Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-wzw2p Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-20T13:41:27.568Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Surrogate Motherhood: Babies for Fun and Profit

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 April 2021

Angela R. Holder
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Surrogate motherhood has captured the attention of both the media and the legal profession in the past several years. Courts faced with litigation on surrogate motherhood have uniformly taken the position that these arrangements are contrary to public policy, and have refused to compel the specific performance of these contracts? It is my position that these rulings have been correct, and that if surrogate motherhood is to be considered legally acceptable in this country (which I think it should not be ) then state legislatures must act to legalize the contracts drawn up for these arrangements.

The procedure for surrogate motherhood is usually initiated by either a married couple, of whom the wife is infertile, or by a single man. In either case, a contract is made with a fertile woman; the woman is to be artificially inseminated with the man's sperm. Generally, this is done in exchange for a large sum of money. At the time that the baby is born, the surrogate mother surrenders the child for adoption by the wife (in the case of a married couple) and presumably by the father to regularize his relationship with the child.

Type
Article
Information
Law, Medicine and Healthcare , Volume 12 , Issue 3 , June 1984 , pp. 115 - 117
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of Law, Medicine and Ethics 1984

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

Doe v. Kelley, [1979–1981] Reporter on Human Reproduction and the Law (Legal-Medical Studies, Inc.) II—B—15 (Wayne County Cir. Ct., Mich. January 1980), aff'd sub nom. Doe v. Attorney General, 307 N.W.2d 438 (Mich. App. 1981), Iv. denied, 414 Mich. 875 (1982), cert, denied, 103 S. Ct. 834 (1983); Syrkowski v. Appleyard, 122 Mich. App. 506 (1983).Google Scholar
Paulson, M. G. Wadlington, W. J. Goebel, J., Domestic Relations: Cases and Materials (Foundation Press, Mineola, N.Y.) (1974) at 447–49; Howe, R.A., Adoption Practices: Issues and Laws, 1958–1983, Family Law Quarterly 17: 173 (1983).Google Scholar
See, e.g., Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 210 § 11A (as amended 1978); N.J. Stat. Ann. ch. 9:3–54 (as amended 1977). SeeLee v. Buchanan, 191 So. 2d 33 (Fla. 1966).Google Scholar
See, e.g., Hendrix v. Hunter, 110 S.E.2d 35, 38–39 (Ga. 1959).Google Scholar
See generally Mnookin, R. H. Child, , Family and State (Little, Brown & Co., Boston Mass.) (1978) at 619–22 (legitimate expenses allowable).Google Scholar
See A. v. C., 390 S.W.2d 116, 119 n.4 (Ark. 1965).Google Scholar
Holder, A.R., Legal Issues in Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine (Wiley Medical Publications, Inc., New York, N.Y.) (1977) at 7–12.Google Scholar
Adoption of McKinsie, 275 S.W. 2d 365 (Mo. 1955); Note, Revocation of Parental Consent to Adoption, University of Chicago Law Review 28; 564 (1961).Google Scholar
Adoption of Ashton, 97 A.2d 368, 373–74 (Pa. 1953).Google Scholar
New York Times, January 23, 1983, § 1, at 19, col. 1; New York Times, February 7, 1983, § 1, at 10, col. 1.Google Scholar
New York Times, January 23, 1983, § 1, at 19, col. 1.Google Scholar
Newsweek, p. 76 (February 14, 1983).Google Scholar
New York Times, March 25, 1981, at 12, col. 1.Google Scholar
Id.Google Scholar
Doe v. Kelley, supra note 1.Google Scholar
Id. at II—B—15.Google Scholar
Id. at 11—B—15–16; Mich. Comp. Laws Ann. § 710.54 (1) (West Supp. 1983–1984).Google Scholar
Doe v. Kelley, supra note 1 at II—B—16.Google Scholar
Id. at II—B—19.Google Scholar
Id. at II—B—21.Google Scholar
Doe v. Attorney General, 307 N.W.2d 438, 443 (Mich. App. 1981).Google Scholar
Bridgeport (Connecticut) Sunday Post, November 16, 1980, at A—5.Google Scholar
Surrogate Mother Contracts Declared Illegal by Kentucky Attorney General, Family Law Reporter 7: 2247 (February 17, 1981).Google Scholar
Op. Att'y Gen., No. 83-001 (Ohio January 3, 1983).Google Scholar
Id.Google Scholar
>Syrkowski v. Appleyard, 122 Mich. App. 506 (1983).Syrkowski+v.+Appleyard,+122+Mich.+App.+506+(1983).>Google Scholar
Id. at 506.Google Scholar
Id.Google Scholar
U.S. Const, amend. XIII (1865). Section I states:“Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.”Google Scholar
Surrogate Mothers: Why Women Volunteer, New York Times, June 29, 1981, at B-5.Google Scholar