Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-vdxz6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-29T10:58:29.427Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Savvy Surrogates and Rock Star Parents: Compensation Provisions, Contracting Practices, and the Value of Womb Work

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2020

Hillary L. Berk
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract:

What is the value of surrogate labor and risks, and how is it negotiated by participants as they contract within an unsettled baby market? This article presents novel data on compensation, fee, and bodily autonomy provisions formalized in surrogacy contracts, and the experiences of actors embedded in exchange relations, as they emerge in a contested reproductive market. It combines content analysis of a sample of thirty surrogacy contracts with 115 semi-structured interviews conducted in twenty states across the United States of parties to these agreements, attorneys who draft them, counselors, and agencies that coordinate matches between intended parents and surrogates. It analyzes the value of services and medical risks, such as loss of a uterus, selective abortion, and “carrier incapacity,” as they are encoded into agreements within an ambiguous field. Surrogacy is presented as an interactive social process involving law, markets, medicine, and a variety of cultural norms surrounding gender, motherhood, and work. Contracts have actual and symbolic power, legitimating transactions despite moral anxieties. Compensation transforms pregnancy into a job while helping participants make sense of the market and their “womb work” given normative flux. Contracts are deployed by professionals without informed policies that could enhance power and reduce potential inequalities.

Type
Articles
Information
Law & Social Inquiry , Volume 45 , Issue 2 , May 2020 , pp. 398 - 431
Copyright
© 2020 American Bar Foundation

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Abrams, Kathryn. “The Second Coming of Care.” Chicago-Kent Law Review 76 (2001): 1605–17.Google Scholar
Albiston, Catherine. Rights on Leave. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2010.Google Scholar
Almeling, Renee. Sex Cells: The Medical Market for Eggs and Sperm. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 2011.Google Scholar
Anleu, Sharyn L. Roach. “Reinforcing Gender Norms: Commercial and Altruistic Surrogacy.” Acta Sociologica 33, no. 1 (1990): 63–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Babbie, Earl. The Practice of Social Research, Twelfth Edition. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth, 2009.Google Scholar
Berend, Zsuzsa. The Online World of Surrogacy. New York: Berghahn Press, 2016.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berk, Hillary. The Legalization of Emotion: Risk, Gender, and the Management of Feeling in Contracts for Surrogate Labor. Doctoral Dissertation, ProQuest-CSA, LLC (2015).Google Scholar
Bernstein, Lisa. “Opting Out of the Legal System: Extralegal Contractual Relations in the Diamond Industry.” Journal of Legal Studies 21, no. 1 (1992): 115–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boris, Eileen, and Parrenas, Rhacel. Intimate Labors: Cultures, Technologies, and the Politics of Care. Redwood City, CA: Stanford University Press, 2010.Google Scholar
Chamallas, Martha. Introduction to Feminist Legal Theory. New York: Aspen Publishers, 2003.Google Scholar
Charmaz, Kathy. Constructing Grounded Theory: A Practical Guide Through Qualitative Analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 2006.Google Scholar
Charo, Alta. “And Baby Makes Three.” Wisconsin Women’s Law Journal 7 (1992): 1–23.Google ScholarPubMed
Cohen, Elizabeth. “Surrogate Offered $10,000 to Abort Baby,” published online at CNN Health. http://www.cnn.com/2013/03/04/health/surrogacy-kelley-legal-battle (accessed June 3, 13).Google Scholar
Colen, Shelley. “‘Like a Mother to Them’: Stratified Reproduction and West Indian Childcare Workers and Employers in New York.” In Conceiving the New World Order: The Global Politics of Reproduction. Edited by Ginsburg, Faye and Rapp, Rayna, 78–102. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 1995.Google Scholar
Crawford, Bridget. “Taxing Surrogacy.” In Challenging Gender Inequality in Tax Policy Making. Edited by Brooks, Kim, et al., 95–108. Portland, OR: Hart Publishing, 2011.Google Scholar
Crawford, Bridget. “Our Bodies, Our (Tax) Selves.” Virginia Tax Review 31 (2012): 695–762.Google Scholar
Crawford, Bridget. “Tax Talk and Reproductive Technology.” Boston University Law Review 99 (2019):1757–97.Google Scholar
Daar, Judith. The New Eugenics. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2017.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dasgupta, Sayanthani, and Dasgupta, Shamita. Globalization and Transnational Surrogacy in India. United Kingdom: Lexington, 2014.Google Scholar
Ehrenreich, Barbara, and Hochschild, Arlie R.. Global Woman: Nannies, Maids, and Sex Workers in the New Economy. New York: Metropolitan Books, 2002.Google Scholar
Ellickson, Robert. Order Without Law: How Neighbors Settle Disputes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1994.Google Scholar
Engel, David. The Myth of the Litigious Society. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2016.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
England, Paula. “Gender Inequality in Labor Markets.” Social Politics 12, no. 2 (2005): 264–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ertman, Martha. Love’s Promises. Boston: Beacon Press, 2015.Google Scholar
Ertman, Martha. “What’s Wrong with a Parenthood Market: A New and Improved Theory of Commodification.” North Carolina Law Review 82 (2003): 1–59.Google Scholar
Field, Martha. Surrogate Motherhood: The Legal and Human Issues. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1990.Google Scholar
Fineman, Martha. The Neutered Mother, the Sexual Family, and Other Twentieth Century Tragedies. New York: Routledge, 1995.Google Scholar
Freedman, Lori, and Weitz, Tracy. “The Politics of Motherhood Meets the Politics of Poverty.” Contemporary Sociology: A Journal of Reviews 41 (2012): 36–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Friese, Susanne. Qualitative Data Analysis with Atlas.ti. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 2012.Google Scholar
Glenn, Evelyn Nakano. “Social Constructions of Mothering,” In Mothering: Ideology, Experience and Agency. Edited by Glenn, Evelyn Nakano, et al., 1–28. New York: Routledge, 1994.Google Scholar
Goodwin, Michele Bratcher.Baby Markets. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2010.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Granovetter, Mark. “Economic Action and Social Structure: The Problem of Embeddedness.” American Journal of Sociology 3, no. 3 (1985): 481–510.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harrison, Laura. Brown Bodies, White Babies: The Politics of Cross-Racial Surrogacy. New York: New York University Press, 2016.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Healy, Kieran, and Krawiec, Kimberly. “Custom, Contract, and Kidney Exchange.” Duke Law Journal 62 (2012): 645–70.Google ScholarPubMed
Healy, Kieran, and Krawiec, Kimberly. “Repugnance Management and Transactions in the Body.” American Economic Review 107, no. 5 (2017): 86–90.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Holcomb, Morgan, and Byrn, Mary Patricia. “When Your Body is Your Business.” Washington Law Review 85, no. 4 (2010): 647–85.Google Scholar
Hsieh, Hsiu-Fang, and Shannon, Sarah. “Three Approaches to Qualitative Content Analysis.” Qualitative Health Research 15 (2005): 1277–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jacobson, Heather. Labor of Love. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press, 2016.Google Scholar
Keren, Hila. “Can Separate Be Equal? Intimate Economic Exchange and the Cost of Being Special.” Harvard Law Review Forum 119 (2006): 19–27.Google Scholar
Krawiec, Kimberly. “Altruism and Intermediation in the Market for Babies.” Washington & Lee Law Review 66, no. 1 (2009): 203–57.Google Scholar
Krawiec, Kimberly. “Markets, Morals, and Limits in the Exchange of Human Eggs.” Georgetown Journal of Law & Public Policy 13 (2015): 349–65.Google Scholar
Lofland, John, Snow, David, Anderson, Leon, and Lofland, Lyn. Analyzing Social Settings. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth/Thompson, 2006.Google Scholar
Luker, Kristin. Abortion and the Politics of Motherhood. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 1984.Google Scholar
Luker, Kristin. Salsa Dancing Into the Social Sciences. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2008.Google Scholar
Macaulay, Stewart. “Non-contractual Relations in Business: A Preliminary Study.” American Sociological Review 28, no. 1 (1963): 55–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Macaulay, Stewart. “The New Versus the Old Legal Realism.” Wisconsin Law Review no. 2 (2005): 365–403.Google Scholar
Macneil, Ian. “A Primer of Contract Planning,” Southern California Law Review 48 (1974): 627–704.Google Scholar
Madeira, Jody. “Woman Scorned: Resurrecting Infertile Women’s Decision-Making Autonomy.” Maryland Law Review 71, no. 2 (2012): 339–410.Google Scholar
Milot, Lisa. “What Are We – Laborers, Factories, or Spare Parts? The Tax Treatment of Transfers of Human Materials.” Washington & Lee Law Review 67 (2010): 1053–108.Google Scholar
Mohapatra, Seema. “Stateless Babies & Adoption Scams.” Berkeley Journal of International Law 30 (2012): 412–50.Google Scholar
Nelson, Robert, and Bridges, William. Legalizing Gender Inequality: Courts, Markets, and Unequal Pay for Women in America. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press, 1999.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Okin, Susan Moller.Justice, Gender and the Family. New York: Basic Books, 1991.Google Scholar
Pande, Amrita. “Commercial Surrogacy in India.” Signs 35, no. 4 (2010): 969–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pande, Amrita. Wombs in Labor. New YorkColumbia University Press, 2014.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pateman, Carole. The Sexual Contract. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 1988.Google Scholar
Patton, Michael. Qualitative Research and Evaluation Methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 2002.Google Scholar
Radin, Mary Jane. “Market-Inalienability,” Harvard Law Review 100, no. 8 (1987): 1849–937.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Risman, Barbara. Gender Vertigo: American Families in Transition. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1998.Google Scholar
Roberts, Dorothy. “The Genetic Tie.” University of Chicago Law Review 62 (1995): 209–73.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rothman, Barbara Katz.Recreating Motherhood: Ideology and Technology in a Patriarchal Society. New York: Norton, 1989.Google Scholar
Rothman, Barbara Katz. “The Tentative Pregnancy: Then and Now.” In Women and Prenatal Testing: Facing the Challenges of Genetic Technology. Edited by Rothenberg, Karen and Thomson, Elizabeth, 260–70. Columbus, OH: State University Press, 1994.Google Scholar
Rudrappa, Sharmila, and Collins, Caitlyn. “Altruistic Agencies and Compassionate Consumers: Moral Framing of Transnational Surrogacy.” Gender & Society 29, no. 6 (2015): 937–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Saldana, Johnny. The Coding Manual for Qualitative Researchers. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 2009.Google Scholar
Sanger, Carol. “Separating from Children,” Columbia Law Review 96 (1996): 375–517.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shalev, Carmel. Birth Power: The Case for Surrogacy. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1989.Google Scholar
Shanley, Mary Lyndon.Making Babies, Making Families: What Matters Most in an Age of Reproductive Technologies, Surrogacy, Adoption, and Same-Sex and Unwed Parents. Boston: Beacon Press, 2001.Google Scholar
Siegel, Reva. “Dignity and the Politics of Protection: Abortion Restrictions Under Casey/Carhart.” Yale Law Journal 117 (2008): 1694–800.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sills, E. Scott. Handbook of Gestational Surrogacy. New York: Cambridge Univ. Press, 2016.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Snow, David, Morrill, Calvin, and Anderson, Leon. “Elaborating Analytic Ethnography: Linking Fieldwork and Theory.” Ethnography 4, no. 2 (2003): 181–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spar, Deborah. The Baby Business: How Money, Science and Politics Drive the Commerce of Contraception. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2006.Google Scholar
Suchman, Mark. “The Contract as Social Artifact.” Law & Society Review 37, no. 1 (2003): 91–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Teman, Elly. Birthing a Mother: The Surrogate Body and the Pregnant Self. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 2010.Google Scholar
Yngvesson, Barbara. “Making Law at the Doorway – the Clerk, the Court, and the Construction of Community in a New England Town.” Law & Society Review 22, no. 3 (1988): 409–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zelizer, Viviana. “Beyond the Polemics on the Market: Establishing a Theoretical and Empirical Agenda.” Sociological Forum 3, no. 4 (1988): 614–634.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zelizer, Viviana. “The Purchase of Intimacy.” Law & Social Inquiry 25, no. 3 (2000): 817–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zelizer, Vivianna. “How I became a Relational Economic Sociologist and What Does That Mean?” Politics & Society 40, no. 2 (2012): 145–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Cases Cited

In Re the Matter of Baby M., 109 N.J. 396 (1988).

Johnson v. Calvert, 851 P.2d 776 (Cal.1993), cert. denied, 510 U.S. 874 (1993).

Perez v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 144 T.C. No. 4 (2015).

Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973).