![油
油
油 3
油
whether surrogacy contracts are enforceable and legally binding or not. One of the most pressing issues halting the
federal regulation of surrogacy is the fact that individual states have the power to regulate family law. There are
many inconsistencies in the state regulation of surrogacy: some states prohibit surrogacy contracts, some have failed
to address the issue, and the District of Columbia has gone so far as to criminalized surrogacy contracts.6
Some
argue that this lack of federal legislation stems from two distinct view points, according to Susan Markens in her
book Surrogate Parenthood and the Politics of Reproduction: our simultaneous exaltation of individual rights and
laissez-faire approach to the marketplace and our protective stance toward families.7
Because there has historically
existed a strong presence of both Christian and conservative beliefs in the United States, many pieces of legislation
aim at keeping children with their birth parents. In addition to this, the subject of reproductive rights and alternative
or assisted reproduction options has been traditionally difficult to solve and adequately regulate to the satisfaction of
the majority of U.S. citizens.
Since the 1980s, there have been various legislative attempts to federally regulate the status of children
born by surrogacy, seeking to answer the question of who the child belongs to: the intended parents of the surrogacy
contract, the biological egg and/or sperm donor(s), or the birth mother. At the time, there existed a stringent national
sentiment that surrogacy contracts should be prohibited and surrogacy as a whole should be largely discouraged.8
This sentiment reflected the international regulation of surrogacy, as many countries banned surrogacy contracts or
the exchange of money for surrogacy services, including Canada, Australia, Germany, and Hong Kong.9
The
Surrogacy Arrangements Act of 1987 proposed to [amend] the Federal criminal code to provide criminal penalties
for anyone who, on a commercial basis, knowingly makes, engages in, or brokers a surrogacy arrangement.10
It
also proposed to [amend] the Federal Trade Commission Act to provide criminal penalties for anyone who
advertises the availability of such an arrangement.11
The Uniform Laws Commission12
drafted the Uniform
Parentage Act in 200013
later revised in 2002 which provides states with suggestions for statutory law regarding
various parentage issues. Sections 801-809 of the Act set up provisions for creating a valid surrogacy agreement.14
The Act is incredibly detailed; however, because it is a uniform act is it merely a suggestion for states to enact it.
Very few states have passed the Act as whole, which further propagates the issue of unclear judicial oversight
regarding surrogacy.](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/229cd34a-2389-429d-a2f5-3cba5e58a24e-150723084247-lva1-app6892/85/Federal-Surrogacy-Regulation-3-320.jpg)
![油
油
油 5
油
in a history of confusing litigation that offers no clear rationale to whether surrogacy contracts are valid and
enforceable and whether the exchange of money for surrogacy is legal in the United States
A second major case regarding the issue of surrogacy contracts was tried in 1993 in the Supreme Court of
California.35
Interestingly, the holding of Johnson v. Calvert36
is directly opposite of that of the appellate courts
holding in the Baby M case. The facts of the case are as follows:
On
油January
油15,
油1990,
油Mark
油[Calvert],
油Crispina
油[Calvert],
油and
油Anna
油[Johnson]
油signed
油a
油contract
油providing
油that
油an
油
embryo
油created
油by
油the
油sperm
油of
油Mark
油and
油the
油egg
油of
油Crispina
油would
油be
油implanted
油in
油Anna
油and
油the
油child
油born
油
would
油be
油taken
油into
油Mark
油and
油Crispina's
油home
油"as
油their
油child."
油Anna
油agreed
油she
油would
油relinquish
油"all
油parental
油
rights"
油to
油the
油child
油in
油favor
油of
油Mark
油and
油Crispina.
油
油In
油return,
油Mark
油and
油Crispina
油would
油pay
油Anna
油$
油10,000
油in
油a
油
series
油of
油installments,
油the
油last
油to
油be
油paid
油six
油weeks
油after
油the
油child's
油birth.
油Mark
油and
油Crispina
油were
油also
油to
油pay
油for
油
a
油$
油200,000
油life
油insurance
油policy
油on
油Anna's
油life.37
油
油
This case is an example of gestational surrogacy, as Mrs. Johnson is not genetically related to the child in question
in any way. Throughout Mrs. Johnsons pregnancy, the relationship between her and the Calverts deteriorated for
various reasons38
and in July 1990 Mrs. Johnson sent the Claverts a letter demanding the balance of her payments or
else she would not relinquish the child.39
Both the Calverts and Mrs. Johnson filed lawsuits seeking to be declared
the legal parents of the unborn child.40
Both suits were later consolidated and went to trial in October 1990, after the
child was born in September 1990.41
The trial court held that the Calverts were the babys genetic, biological, and natural parents, that Mrs.
Johnson had no parental claims to the child, and the surrogacy contract was enforceable.42
Mrs. Johnson appealed to
the Court of Appeal for the Fourth District, Division Three of California, and the appellate court affirmed the trial
courts decision.43
The Supreme Court of California reviewed the case.44
Mrs. Johnson tried to argue that under the
Uniform Parentage Act,45
as a surrogate mother she was natural mother and thus had parental rights to the child.
The Supreme Court of California stated:
We
油 conclude
油 that
油 although
油 the
油 Act
油 recognizes
油 both
油 genetic
油 consanguinity
油 and
油 giving
油 birth
油 as
油 means
油 of
油
establishing
油 a
油 mother
油 and
油 child
油 relationship,
油 when
油 the
油 two
油 means
油 do
油 not
油 coincide
油 in
油 one
油 woman,
油 she
油 who
油
intended
油to
油procreate
油the
油child-足-足that
油is,
油she
油who
油intended
油to
油bring
油about
油the
油birth
油of
油a
油child
油that
油she
油intended
油to
油
raise
油as
油her
油own-足-足is
油the
油natural
油mother
油under
油California
油law.46
油](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/229cd34a-2389-429d-a2f5-3cba5e58a24e-150723084247-lva1-app6892/85/Federal-Surrogacy-Regulation-5-320.jpg)
![油
油
油 6
油
Essentially, the court stated that Mrs. Calvert is the natural mother of the baby in question by default because Mrs.
Johnson did not fulfill both requirements of the Act being genetically related and birthing the baby and Mrs.
Calvert is the one with the initial intent to raise the baby. The At the conclusion of the Supreme Court of
Californias review, the holding of the appellate court47
was affirmed: the Calverts were deemed the legal parents of
the baby and the surrogacy contract was enforceable48
.
The Johnson v. Calvert case was a landmark decision in the issue of surrogacy, as its holding was the
exact opposite of that in In the Matter of Baby M: the surrogacy contract in question was in fact legally binding and
enforceable.
Though In the Matter of Baby M and Johnson v. Calvert are both influential pieces of litigation, they are
just the two most well known examples of the lack of clear statutory or federal laws regarding the legality and
enforceability of surrogacy contracts. Both cases occurred early on in the history of surrogacy lawsuits and there
have been many since then, all of which have provided very little clarity into the matter. The case of J.F. v. D.B.49
reached the Supreme Court of Ohio in 2007 after being heard at both the trial court and appellate court levels. The
surrogacy contract in question stated will the surrogate mother in a gestational surrogacy "would not attempt to
form a parent-child relationship with any child conceived pursuant to the contract and will institute proceedings to
terminate [her] parental rights upon the birth of the children.50
In a custody battle and breach of contract suit, trial
court held that the surrogacy contract in question was unenforceable and was a violation of Ohio public policy, a
common decision of courts in surrogacy contract cases.51 52
The appellate court reversed the decision,53
claiming the
contract was in fact enforceable and did not violate any policies. Upon review at the Supreme Court of Ohio, the
court reversed54
the judgment of the appellate court, citing that Enforcing this contract, which is no less than a
contract for the creation of a child, is likely to open Ohio to being an interstate, and perhaps international,
marketplace for gestational surrogacy.55
Essentially, the contract in J.F. v. D.B. was held to be unenforceable because of the possibility that it could
set precedent for the state of Ohio to become a haven for surrogates. To lawmakers, this should illustrate the clear
need for comprehensive federal laws and regulations about surrogacy. If a states court system legitimately fears
parties seeking to enlist a legally bound surrogate to flock to their state, there exists a need for proper regulation.
Rather than leaving states on their own to either outlaw surrogacy contracts and the exchange of money for](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/229cd34a-2389-429d-a2f5-3cba5e58a24e-150723084247-lva1-app6892/85/Federal-Surrogacy-Regulation-6-320.jpg)
More Related Content
What's hot (18)
Viewers also liked (9)
Similar to Federal Surrogacy Regulation (6)
Federal Surrogacy Regulation
- 1. FEDERAL 油REGULATION 油AND 油 ENFORCEABILITY 油OF 油SURROGACY 油 CONTRACTS 油 SAVANNA 油WILLIAMS 油 HADM3700 油 油HEALTH 油LAW 油 APRIL, 油2015 油 油
- 2. 油 油 油 2 油 The practice of surrogacy is something that has been trivialized through popular media and movies like Baby Mama; however, what many people do not realized is at the heart of this centuries old practice is a history of heartache and legal issues. Surrogacy goes back hundreds of years, as women throughout the centuries have carried children for other women, whether for monetary compensation or simply to assist a family member. The first modern surrogacy did not occur until the 1970s, bringing the legal issues into the spotlight.1 Unfortunately, this practice has evolved into a major social issue, as there is very limited legal regulation of the practice in the United States, allowing for complicated questions of parental rights to arise. Due to the lack of federal regulation and inconsistent statutory law, surrogacy contacts are rarely regarded as legally binding and enforceable. The purpose of this analysis is to answer the following questions: should the practice of domestic surrogacy be regulated by federal legislation? Should surrogacy contracts be legally binding and enforceable in all states? In order to sufficiently examine these questions, this paper will focus first on the definition of surrogacy, legal issues regarding surrogacy, and finally provide an answer to the proposed research question, including a suggestion for federal policy. DEFINITION 油OF 油SURROGACY 油 Surrogacy is the practice of using a surrogate mother to carry and birth a child when an individual or couple is unable to do this on their own.2 There are two primary types of surrogacy: traditional and gestational. Traditional surrogacy is when the surrogate acts as both the egg donor and as the actual surrogate for the embryo3 and she is impregnated using the biological fathers sperm with is injected using intrauterine insemination. Gestational surrogacy is when the embryo is actually created by using both the biological father's sperm and the biological mother's egg through a process called in vitro fertilization.4 Once the embryo is fertilized, it is then transferred into the uterus of the surrogate, who will carry the pregnancy to full term.5 With the gestational option, the baby is not biologically related to the surrogate at all. FEDERAL 油LAWS 油ON 油SURROGACY 油 Currently, there is an absence of federal laws regarding surrogacy in the United States, an issue that is being brought to peoples attention on a national level. This lack of federal regulation has led to confusion as to
- 3. 油 油 油 3 油 whether surrogacy contracts are enforceable and legally binding or not. One of the most pressing issues halting the federal regulation of surrogacy is the fact that individual states have the power to regulate family law. There are many inconsistencies in the state regulation of surrogacy: some states prohibit surrogacy contracts, some have failed to address the issue, and the District of Columbia has gone so far as to criminalized surrogacy contracts.6 Some argue that this lack of federal legislation stems from two distinct view points, according to Susan Markens in her book Surrogate Parenthood and the Politics of Reproduction: our simultaneous exaltation of individual rights and laissez-faire approach to the marketplace and our protective stance toward families.7 Because there has historically existed a strong presence of both Christian and conservative beliefs in the United States, many pieces of legislation aim at keeping children with their birth parents. In addition to this, the subject of reproductive rights and alternative or assisted reproduction options has been traditionally difficult to solve and adequately regulate to the satisfaction of the majority of U.S. citizens. Since the 1980s, there have been various legislative attempts to federally regulate the status of children born by surrogacy, seeking to answer the question of who the child belongs to: the intended parents of the surrogacy contract, the biological egg and/or sperm donor(s), or the birth mother. At the time, there existed a stringent national sentiment that surrogacy contracts should be prohibited and surrogacy as a whole should be largely discouraged.8 This sentiment reflected the international regulation of surrogacy, as many countries banned surrogacy contracts or the exchange of money for surrogacy services, including Canada, Australia, Germany, and Hong Kong.9 The Surrogacy Arrangements Act of 1987 proposed to [amend] the Federal criminal code to provide criminal penalties for anyone who, on a commercial basis, knowingly makes, engages in, or brokers a surrogacy arrangement.10 It also proposed to [amend] the Federal Trade Commission Act to provide criminal penalties for anyone who advertises the availability of such an arrangement.11 The Uniform Laws Commission12 drafted the Uniform Parentage Act in 200013 later revised in 2002 which provides states with suggestions for statutory law regarding various parentage issues. Sections 801-809 of the Act set up provisions for creating a valid surrogacy agreement.14 The Act is incredibly detailed; however, because it is a uniform act is it merely a suggestion for states to enact it. Very few states have passed the Act as whole, which further propagates the issue of unclear judicial oversight regarding surrogacy.
- 4. 油 油 油 4 油 MAJOR 油CASES 油ON 油SURROGACY 油 While the practice of surrogacy of various forms dates back hundreds of years, even to the days of the Bible, the first piece of litigation regarding surrogacy and surrogacy contracts occurred in the 1980s with the Baby M case.15 In the Matter of Baby M was tried in the Superior Court of New Jersey16 and led to the first major litigation regarding surrogacy. The facts of the case are as follows: in February 1985, William Stern and Mary Beth Whitehead entered into a surrogacy contract17 whereby it was agreed that Mrs. Whitehead would provide a child to the Sterns with Mr. Stern as the biological father via artificial insemination of his sperm.18 The contract stipulated that Mrs. Whitehead would carry the child to term, bear it, deliver it to the Sterns, and thereafter do whatever was necessary to terminate her maternal rights so that Mrs. Stern could thereafter adopt the child.19 Mrs. Stern was likely not included as a party to the surrogacy contract in an effort to avoid being in violation of the baby-selling statute of New Jersey.20 Prior to Baby Ms birth, Mrs. Whitehead expressed symptoms of depression, stating she was not sure she could relinquish the baby.21 On March 27, 1986 Baby M was born and on March 30 she was turned over to the Sterns, after which Mrs. Whitehead became emotionally distraught.22 The Sterns allowed Mrs. Whitehead to have Baby M for a short period of time, fearing that Whitehead would commit suicide and expecting they would get their child back; however, after four months Mrs. Whitehead would not return the child.23 Mr. Stern filed a complaint with the Superior Court of New Jersey24 to uphold the contract and seek that Baby M was returned to the Sterns. The trial court held25 that the surrogacy contract was valid and that Baby M must be surrendered to the Sterns in the babys best interest.26 Mrs. Whitehead appealed the decision to the Supreme Court of New Jersey27 where the appellate court reversed the trial courts holding.28 The surrogacy contract was found to be invalid and against public policy.29 The exchange of money for the surrogacy agreement was illegal under New Jersey Statute, N.J. Stat. Ann. 則 9:3-54.30 The adoption of Baby M by Mrs. Stern was thus deemed invalid, leaving Mrs. Whitehead as the legal mother31 ; however, parental custody was granted to Mr. Stern.32 The case of Baby M was undoubtedly a landmark case for the issue of surrogacy. Had the holding of the trial court33 not been reversed, there would have been legal precedent for surrogacy contracts to be legally enforceable and for the intended parents in a surrogacy contract to have parental rights to the baby. Because the Supreme Court of New Jersey reversed this decision34 , the court set precedent for surrogacy contracts to be unenforceable and the exchange of money for surrogacy to be criminalized. The case of Baby M is just one instance
- 5. 油 油 油 5 油 in a history of confusing litigation that offers no clear rationale to whether surrogacy contracts are valid and enforceable and whether the exchange of money for surrogacy is legal in the United States A second major case regarding the issue of surrogacy contracts was tried in 1993 in the Supreme Court of California.35 Interestingly, the holding of Johnson v. Calvert36 is directly opposite of that of the appellate courts holding in the Baby M case. The facts of the case are as follows: On 油January 油15, 油1990, 油Mark 油[Calvert], 油Crispina 油[Calvert], 油and 油Anna 油[Johnson] 油signed 油a 油contract 油providing 油that 油an 油 embryo 油created 油by 油the 油sperm 油of 油Mark 油and 油the 油egg 油of 油Crispina 油would 油be 油implanted 油in 油Anna 油and 油the 油child 油born 油 would 油be 油taken 油into 油Mark 油and 油Crispina's 油home 油"as 油their 油child." 油Anna 油agreed 油she 油would 油relinquish 油"all 油parental 油 rights" 油to 油the 油child 油in 油favor 油of 油Mark 油and 油Crispina. 油 油In 油return, 油Mark 油and 油Crispina 油would 油pay 油Anna 油$ 油10,000 油in 油a 油 series 油of 油installments, 油the 油last 油to 油be 油paid 油six 油weeks 油after 油the 油child's 油birth. 油Mark 油and 油Crispina 油were 油also 油to 油pay 油for 油 a 油$ 油200,000 油life 油insurance 油policy 油on 油Anna's 油life.37 油 油 This case is an example of gestational surrogacy, as Mrs. Johnson is not genetically related to the child in question in any way. Throughout Mrs. Johnsons pregnancy, the relationship between her and the Calverts deteriorated for various reasons38 and in July 1990 Mrs. Johnson sent the Claverts a letter demanding the balance of her payments or else she would not relinquish the child.39 Both the Calverts and Mrs. Johnson filed lawsuits seeking to be declared the legal parents of the unborn child.40 Both suits were later consolidated and went to trial in October 1990, after the child was born in September 1990.41 The trial court held that the Calverts were the babys genetic, biological, and natural parents, that Mrs. Johnson had no parental claims to the child, and the surrogacy contract was enforceable.42 Mrs. Johnson appealed to the Court of Appeal for the Fourth District, Division Three of California, and the appellate court affirmed the trial courts decision.43 The Supreme Court of California reviewed the case.44 Mrs. Johnson tried to argue that under the Uniform Parentage Act,45 as a surrogate mother she was natural mother and thus had parental rights to the child. The Supreme Court of California stated: We 油 conclude 油 that 油 although 油 the 油 Act 油 recognizes 油 both 油 genetic 油 consanguinity 油 and 油 giving 油 birth 油 as 油 means 油 of 油 establishing 油 a 油 mother 油 and 油 child 油 relationship, 油 when 油 the 油 two 油 means 油 do 油 not 油 coincide 油 in 油 one 油 woman, 油 she 油 who 油 intended 油to 油procreate 油the 油child-足-足that 油is, 油she 油who 油intended 油to 油bring 油about 油the 油birth 油of 油a 油child 油that 油she 油intended 油to 油 raise 油as 油her 油own-足-足is 油the 油natural 油mother 油under 油California 油law.46 油
- 6. 油 油 油 6 油 Essentially, the court stated that Mrs. Calvert is the natural mother of the baby in question by default because Mrs. Johnson did not fulfill both requirements of the Act being genetically related and birthing the baby and Mrs. Calvert is the one with the initial intent to raise the baby. The At the conclusion of the Supreme Court of Californias review, the holding of the appellate court47 was affirmed: the Calverts were deemed the legal parents of the baby and the surrogacy contract was enforceable48 . The Johnson v. Calvert case was a landmark decision in the issue of surrogacy, as its holding was the exact opposite of that in In the Matter of Baby M: the surrogacy contract in question was in fact legally binding and enforceable. Though In the Matter of Baby M and Johnson v. Calvert are both influential pieces of litigation, they are just the two most well known examples of the lack of clear statutory or federal laws regarding the legality and enforceability of surrogacy contracts. Both cases occurred early on in the history of surrogacy lawsuits and there have been many since then, all of which have provided very little clarity into the matter. The case of J.F. v. D.B.49 reached the Supreme Court of Ohio in 2007 after being heard at both the trial court and appellate court levels. The surrogacy contract in question stated will the surrogate mother in a gestational surrogacy "would not attempt to form a parent-child relationship with any child conceived pursuant to the contract and will institute proceedings to terminate [her] parental rights upon the birth of the children.50 In a custody battle and breach of contract suit, trial court held that the surrogacy contract in question was unenforceable and was a violation of Ohio public policy, a common decision of courts in surrogacy contract cases.51 52 The appellate court reversed the decision,53 claiming the contract was in fact enforceable and did not violate any policies. Upon review at the Supreme Court of Ohio, the court reversed54 the judgment of the appellate court, citing that Enforcing this contract, which is no less than a contract for the creation of a child, is likely to open Ohio to being an interstate, and perhaps international, marketplace for gestational surrogacy.55 Essentially, the contract in J.F. v. D.B. was held to be unenforceable because of the possibility that it could set precedent for the state of Ohio to become a haven for surrogates. To lawmakers, this should illustrate the clear need for comprehensive federal laws and regulations about surrogacy. If a states court system legitimately fears parties seeking to enlist a legally bound surrogate to flock to their state, there exists a need for proper regulation. Rather than leaving states on their own to either outlaw surrogacy contracts and the exchange of money for
- 7. 油 油 油 7 油 surrogacy or entirely ignore the issue, Congress needs to approach this growing issue. In the gestational surrogacy case of J.R., M.R. and W.K.J., Plaintiffs, vs. The State of Utah,56 the issue was not that either the biological parents or the surrogate had fault with each other, but that the state of Utah refused to recognize the biological and intended parents as the babys legal parents. There is such serious inconsistency in statutory surrogacy law that surrogates are permitted to keep babies that are not biologically or contractually theirs, and even when there is completely agreement between all parties, some states refuse to recognize the intended parents as such. ANALYSIS 油AND 油SUGGESTION 油OF 油FEDERAL 油POLICY 油 In many surrogacy-related cases, the issue in question is that the surrogacy contract is unenforceable. The plaintiff cannot sue for breach of contract because the contract is not actually valid or for kidnapping if a surrogate refuses to relinquish the baby. Refusing to relinquish a baby that is contractually not the surrogates regardless of if the baby was conceived via traditional or gestational surrogacy should be cause for the same punishments as kidnapping. The child does not belong to the surrogate, because the surrogate waived her rights to claim the child as her own when entering the surrogacy contract. A federal recognition of the validity of surrogacy contracts would solve this problem and protect the parties involved. The intended parent(s), surrogate mother, and donor(s) should all be able to enter in a legally binding contract that stipulates the terms of the surrogacy agreement. It should include details of who is carrying the baby, who is donating the egg and sperm, and who exactly the intended parents who will raise the child are. Additionally, there needs to include exact dates of when the surrogate will relinquish the baby, and whose name will be on the babys birth certificate as the parents. Surrogacy contracts should stipulate how much money will be exchanged for the surrogacy service, with a clause stating the amount cannot be manipulated after signing, in order to protect the intended parents from extortion. Ideally, a surrogacy contract should include specific requirements for communication between the intended parents and the surrogate, such as where the surrogate is residing so that the surrogate cannot flee with the unborn baby. The Uniform Parentage Act, cited previously and created by the Uniform Laws Commission, is a near perfect example of legislation regarding surrogacy contracts. If all states were to enact the U.P.A. or if Congress enacted it as federal law there were be far fewer issues of unclear judicial holdings and surrogacy contracts would be enforceable much more frequently.
- 8. 油 油 油 8 油 To answer the previously stated questions: Should the practice of domestic surrogacy be regulated by federal legislation? Unequivocally yes. The inconsistencies of statutory surrogacy law, judicial holdings, and enactment of the Uniform Parentage Act have led to broken families and heartache. If this is not feasible in the future, all states should strive to enact the Uniform Parentage Act. Should surrogacy contracts be legally binding and enforceable in all states? With the passage of federal surrogacy law or the enactment of the Uniform Parentage Act in all states, all surrogacy contracts will ideally by legally binding and enforceable. It has been said that one of the major forces opposing the passage of federal surrogacy laws is the national desire to protect family values. What better way to protect these values than to recognize that a surrogacy contract is a legitimate and enforceable contract, disallowing surrogate mothers from stealing a baby away from its rightful parents? 油 油 油 油 油 油 油 油 油 油 油 油 油 油 油 油 油 油 油 油 油 油 油 油 油 油 油 油 油 油 油 油 油 油 油 油 油 油 油 油 油 油 油 油 油 油 油 油 油 油 油 油 油 油 油 油 油 油 油 油 油 油 油 油 油 油 油 油 1 油"Surrogacy 油History." 油Modern 油Family 油Surrogacy 油Center. 油N.p., 油n.d. 油Web. 油20 油Apr. 油2015. 油 2 油"Types 油of 油Surrogacy." 油Modern 油Family 油Surrogacy 油Center. 油N.p., 油n.d. 油Web. 油20 油Apr. 油2015. 油 3 油Id. 油Types 油of 油Surrogacy 油 4 油Id. 油Types 油of 油Surrogacy 油 5 油Id. 油Types 油of 油Surrogacy 油 6 油18 Chap. L. Rev. 553 (2015) 7 油Markens, 油Susan. 油Surrogate 油Motherhood 油and 油the 油Politics 油of 油Reproduction. 油Berkeley: 油U 油of 油California, 油2007. 油Web. 油 20 油Apr. 油2015. 油 8 油Id. 油Markens 油 9 油Id. 油Markens 油 10 油United 油States 油Congress. 油House. 油Energy 油and 油Commerce; 油Judiciary. 油Surrogacy 油Arrangements 油Act 油of 油1987. 油By 油 Thomas 油A. 油Luken. 油100th 油Cong. 油HR 油H.R.2433. 油N.p.: 油n.p., 油n.d. 油United 油States 油Congress. 油Web. 油20 油Apr. 油2015. 油 11 油Id. 油Surrogacy 油Arrangements 油Act 油of 油1987 油 12 油Uniform 油Laws 油Commission 油provides 油states 油with 油non-足partisan 油legislation 油that 油brings 油clarity 油and 油stability 油to 油 critical 油areas 油of 油state 油statutory 油law 油 13 油Uniform 油Parentage 油Act 油則 8:801-809 油 14 油Id. 油U.P.A. 油 15 油In the Matter of Baby M. 217 N.J. Super. 313; 525 A.2d 1128; 1987 N.J. Super. LEXIS 1113 16 油Id. 油Baby 油M 油(1987) 油
- 9. 油 油 油 9 油 油 油 油 油 油 油 油 油 油 油 油 油 油 油 油 油 油 油 油 油 油 油 油 油 油 油 油 油 油 油 油 油 油 油 油 油 油 油 油 油 油 油 油 油 油 油 油 油 油 油 油 油 油 油 油 油 油 油 油 油 油 油 油 油 油 油 油 油 油 油 油 油 油 油 油 油 油 油 油 油 油 油 油 油 油 油 油 油 油 油 油 油 油 油 油 油 油 油 油 油 油 油 油 油 油 油 油 油 油 油 油 油 油 油 油 油 油 油 油 油 油 油 油 油 油 油 油 油 油 油 油 油 油 油 油 油 油 油 油 油 油 油 油 油 油 油 油 油 油 油 油 油 油 油 油 油 油 油 油 油 油 油 油 油 油 油 油 油 油 油 油 油 油 油 油 油 油 油 油 油 油 油 油 油 油 油 油 油 油 油 油 油 油 油 油 油 油 油 油 油 油 油 油 油 油 油 油 油 油 油 油 油 油 油 油 油 油 油 17 油Baby 油M 油(1987), 油at 油344 油 18 油Baby 油M 油(1987), 油at 油344 油 19 油In the Matter of Baby M. 109 N.J. 396; 537 A.2d 1227; 1988 N.J. LEXIS 1; 77 A.L.R.4th 1, at 412 20 油Baby 油M 油(1988), 油at 油414 油 21 油Baby 油M 油(1987), 油at 油347 油 22 油Id. 油Baby 油M 油(1987) 油 23 油Baby 油M 油(1988), 油at 油415 油 24 油In the Matter of Baby M. 217 N.J. Super. 313; 525 A.2d 1128; 1987 N.J. Super. LEXIS 1113 油 25 油Baby 油M 油(1987), 油at 油408 油 26 油Baby 油M 油(1987), 油at 油409 油 27 油In the Matter of Baby M. 109 N.J. 396; 537 A.2d 1227; 1988 N.J. LEXIS 1; 77 A.L.R.4th 1, at 412 油 28 油Baby 油M 油(1987), 油at 油408 油 29 油Baby 油M 油(1988), 油at 油468 油 30 油N.J. Stat. Ann. 則 9:3-54 油 31 油Baby 油M 油(1988), 油at 油1 油 32 油Id. 油Baby 油M 油(1988) 油 33 油Baby 油M 油(1987), 油at 油408 油 34 油Baby 油M 油(1988), 油at 油468 油 35 油Johnson v. Calvert 5 Cal. 4th 84; 851 P.2d 776; 19 Cal. Rptr. 2d 494; 1993 Cal. LEXIS 2474; 93 Cal. Daily Op. Service 3739; 93 Daily Journal DAR 6409 36 油Johnson, 油at 油101 油 37 油Johnson, 油at 油87 油 38 油Johnson, 油at 油88 油 39 油Id. 油Johnson 油 40 油Id. 油Johnson 油 41 油Id. 油Johnson 油 42 油Id. 油Johnson 油
- 10. 油 油 油 10 油 油 油 油 油 油 油 油 油 油 油 油 油 油 油 油 油 油 油 油 油 油 油 油 油 油 油 油 油 油 油 油 油 油 油 油 油 油 油 油 油 油 油 油 油 油 油 油 油 油 油 油 油 油 油 油 油 油 油 油 油 油 油 油 油 油 油 油 油 油 油 油 油 油 油 油 油 油 油 油 油 油 油 油 油 油 油 油 油 油 油 油 油 油 油 油 油 油 油 油 油 油 油 油 油 油 油 油 油 油 油 油 油 油 油 油 油 油 油 油 油 油 油 油 油 油 油 油 油 油 油 油 油 油 油 油 油 油 油 油 油 油 油 油 油 油 油 油 油 油 油 油 油 油 油 油 油 油 油 油 油 油 油 油 油 油 油 油 油 油 油 油 油 油 油 油 油 油 油 油 油 油 油 油 油 油 油 油 油 油 油 油 油 油 油 油 油 油 油 油 油 油 油 油 油 油 油 油 油 油 油 油 油 油 油 油 油 油 油 43 油Id. 油Johnson 油 44 油Id. 油Johnson 油 45 油Uniform 油Parentage 油Act, 油California 油Civ. Code, 7000 et seq. 油 46 油Johnson, 油at 油93 油 47 油Johnson, 油at 油88 油 48 油Johnson, 油at 油101 油 49 油J.F. 油v. 油D.B. 油116 油Ohio 油St. 油3d 油363; 油2007-足Ohio-足6750; 油879 油N.E.2d 油740; 油2007 油Ohio 油LEXIS 油3330 油 50 油J.F. 油v. 油D.B., 油at 油363 油 51 油Id. 油J.F. 油v. 油D.B. 油 52 油In 油Re 油Baby 油et 油al. 油447 油S.W.3d 油807; 油2014 油Tenn. 油LEXIS 油642 油 53 油J.F. 油v. 油D.B., 油at 油363 油 54 油J.F. 油v. 油D.B., 油at 油368 油 55 油J.F. 油v. 油D.B., 油at 油367 油 56 油J.R., M.R. and W.K.J., Plaintiffs, vs. The State of Utah 261 F. Supp. 2d 1268; 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7785 油