Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-g8jcs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-01T09:04:38.977Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Further Commentary on Fox's “In the Matter of ‘Baby M’”

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 May 2016

Robert L. Bard  and
Lewis Kurlantzick
Robert L. Bard
Affiliation:
School of Law, 65 Elizabeth St., University of Connecticut, Hartford, CT 06105-2290
Lewis Kurlantzick
Affiliation:
School of Law, 65 Elizabeth St., University of Connecticut, Hartford, CT 06105-2290
Get access

Abstract

Modern science has made it easy for fertile women to become pregnant by artificial insemination. And childless couples have been able to find women willing, for a fee, to accept insemination by a prospective father and agree to transfer custody of the resulting child to the father. Enterprises designed to match willing mothers and sperm-donating fathers have established themselves. The central public policy dilemma raised by this union of technology and the ancient desire for issue of one's own loins—is it wiser for the legal system to provide its normal protections to the participants in surrogacy arrangements or withdraw from the field—was brought to national attention by the Baby M case.

Type
Further Commentaries
Information
Politics and the Life Sciences , Volume 9 , Issue 1: Special Issue: Biotechnology and International Conflict , August 1990 , pp. 130 - 134
Copyright
Copyright © Association for Politics and the Life Sciences 

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

Columbia Journal of Law and Social Problems. “Surrogate Motherhood: An Argument For Denial Of Specific Performance” (1989). 22:357–96.Google Scholar
Field, M. (1988). Surrogate Motherhood. Cambridge and London: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Fox, R.(1988). “In the Matter of ‘Baby M’:Report from the Gruter Institute for Law and Behavioral Research.” Politics and the Life Sciences 7: 77–85.Google Scholar
Hart, H.L.A. (1967). “Social Solidarity and the Enforcement of Morality.” University of Chicago Law Review 35:1–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Houlgate, L.D. (1988). Family and State: The Philosophy of Family Law. Totowa: Rowman & Littlefield, pp. 117–18Google Scholar
In the Matter of Baby M, 109 N.J. 396, 537 A.D 1227 (1988).Google Scholar
La. Rev. Stat. 9:2713 (Supp. 1988) (contracts for paid surrogacy unenforceable).Google Scholar
Lee, S. (1986). Law and Morals. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Morawetz, T. (1980). The Philosophy of Law. New York: Macmillan, pp. 163–74.Google Scholar
New York. Senate Bill 9134A, July 12, 1988; Assembly Bill 10851A, April 14, 1988 (Surrogate Parenting Act).Google Scholar
New York State Task Force on Life and the Law (1988). Surrogate Parenting: Analysis and Recommendations for Public Policy.Google Scholar
Radin, M. (1987). “Market-Inalienability.” Harvard Law Review 100:1849–1937.Google Scholar
Sorosky, A.D., Baran, A., and Pannor, R. (1978). The Adoption Triangle. Garden City, N.Y.: Anchor Press/Doubleday.Google Scholar
White, J.B. (1989). “What Can A Lawyer Learn From Literature?” Harvard Law Review 102: 2014–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar