Editorial & Review Policy

Scope

• Educational pages about surrogacy and egg donation
• State-by-state legal overview pages (educational summaries)
• Blog articles, podcasts, and multimedia content
• Conversion pages (applications, contact forms, and landing pages)

Accuracy Standards

We aim to present information in a way that is truthful, specific, and easy to verify. When a page includes factual or quantitative claims, we strive to provide context and, where appropriate, cite primary or authoritative sources.

• State law information is presented as educational information (not legal advice).
• Medical information is presented as general education (not medical advice).
• Claims that can vary by circumstance should include the major drivers of variation.

Sources & Citations

For YMYL-adjacent topics, we prioritize citations to reputable sources where feasible, including:

• ASRM (American Society for Reproductive Medicine)
• SART (Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology) and its patient resource, ReproductiveFacts.org
• CDC Assisted Reproductive Technology (ART) surveillance and data
• State statutes and published court decisions
• Official third-party pages for awards and rankings (for verification)

Review Process

Content is written and maintained by Patriot Conceptions and may be reviewed for accuracy and clarity. Where a page is reviewed by a subject-matter expert (medical or legal), we aim to credit that reviewer on-page.

Learn more about roles and attribution on the Editorial Team page.

• Legal topics: reviewed for clarity and framed with disclaimers to avoid presenting legal advice.
• Medical topics: reviewed for clarity and framed with disclaimers to avoid presenting medical advice.
• Operational details (process steps, application flows): reviewed for user clarity and consistency.

Update Cadence

• Evergreen service pages: reviewed periodically and updated when processes or requirements change.
• State law summaries: updated when we identify changes or when reviewing for freshness.
• Blog posts: updated when necessary for accuracy, clarity, or improved sourcing.

Reviewer Roles & Attribution

Content is reviewed by the team best suited to the subject so that legal, clinical, operational, and editorial questions are each evaluated by people who work with that material every day. We organize review responsibilities across four standing teams:

• Editorial Team — owns content standards, comparison guides, and the freshness cadence that keeps educational pages accurate over time.
• Operations Team — reviews process steps, application flows, program terms, and the response expectations described on contact and journey pages.
• Clinical Review Team — reviews medical and screening-related content for clarity and appropriate framing, with disclaimers that this is general education and not medical advice.
• Marketing Team — reviews proof, testimonial, and awards content against our source-governance standards so claims stay tied to verifiable sources.

Many pages carry a visible “Last reviewed” line naming the responsible team and the date of the most recent review, so readers can see when content was last checked and by whom.

Editorial Independence & Disclaimers

Educational content is written to inform, not to pressure a decision. Where a page describes our own programs, we keep promotional framing separate from the underlying facts, and we route awards, reviews, and accreditation claims through our published proof-governance process so each statement stays backed by a verifiable source.

• State-law and parentage summaries are educational and are not legal advice.
• Medical and screening summaries are general education and are not medical advice.
• Program terms, costs, and eligibility can change, and should be confirmed with our team before relying on them.

Corrections

If you believe any content is inaccurate or outdated, please contact us via the Contact page and include the URL and the specific issue. We review and correct errors when verified.

Last updated: 2025-12-14