviews with the three primary social actors involved in the reproductive travel industry: North American reproductive travelers, Czech reproductive medicine providers, and brokers. Ethnographic research at two reproductive clinics in the Czech Republic, as well as with patient tourists after they returned from their travels, provides insight into their complex behaviors, motivations, and experiences of reproductive travel. Anthropologists have discussed the logistical, ethical, and technical difficulties of gaining access to infertile couples, especially those who travel abroad seeking services (Inhorn 2004; Whittaker and Speier 2010). The anthropologist must rely on various intermediaries, depending on the circumstances. The two main brokers for the Czech Republic, IVF Holiday and IVF Choices, put me in contact with Czech clinics as well as former clients. Both brokers sent out a survey to past clients who had already traveled to the Czech Republic, which garnered thirty respondents. Many of these respondents agreed to a follow-up interview that took place during the fall of 2010. During the summers of 2010 and 2011, I conducted participant observation at two Moravian clinics, as well as at sites of lodging for North Americans (see figure I.1). I also interviewed Czech coordinators and doctors and North American patient-travelers. The town of Zlín (pronounced Zleen) is small, with a population of 80,000, offering one or two family-owned accommodations, whereas Brno (pronounced BIRno), the second-largest city in the Czech Republic, provides couples with various options, ranging from four-star hotels to apartment-like studios. North Americans in Brno are much more isolated from one another, un- Introduction | 11 like couples in Zlín, who often seek the comfort of other North Americans while abroad. I conducted a total of thirty preliminary surveys with former reproductive travelers and fifty interviews: twenty-nine with reproductive travelers (seventeen with women only, eleven with couples together, and one with a man only), ten with fertility brokers, and eleven with Czech clinic personnel. Because infertility is often considered a woman’s problem, and reproductive technologies are played out on women’s bodies, it was primarily women who were the more vocal informants. Sometimes I interviewed only the woman, or, if I interviewed the couple together, the woman usually had more to say. I interviewed only one husband and wife separately. From December 2011 to September 2012, I traveled to Canada and thirteen different states within the United States to follow up with patients I had met in the Czech Republic. I conducted a total of nineteen follow-up life history interviews with North American patients and brokers. In total, I met twenty-nine couples. My informants have made fifty-one total trips to the Czech Republic, and twenty-eight children have been born.3 Figure I.1. The favorite pension. 12 | Introduction Overwhelmingly, couples were very positive and willing to speak to me. They were happy to have another American to speak English with, particularly one who asked about their struggles. In the Czech Republic, I conducted interviews outside the North American–favored pension, in cafés and restaurants, in my room or their room, in the main lobby, at the local mall, or at the clinic (see figures I.2 and I.3). I shared many meals with American couples: breakfasts in the lobby of the pension or outside if the weather permitted and dinners at local favorite restaurants. I went to the town center, the local museum, the observation tower, and even the zoo, joining couples on their small excursions around town. During my final phase of research in North America, I met some couples at their favorite local restaurants in their hometowns, while others invited me into their homes. I shared cappuccinos or Little Caesar’s pizza and sweet tea with them. I maintain electronic communication with most, through either social media or e-mail. They keep me updated with news of their burgeoning families. Of course, I was not able to follow up with every couple that I met. Often those who suffer the pain of a failed cycle retreat to heal. As Throsby has shown in her study of failed cycles, “Those whose treatment fails literally drop out of the sight of the treatment providers” (2004:7). Figure I.2 The clinic waiting room. Introduction | 13 Fertility Vacationers Those traveling to the Czech Republic for fertility treatment are predominantly white, lower-class to middle-class North Americans. Two Canadian women are included in this research because gamete donors cannot be paid in Canada (which makes it difficult for those who need an egg donor to find one). Canadians who can afford treatment in the United States will generally travel south for treatment. However, those who cannot afford treatment in the United States will also travel to the Czech Republic. I encountered women whose husbands worked three jobs to provide for the entire family, working-class couples, and uppermiddle-class couples and women. The majority of reproductive travelers I met were from the lower middle class.4 The reproductive traveler is careful with her “fertility dollar,” a savvy consumer. Typically, North American reproductive travelers are in their late thirties or early forties, since the majority need IVF with an egg donor. Of thirty survey respondents, the average age was 40.3, with ages ranging from 27 to 53. They are from all over North America, including Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, Tennessee, Indiana, Illinois, Nebraska, WisFigure I.3 The operating room of the clinic. 14 | Introduction consin, Minnesota, California, Washington, and Texas. My respondents are mainly white, although I did interview one Puerto Rican couple and one African American couple. The majority of travelers are experienced in the world of ARTs, having undergone several IUIs in the United States, often with the help of fertility drugs. They may have even tried one or more IVF cycles before reaching the limits of their budget. North American reproductive tourists are relatively well traveled, although several were venturing abroad for the first time. Tracing Fertility Journeys This book traces North American fertility journeys, which can be considered a form of biological citizenship (Rose and Novas 2005). Rose claims that “conceptions of ‘biological citizenship’ have taken shape that recode the duties, rights, and expectations of human beings in relation to their sickness, and also to their life itself, reorganize the relations between individuals and their biomedical authorities, and reshape the ways in which human beings relate to themselves as ‘somatic individuals’” (2007:6). Petryna, who uses the label “biological citizenship” to capture collective and individual social practices of Ukrainians demanding social welfare within a democratizing, post-Soviet post-Chernobyl nation-state, considers the complex ways citizens “use biology, scientific knowledge and suffering to have access to cultural resources” under harsh market transitions (2003:3). Rose builds on this by noting that biological citizenship can take many forms (2007:25). One form is the patient support networks that develop online and abroad. While North Americans are not undergoing a harsh transition to a market economy, nor are they demanding social welfare; they are assuming responsibility for managing their own bodies and also assuming risk when they venture abroad for treatment. The book’s first chapter introduces North Americans who have been diagnosed with infertility and describes their reactions and the culturally meaningful ways they respond. Often, their responses are contradictory. There are particular stages of treatment using reproductive technologies, and this chapter traces these patients’ movement through the “baby business” in the United States (Spar 2006). Ultimately, the Introduction | 15 chapter ends with their alienation and disillusionment with overpriced treatment options. Chapter 2 follows North Americans who turn to various forms of social media as a way of learning about possible routes toward parenthood. It is on the Internet that they learn of reproductive travel to the Czech Republic and become diligent consumers conducting research. This chapter follows female patients as they enter virtual biosocial communities where they join online gendered support groups and engage in biomedical global citizenship. With the North American patients, we encounter IVF brokers who are packaging fertility holidays that promise a stress-free IVF cycle in a relaxing European setting. The marketing of fertility holidays online speaks to North American hopes, both for a child who resembles them and for the liberating aspects of travel (Löfgren 1999). In chapter 3 we witness the global encounters between North American patients and Czech doctors. The chapter uncovers the shifting role of the Czech clinics as they provide patient-centered care. I frame the entire industry as a global care route and trace global technologies, finance, images, and people enmeshed in “intimate labor” (Boris and Parreñas 2010). Czech fertility clinics are global checkout lanes for North American global biocitizens opting to purchase IVF with egg donation. Yet the economic nature of these transactions is minimized by affective discourse. The book continues in chapter 4 with a consideration of the social kinship bonds that are created and sustained at the local pension. At the same time, I deconstruct the fundamental contradictions embedded within “fertility holidays.” Women internalize the pressure to “relax” and treat their trip as a vacation in the hope of ensuring a successful pregnancy. Finally, chapter 5 follows North Americans as they return home, with or without a successful pregnancy. It traces the new difficulties many have with complicated pregnancies and raising multiples, and the sorrow of those who are not successful. It continues with an analysis of social kinship as it is sustained by women’s kin work via social media (di Leonardo 1987; Pande 2015). Essentially, social kinship networks of families with children born of egg donation in the Czech Republic continue