Skip to content

Epidaurus · Treatment Guide · Reproductive Services

Going abroad for —

Gender Selection Legality

PGT for family balancing legal status

The country comparison

Which countries are best for gender selection legality

The destinations ranked high→low under this lens — each with the reasoning behind its score, the cited evidence one click down, and its full report. The verdict is free; the report is the depth.

19 / 19 Countries ranked

Researched and assessed by the Epidaurus editorial pipeline against our published scale. A country below the rule is not yet assessed enough — never ranked last.

  1. 1 United Arab Emirates AE 4.5/5 Good The UAE explicitly permits gender selection for family balancing under Federal Law No. 7 of 2019 (as amended by Decree-Law 17/2023 and Cabinet Resolution 124/2024), with multiple MOHAP/DHA/DoH-licensed facilities offe... Full report
    The evidence behind this score 5 cited points
    • Gender selection for family balancing is explicitly permitted under Federal Law No. 7 of 2019 (amended 2023 and 2024) for married couples where one sex is already represented in their children
    • Multiple MOHAP/DHA/DoH-licensed fertility centers openly provide gender selection services, including Bourn Hall and New Hope IVF with JCI accreditation, and Fakih IVF with in-house genetics laboratory
    • International married patients have substantially equal legal access to gender selection as UAE residents, with requirements for authenticated marriage certificates, passports, and medical records
    • No documented prosecutions or license revocations for lawful family-balancing gender selection; enforcement conducted via mandatory ethics committee approval and counseling
    • The UAE is cited as one of only two to three countries globally where gender selection for family balancing is explicitly legal, making it a major medical tourism destination

    Read the full United Arab Emirates report →

  2. 2 United States US 4.0/5 Good The United States has no federal laws prohibiting sex selection for family balancing, making it explicitly legal with ~500 ART clinics available and 72.7% offering these services. Professional guidelines (ASRM) permit... Full report
    The evidence behind this score 5 cited points
    • No federal laws prohibiting embryo sex identification for non-medical reasons; clinics are free to offer this option and patients are free to request it
    • Approximately 500 U.S. ART clinics provide services, with 72.7% offering sex selection and 83.5% offering it for couples without infertility
    • ASRM practitioners are under no ethical obligation to provide or refuse sex selection services, allowing full practitioner discretion
    • International patients face no legal restrictions; fertility clinics explicitly state 'Gender selection is legal in the United States' and living in countries with bans does not preclude U.S. access
    • ASRM acknowledges that sex selection 'can lead to gender bias, harm to individuals and society, and misuse of medical resources,' indicating qualified rather than enthusiastic professional support

    Read the full United States report →

  3. 3 Jordan JO 4.0/5 Good Jordan has no statutory prohibition on sex selection, explicitly classified as 'no policy' by IVF-Worldwide alongside the US. Multiple licensed facilities (6-8 documented) openly offer PGD sex selection, including uni... Full report
    The evidence behind this score 5 cited points
    • No Jordanian statute addresses sex selection; regulatory vacuum allows clinics to perform non-medical sex selection without legal prohibition.
    • Zero documented enforcement actions, prosecutions, or license revocations related to sex selection; university-hospital study of 125 non-medical cases (2015-2019) proceeded with IRB approval.
    • International patients explicitly marketed to by multiple Amman clinics with no documented legal restrictions; medical visa regime facilitates treatment stays.
    • At least 6-8 fertility centers in Amman and Irbid offer PGD sex selection, including JCI/HCAC-accredited hospitals; over 50 specialists listed on medical tourism platforms.
    • IVF-Worldwide classifies Jordan as 'no policy,' one of a small group (alongside US, Argentina, Brazil, Japan) without formal sex selection regulations.

    Read the full Jordan report →

  4. 4 Mexico MX 4.0/5 Good Mexico demonstrates a legally permissive and practically excellent environment for gender selection, with multiple licensed COFEPRIS-regulated facilities openly providing services to both domestic and international pa... Full report
    The evidence behind this score 5 cited points
    • Gender selection is completely legal in Mexico for both medical and non-medical family balancing purposes with no federal law prohibiting the practice
    • Multiple licensed facilities (ViaFERT, Centro de Fertilidad del Prado, Eligen Fertility Center) openly provide gender selection services under COFEPRIS regulatory oversight
    • Mexico welcomes international patients with no special restrictions, documentation requirements, or reporting obligations for foreign patients seeking gender selection
    • No criminal penalties, professional sanctions, or license revocation mechanisms target gender selection services
    • Professional standards are established through REDLARA membership, which represents over 90% of fertility clinics in Latin America

    Read the full Mexico report →

  5. 5 Colombia CO 3.5/5 Moderate Colombia permits non-medical sex selection de facto through multiple licensed clinics with zero enforcement, and international patients face no legal restrictions. However, the legal status is genuinely ambiguous—perm... Full report
    The evidence behind this score 4 cited points
    • No Colombian statute explicitly prohibits non-medical sex selection; Decreto 1546 of 1998 (primary ART regulation) predates PGT-A and contains no sex-selection provisions
    • Multiple internationally accredited clinics openly advertise gender selection (REPROTEC, INSER, CECOLFES, Eugin Colombia); at least 10+ facilities offer services; zero prosecutions or license revocations for providing non-medical sex selection
    • International patients explicitly welcome with no additional legal requirements; Constitutional Court's 2022 T-357 ruling established reproductive autonomy as fundamental right
    • Senate Bill PL 370-25 introduced February 2025 could potentially restrict sex selection; Constitutional Court repeatedly exhorted Congress since 2022 to enact comprehensive TRHA legislation, creating genuine uncertainty about future legal framework

    Read the full Colombia report →

  6. 6 Thailand TH 3.0/5 Moderate Thailand explicitly prohibits non-medical gender selection through the Medical Council of Thailand regulations and the 2015 Protection of Children Born Through Assisted Reproductive Technologies Act, yet enforcement i... Full report
    The evidence behind this score 5 cited points
    • Gender selection for non-medical reasons is prohibited by the Medical Council of Thailand regulations and the 2015 Protection of Children Born Through Assisted Reproductive Technologies Act (ART Act B.E. 2558)
    • Since the ART Act took effect in 2015, only 1 person has been punished under the law, indicating minimal enforcement despite explicit legal prohibition
    • Multiple JCI-accredited international hospitals including Bumrungrad International Hospital openly advertise gender selection services to international patients
    • Numerous medical tourism sources claim gender selection is 'fully legal' in Thailand for both medical and non-medical reasons, directly contradicting the official legal framework
    • No evidence in the report of international patients being prosecuted or deported for seeking gender selection services despite the official prohibition

    Read the full Thailand report →

  7. 7 Brazil BR 2.5/5 Moderate Brazil formally prohibits non-medical sex selection via CFM Code of Medical Ethics and CFM Resolution 2.320/2022, with no criminal backing—positioning it as Score 2. However, enforcement is exceptionally weak (one doc... Full report
    The evidence behind this score 5 cited points
    • Non-medical sex selection explicitly prohibited by CFM Resolution 2.320/2022 and Code of Medical Ethics Article 15, unchanged since 1992; no criminal law applies
    • Only one documented enforcement action in 2004 with no public outcome; CFM acknowledged 'lack of clear enforcement mechanisms' in 2021; zero criminal prosecutions recorded in 22+ years
    • CFM 2.320/2022 (September 2022) permits sex disclosure in all PGT reports and allows sex selection when PGT-A is performed for legitimate medical purpose (aneuploidy screening), not 'exclusively' for sex selection—creating a de facto gray-area pathway
    • International patients subject to same rules as domestic patients; no government warnings targeting sex selection tourism; patient-level legal risk essentially zero; provider-level risk moderate from professional sanctions
    • 62.6% of Brazilian ob-gyns would support or consider parental involvement in sex selection decisions, indicating substantial gap between formal prohibition and practitioner attitudes

    Read the full Brazil report →

  8. 8 Malaysia MY 2.0/5 Poor Malaysia explicitly prohibits sex selection for non-medical reasons under MMC Guideline 003/2006, permitting genetic embryo testing only for serious sex-linked genetic diseases. However, enforcement is exceptionally w... Full report
    The evidence behind this score 7 cited points
    • MMC Guideline 003/2006 explicitly prohibits PGD/PGT for social sex selection; permitted only to prevent serious sex-linked genetic diseases
    • No statutory criminal law specifically addresses sex selection; prohibition is professional-guideline-level only
    • No documented prosecutions or licence revocations for sex selection violations despite awareness since 2004
    • Private IVF clinics (Alpha Fertility, Sunfert, Concept Fertility, Sunway Fertility, Thomson Fertility) openly offer PGT-A services; Alpha IVF markets MicroSort® sperm sorting explicitly for family balancing since 2014
    • Malaysia is documented as a destination hub for patients from Singapore (where sex selection is explicitly banned) and mainland China
    • International patients face no special legal restrictions, documentation requirements, or reporting obligations beyond domestic patients
    • No evidence of enforcement attempts, government warnings against sex selection tourism, or professional consequences despite services being publicly discussed and advertised

    Read the full Malaysia report →

  9. 9 Japan JP 2.0/5 Poor Japan explicitly prohibits non-medical sex selection under JSOG professional guidelines enforced since 1998–2000, but this prohibition operates outside statutory law through professional discipline (membership expulsi... Full report
    The evidence behind this score 5 cited points
    • JSOG guidelines describe non-medical gender selection as 'absolutely prohibited unless there is critical medical necessity'—categorical professional ban since 1998
    • Japan's 2020 Assisted Reproductive Technology Act deliberately left sex selection unaddressed, explicitly noting the question for 'future deliberation,' maintaining reliance on professional self-regulation rather than statutory law
    • Enforcement through professional discipline and insurance billing penalties only—no documented criminal prosecutions of providers or patients for sex selection violations
    • Foreign and domestic patients treated equally under JSOG guidelines; both uniformly prohibited from accessing non-medical sex selection at licensed facilities
    • Japan's sex ratio at birth (approximately 105 males per 100 females) remains in natural biological range, demonstrating the prohibition is effectively practiced despite non-statutory enforcement

    Read the full Japan report →

  10. 10 Israel IL 2.0/5 Poor Israel explicitly prohibits non-medical PGD sex selection under the 2005 Ministry of Health Directive, with committee-granted exceptions approved in only ~12.7% of cases and eligibility criteria (four same-sex childre... Full report
    The evidence behind this score 5 cited points
    • Non-medical PGD sex selection is prohibited under Ministry of Health Directive No. 21/05 (2005), with committee-granted exceptions limited to married couples with four same-sex children demonstrating mental health risk; only ~12.7% of 639 applications approved over first decade
    • No documented criminal prosecutions; enforcement is administrative and weak; committee chairman stated 'quite surprisingly there hasn't been a single lawsuit'; 2024 State Comptroller found inadequate IVF oversight mechanisms
    • Eligibility criteria (four-child requirement, married status, in-person committee appearance) constitute effective exclusion for virtually all medical tourists; no Israeli clinic documented as advertising sex selection to foreigners
    • 2024 Haaretz investigation revealed Israeli doctors facilitating sex selection abroad for clients who cannot meet domestic criteria, charging ~$80,000, with no documented prosecution
    • Israeli citizens themselves (particularly Arab Israelis) cross borders to West Bank clinics for unrestricted sex selection, indicating demand far exceeds legal domestic supply and the domestic regime is porous

    Read the full Israel report →

  11. 11 Poland PL 1.0/5 Poor Poland maintains an explicit statutory criminal prohibition on preimplantation genetic testing for non-medical sex selection under Article 82 of the 2015 Infertility Treatment Act, with penalties up to two years impri... Full report
    The evidence behind this score 6 cited points
    • Article 82 of the 2015 Act on the Treatment of Infertility explicitly criminalizes PGT for non-medical sex selection with penalties of fine, restriction of liberty, or imprisonment up to two years
    • All 40+ licensed fertility clinics in Poland universally comply with the prohibition; major providers (Gyncentrum, INVICTA, Invimed, Bocian) explicitly state they do not offer sex selection services
    • Enforcement operates through Ministry of Health licensing and inspection authority, creating a de facto absolute prohibition without need for prosecutions
    • Polish law applies uniformly to all patients including foreign nationals with no exemptions or special tourism-targeted rules
    • Medical exception exists only for prevention of severe, incurable sex-linked hereditary diseases; family balancing remains categorically prohibited
    • No underground or grey-market provider option identified; any non-compliant provider would operate criminally with no legal protection

    Read the full Poland report →

  12. 12 Singapore SG 1.0/5 Poor Singapore maintains a strictly prohibited status on non-medical sex selection through statutory law embedded in the Healthcare Services (Assisted Reproduction Service) Regulations 2023, with no licensed facilities aut... Full report
    The evidence behind this score 5 cited points
    • Healthcare Services (Assisted Reproduction Service) Regulations 2023 explicitly prohibit non-medical sex selection with exception only for medically-justified prevention of sex-linked genetic disorders
    • Zero of 11 MOH-approved AR centers are authorized to provide non-medical sex selection; approved facilities offer PGT-M and PGT-SR only for medical genetic purposes
    • Prohibition consistently reaffirmed through BAC 2005 Recommendation 11, 2016 parliamentary confirmation, 2020 licensing terms, 2023 HCSA regulations, and most recent MOH Circular No. 10/2025 without any relaxation
    • Documented significant outbound medical tourism (Singaporeans traveling to Malaysia, Thailand, USA for non-medical sex selection) confirms complete domestic unavailability
    • All major private fertility clinics (Thomson Medical, Monash IVF, Mount Elizabeth) publicly aligned with prohibition; no evidence of underground or off-label services

    Read the full Singapore report →

  13. 13 Spain ES 1.0/5 Poor Spain maintains an explicit statutory prohibition on non-medical sex selection under Law 14/2006, classified as a 'very serious infraction' with penalties of €10,001 to €1,000,000 and possible facility closure. No lic... Full report
    The evidence behind this score 5 cited points
    • Law 14/2006 Article 26.c).10ª explicitly classifies sex selection for non-therapeutic purposes as a 'very serious infraction' with penalties ranging from €10,001 to €1,000,000
    • Zero Spanish fertility clinics are authorized to offer non-medical sex selection; all major clinic networks uniformly refuse this service
    • International patients are subject to the identical absolute prohibition as domestic patients with no exemption or special regime for non-residents
    • Spain ratified the Oviedo Convention (Article 14), which independently prohibits sex selection except to prevent serious hereditary sex-linked disease
    • No publicly identified underground market exists for elective sex selection in Spain; the CNRHA and autonomous community oversight structures create multi-layered enforcement

    Read the full Spain report →

  14. 14 Germany DE 1.0/5 Poor Germany maintains a comprehensive prohibition on non-medical sex selection under §3 ESchG with severe criminal penalties (up to 1 year imprisonment) and administrative fines (up to €50,000). No licensed facility may o... Full report
    The evidence behind this score 6 cited points
    • §3 ESchG explicitly criminalizes non-medical sex selection with penalties of up to one year imprisonment or fines
    • No licensed German facility may offer sex selection for social or family-balancing purposes; all 11 authorized PGD centers operate exclusively for medical indications
    • 79% of German reproductive medicine specialists surveyed favor restricting sex selection strictly to medical reasons, with only 4% approving unrestricted social sex selection
    • No known criminal prosecutions because deterrence is absolute and no provider offers such services; enforcement operates through complete absence of supply
    • April 2024 Expert Commission on Reproductive Self-Determination made no recommendation to change the sex selection ban despite recommending liberalization of abortion law and egg donation
    • German law does not criminalize patients for obtaining legal sex selection abroad (by analogy with egg donation), but this creates no domestic access for medical tourists

    Read the full Germany report →

  15. 15 United Kingdom GB 1.0/5 Poor The United Kingdom maintains one of the world's most stringent statutory bans on non-medical sex selection, encoded in the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 2008 with criminal penalties up to 10 years imprisonmen... Full report
    The evidence behind this score 5 cited points
    • Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 2008, Schedule 2 explicitly prohibits all practices designed to ensure a child of one sex rather than another, with criminal penalties of up to 10 years imprisonment for serious violations [legislation.gov.uk - 2008]
    • HFEA actively enforces through biennial clinic inspections and licensing powers; suspended Homerton Fertility Centre in 2024 for non-compliance and investigated clinics in 2018 for referring patients overseas for prohibited sex selection [HFEA - 2024]
    • All 141 HFEA-licensed UK clinics are absolutely prohibited from offering non-medical sex selection; the medical exception applies only to ~1,900 approved sex-linked genetic conditions, not family balancing [HFEA - 2025]
    • International patients face identical legal prohibition with no exemptions or special provisions; nationality provides no derogation from the ban [HFEA - 2018]
    • HFEA's 2023 law modernisation consultation—the most comprehensive fertility law review in two decades—made no proposals to relax the sex selection ban, and approximately 80% of respondents have opposed non-medical sex selection consistently since 2003 [HFEA - 2023]

    Read the full United Kingdom report →

  16. 16 Hungary HU 1.0/5 Poor Hungary enforces a complete prohibition on non-medical sex selection backed by felony-level criminal penalties (1–5 years imprisonment under Section 170 of the Criminal Code) and structural enforcement: all private fe... Full report
    The evidence behind this score 5 cited points
    • Section 170 of Act C of 2012 (Criminal Code) explicitly criminalizes non-medical embryo sex selection as a felony punishable by 1–5 years imprisonment
    • All private fertility clinics were nationalized/banned by July 2022; only ~13 state-run facilities remain, none authorized for non-medical sex selection
    • PGT-A (preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidies) was reclassified as experimental and banned from clinical use in 2015, closing the technical pathway for sex determination
    • Hungary ratified the Oviedo Convention (Article 14) in 2002, restricting sex selection to prevention of serious sex-linked hereditary disease only
    • Hungarian citizens emigrate to Czech Republic and Slovakia for fertility services unavailable domestically, indicating zero domestic medical tourism infrastructure for sex selection

    Read the full Hungary report →

  17. 17 India IN 1.0/5 Poor India explicitly prohibits non-medical sex selection through both the PCPNDT Act 1994 and the ART Act 2021, with severe criminal penalties of 5-10 years imprisonment and up to ₹25 lakh fines for providers. Enforcement... Full report
    The evidence behind this score 5 cited points
    • PCPNDT Act 1994 and ART Act 2021 Section 26 explicitly prohibit all non-medical sex selection with criminal penalties of 5-10 years imprisonment and ₹10-25 lakh fines
    • Active enforcement: 586 convictions from 4,202 registered cases nationally; Maharashtra 127 convictions; Haryana 1,217 FIRs with 4,000+ arrests since 2014
    • Escalating enforcement intensity: 2024 Karnataka state task force formed; 2025 Haryana mobile surveillance and reverse-tracking system launched; Delhi High Court fresh enforcement directives 2025
    • Foreign nationals subject to identical prohibitions with no exemptions or special pathways for medical tourists
    • No facility in India holds or can hold a license for non-medical sex selection; automatic medical license suspension (5 years minimum) upon conviction

    Read the full India report →

  18. 18 Turkey TR 1.0/5 Poor Turkey maintains a strict, long-standing prohibition on non-medical sex selection through PGT, formalized in the 2010 Regulation on Assisted Reproductive Treatment Practices and reinforced by the 2003 ratification of ... Full report
    The evidence behind this score 7 cited points
    • Explicit prohibition in Official Gazette No. 27513 (2010) and High Health Council decision (1995) banning sex selection for non-medical reasons [Banning Reproductive Travel - Reproductive BioMedicine Online - 2011]
    • Oviedo Convention Article 14 (ratified 2003) prohibits sex selection except for medical prevention of sex-linked disease [Research on Embryos in Turkey - PMC - 2014]
    • Ministry of Health enforces through biannual inspections of all 110+ ART centers; violations trigger certificate nullification, indefinite clinic closure, and permanent personnel bans [Is IVF in Turkey Safe? - Dr. Senai Aksoy - 2024]
    • Prohibition applies without distinction to both Turkish citizens and international patients; no exemption for foreign nationals [IVF in Turkey for International Patients - Dr. Senai Aksoy - 2024]
    • Jinemed Center formal government investigation and public warning following BBC undercover evidence demonstrates active enforcement capacity [Foreign Clinic Offering Illegal Sex Selection - Progress Educational Trust - 2008]
    • Zero licensed facilities authorized to provide non-medical sex selection; all 110+ centers refuse services universally [Is IVF in Turkey Safe? - Dr. Senai Aksoy - 2024]
    • Medical exception exists only for serious sex-linked hereditary conditions (hemophilia, Duchenne dystrophy); no family balancing exception [Can You Choose Gender with IVF? - Turkey Luxury Clinics - 2024]

    Read the full Turkey report →

  19. 19 South Korea KR 1.0/5 Poor South Korea's Bioethics and Safety Act explicitly prohibits PGT for non-medical sex selection with severe penalties including up to two years imprisonment and substantial fines for providers. Active enforcement histor... Full report
    The evidence behind this score 7 cited points
    • Bioethics and Safety Act (2005) explicitly prohibits non-medical sex selection: genetic testing institutions 'shall not conduct genetic tests on embryos or fetuses for purposes other than that of diagnosing muscle dystrophy or other gene-related diseases'
    • Criminal penalties: up to 2 years imprisonment and/or 30 million won ($21,640) fine for providers performing gender-selective IVF
    • Medical license revocation as enforcement consequence: 1990 suspension of 8 physicians' licenses for performing sex determination tests
    • 1994 amendments further strengthened penalties to up to 3 years imprisonment and $25,000 fine plus automatic license revocation
    • Prohibition applies equally to international and domestic patients with no legal exceptions for medical tourists
    • No licensed clinics legally offer elective sex selection for family balancing purposes
    • While South Korean citizens may travel abroad for sex selection without domestic prosecution, no legal pathway exists to obtain services within South Korea

    Read the full South Korea report →

Reading the field

What separates a good programme from a dangerous one

Every country above is graded against this published scale — the same 1–5 rubric for gender selection legality, top to bottom. How we score →

  1. 5/5 Excellent

    - Sex selection for family balancing is explicitly legal with clear regulatory framework - Multiple licensed facilities offering services with government oversight - Well-defined legal processes for both domestic and international patients - Professional medical guidelines supporting ethical sex selection practices - Recent legal confirmations or positive developments in accessibility - Strong legal protections for patients and providers operating within the law - Clear distinction between prohibited and permitted uses with comprehensive guidance

  2. 4/5 Good

    - Sex selection legally permitted with some regulatory restrictions or limitations - Licensed facilities available but may require specific approvals or certifications - Legal framework exists but may have some ambiguities or gaps - International patients generally permitted but may face additional requirements - Moderate enforcement of existing regulations with predictable outcomes - Professional medical associations generally supportive within legal bounds

  3. 3/5 Moderate

    - Legal status unclear or varies by jurisdiction within country - Some facilities may offer services but legal protection uncertain - Conflicting regulations or guidance from different authorities - Enforcement is inconsistent or unpredictable - International patient access legally ambiguous - Recent legal changes creating uncertainty about current status - Religious or cultural laws creating parallel legal systems with different standards

  4. 2/5 Poor

    - Sex selection explicitly prohibited by law but enforcement is weak or inconsistent - Underground or legally questionable services may be available - High legal risk for providers and patients - International patients specifically targeted by enforcement - Recent legal crackdowns or increased penalties - Professional medical associations officially oppose but some practitioners still provide services - Significant penalties exist but prosecution is rare

  5. 1/5 Very Poor / Unavailable

    - Sex selection for non-medical reasons is strictly prohibited with severe penalties - Active enforcement with regular prosecutions of violators - No licensed facilities legally providing these services - International patients face criminal prosecution - Recent legal developments increasing restrictions or penalties - Strong cultural, religious, or government opposition - Medical professionals face automatic license revocation for any violations - Complete ban with no legal exceptions for family balancing

The reports

The full country reports under this lens

Each destination we have assessed has a full, cited report — the detailed analysis behind its score. The verdict is free; the report is the depth.

Clinics & providers

The clinics our research names

Named hospitals, clinics and centres cited across these findings — each carrying the specialties our reports record. Follow one to the reports behind it.

References

The sources behind these assessments

The distinct sources cited across these published reports — every finding carries its own citations; this is the union, each linking back to the reports that lean on it.

  1. Untitled source www.ivfkorea.or.kr/data/statute?flag=BD Cited in Gender Selection Legality in South Korea
  2. Untitled source www.thailawforum.com/medical-surrogacy-regulations Cited in Gender Selection Legality in Thailand
  3. Untitled source 2009-2017.state.gov/j/tip/rls/tiprpt/countries/2016/258798.htm Cited in Gender Selection Legality in South Korea
  4. Untitled source bccivfwellness.com/treatment-services/pre-implantation-genetic-diagnosis-pgd-service Cited in Gender Selection Legality in Thailand
  5. Untitled source bestclinicabroad.com/en/clinics/poland/reproductive-medicine Cited in Gender Selection Legality in Poland
  6. Untitled source bestclinicabroad.com/en/clinics/south-korea/reproductive-medicine Cited in Gender Selection Legality in South Korea
  7. Untitled source blog.ipleaders.in/pre-conception-and-pre-natal-diagnostic-techniques-prohibition-of-sex-determination-act-2003 Cited in Gender Selection Legality in India
  8. Untitled source bloomkorea.co/blog/fertility-laws-in-south-korea-what-you-need-to-know Cited in Gender Selection Legality in South Korea
  9. Untitled source byjus.com/free-ias-prep/pre-conception-and-pre-natal-diagnostic-techniques-prohibition-of-sex-selection-act-1994 Cited in Gender Selection Legality in India
  10. Untitled source cjp.org.in/sc-upholds-constitutionality-of-section-23-of-pcpndt-act Cited in Gender Selection Legality in India
  11. Untitled source copyright-certificate.byu.edu/news/family-balancing-in-india-is-1763079080649 Cited in Gender Selection Legality in India
  12. Untitled source daddysdigest.com/why-is-sex-selection-and-determination-illegal-in-india Cited in Gender Selection Legality in India
  13. Untitled source dhsr.hp.gov.in/Files/1_Understanding_the_PCPNDT_Act_0.PDF Cited in Gender Selection Legality in India
  14. Untitled source draksoyivf.com/blog/can-preimplantation-genetic-testing-be-used-for-sex-selection Cited in Gender Selection Legality in United States
  15. Untitled source draksoyivf.com/blog/ivf-turkey-safety-quality-cost-guide Cited in Gender Selection Legality in Turkey
  16. Untitled source drlambertreproducaohumana.com.br/fertilizacao-in-vitro/escolher-o-sexo-do-bebe-o-que-a-medicina-e-a-lei-no-brasil-permitem Cited in Gender Selection Legality in Brazil
  17. Untitled source drswetagupta.com/can-you-actually-pick-your-babys-gender-in-ivf Cited in Gender Selection Legality in India
  18. Untitled source elaw.klri.re.kr/eng_mobile/viewer.do?hseq=33442&type=part&key=36 Cited in Gender Selection Legality in South Korea
  19. Untitled source elaw.klri.re.kr/eng_mobile/viewer.do?hseq=52559&type=part&key=36 Cited in Gender Selection Legality in South Korea
  20. Untitled source embryo.asu.edu/pages/singapore-bioethics-advisory-committee Cited in Gender Selection Legality in Singapore
  21. Untitled source embryo.asu.edu/pages/south-koreas-bioethics-and-biosafety-act-2005 Cited in Gender Selection Legality in South Korea
  22. Untitled source en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_in_South_Korea Cited in Gender Selection Legality in South Korea
  23. Untitled source en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medical_tourism_in_India Cited in Gender Selection Legality in India
  24. Untitled source en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pre-Conception_and_Pre-Natal_Diagnostic_Techniques_Act,_1994 Cited in Gender Selection Legality in India

Explore the source archive →

In plain language

Start exploring the knowledge base

The field's shorthand our reports use, sized by how often it comes up. Follow any term to its full entry and the reports that use it.

For readers weighing this decision

Ways to read the evidence

The verdict is always free. A membership opens the full analysis and every cited source — this specialty, the whole library, or everything for good.

  • One specialty · annual

    Reproductive Services

    $49.00 / year

    $49.00/year

    Every report in this specialty — full analysis and every cited source — as each is published.

    Take this specialty

  • Full library · annual

    The whole library

    $199.00 / year

    $199.00/year

    The complete evidence behind every finding in every specialty, while your decision is live.

    Take the full library
  • Most readers

    Lifetime · one payment

    Everything, for good

    $499.00 once

    $499.00 (one-time)

    Every finding we publish today and hereafter — no renewal, no expiry. The tier we point most readers to.

    Take lifetime access

Prefer to pay per report? A single report is $29.00, yours to keep — browse the reports. The verdict is always free.

Where to go from here · Gender Selection Legality

no scope is a dead end — step up to the specialty, drill into a factor, or pivot across to a country or a comparison