The Case of Baby M: Love's Labor Lost

Andrews Lori , New Conceptions (New York: Ballantine, 1984).

Robertson John , “Procreative Liberty and the Control of Conception, Pregnancy and Childbirth,” Virginia Law Review, 69 (1983): 405, 424–26.

Andrews Lori , “The Stork Market: The Law of the New Reproductive Technologies,” American Bar Association Journal, 70 (1984): 50, 56; see Smith , “Intimations of Life: Extracorpo-reality and the Law,” Gonzaga Law Review, 21 (1986): 395.

In re Baby M, 14 Fam. L. Rep. (BNA) 2007 (1988).

Goodman , “In the Swirl of Surrogacy,” Washington Post, Feb. 6, 1988, sec. A23.

Id.

Baby M , supra note 4, at 2027; William and Elizabeth Stem agreed to seek an out-of-court settlement on visitation rights for Ms. Whitehead. She, in turn, agreed to start using the Sterns' name for the child, Melissa, rather than continuing to use the name she had chosen, Sara . “Couple Seeks Agreement on Baby M Visits,” Washington Post, Feb. 14, 1988, sec. A9.

Posner R. , Economic Analysis of Law, 2d ed. (Boston: Little, Brown, 1977), 190.

“Couple,” supra note 7.

Goodman , supra note 5.

In re Baby M, 217 N.J. Super. 313, 525 A.2d 1128 (N.J. Super. Ct. Ch. Div. 1987).

Baby M , supra note 4, at 2019.

Id.: 2023.

Id.

Id.: 2024.

Id.: 2023.

Id.: 2024; see, gen., Goldstein J. Freud A. Solnit A. , Beyond the Best Interests of the Child (New York: Free Press, 1973).

Note, “Redefining Mother: A Legal Matrix for New Reproductive Technologies,” Yale Law Journal, 96 (1986): 187, 194, 195.

Id.: 206.

Id.: 208, n. 1.

Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965).

Note, “Redefining Mother,” supra note 18, at 198, 199; See Wadlington Walter , “Artificial Conception: The Challenge for Family Law,” Virginia Law Review, 69 (1983): 465, 508–9.

Restatement (second) of Torts §§827(a), 828(a) (1977).

Id.: §§827(a), 828(a).

Posner , supra note 8, at 111.

Id.: 117.

Baby M , supra note 4, at 2018.

Id.: 2026.

Id.

Id.: 2013.

Id., citing New Jersey Div. of Youth & Family Servs. v. A.W., 103 N.J. 591 (1986).

Llewellyn , “Remarks on the Theory of Appellate Decision and the Rules or Canons about How Statutes Are to Be Construed,” Vanderbilt Law Review, 3 (1950): 395, 402.

Bork R. , “Tradition and Morality in Constitutional Law,” Francis Boyer Lecture on Public Policy (Washington, D.C.: American Enterprise Institute, December 1984), 3, 11.

Wadlington , supra note 22, at 467. See Smith , “Procreational Autonomy v. State Intervention: Opportunity or Crisis for a Brave New World?,” Notre Dame Journal of Law, Ethics & Public Policy, 2 (1986): 635.

Robertson John , “Surrogate Mothers: Not So Novel after All,” Hastings Center Report (Oct. 1983): 28; Smith , “The Razor's Edge of Human Bonding: Artificial Fathers and Surrogate Mothers,” Western New England Law Review, 5 (1983): 639, 649. See also Chief Justice Wilentz's distinction in Baby M, supra note 4, at 2021.

Coleman , “Surrogate Motherhood: Analysis of the Problems and Suggestions for Solutions,” Tennessee Law Review, 50 (1982): 71, 81–82. For a more complete historical analysis of the AID cases, see Smith , “Through a Test Tube Darkly: Artificial Insemination and the Law,” Michigan Law Review, 67 (1968): 127; Wadlington , “Artificial Insemination: The Dangers of a Poorly Kept Secret,” Northwestern University Law Review, 64 (1970): 777.

Wadlington , supra note 22, at 502.

See, e.g., Ala. Code §26-10-8 (1977); Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. §8–126(c) (1974); Cal. Penal Code §273(a) (West 1970); Colo. Rev. Stat. §19-4-115 (1986); Del. Code Ann. tit. 13 §928 (1981); Fla. Stat. Ann. §63.212(1)(b) (West Supp. 1983) (exempts stepparents); Ga. Code Ann. § 74–418 (Supp. 1984); Idaho Code §18–1511 (1979); Ill. Rev. Stat. ch. 40 §§1526, 1701, 1702 (1981); Ind. Code Ann. §35-46-1-9 (West Supp. 1984–85); Iowa Code Ann. §600.9 (West 1981); Ky. Rev. Stat. §199.590(2) (Supp. 1986); Md. Ann. Code §5–327 (1984); Mass. Ann. Laws ch. 210 §11A (Michie/Law. Coop. 1981); Mich. Comp. Laws Ann. §710.54 (West Supp. 1983–84); Nev. Rev. Stat. §127.290 (1983); N.J. Stat. Ann. §9:3–54 (West Supp. 1984–85) (exempts stepparents); N.Y. Soc. Serv. Law §374(6) (McKinney 1983); N.C. Gen. Stat. §48–37 (1984); Ohio Rev. Code Ann. §3107.10(A) (Baldwin 1983); S.D. Codified Laws Ann. §25-6-4.2 (1984); Tenn. Code Ann. §36-1-135 (1984); Utah Code Ann. §76-7-203 (1978); Wis. Stat. Ann. §946.716 (West 1982). See also, Katz , “Surrogate Motherhood and the Baby Selling Laws,” Columbia Journal of Law & Social Problems, 20 (1986): 1.

Doe v. Kelly, 106 Mich. App. 169, 307 N.W.2d 438 (1981), cert, denied, 459 U.S. 1183 (1983). See, gen., Johnson , “The Baby M Decision: Specific Performance of a Contract for Specially Manufactured Goods,” Southern Illinois University Law Journal, 11 (1987): 1339, 1342.

Surrogate Parenting Assoc., Inc. v. Kentucky, 704 S.W.2d 209 (Ky. 1986).

Capron Alexander , “Alternative Birth Technologies: Legal Challenges,” University of California at Davis Law Review, 20 (1987): 679, 695; Comment , “Surrogate Motherhood Legislation: A Sensible Starting Point,” Indiana Law Review, 20 (1987): 879, 891–98; Wadlington , supra note 22, at 482–86.

Moss , “Guidelines for Surrogacy,” American Bar Association Journal, 74 (1988): 137. See also “Model Human Reproductive Technologies and Surrogacy Act: An Act Governing the Status of Children Born Through Reproductive Technologies and Surrogacy Arrangements,” Iowa Law Review, 72 (1987): 1015.

Smith , “Razor's Edge,” supra note 35, at 662, 663. See Smith Iraola , “Sexuality, Privacy and the New Biology,” Marquette Law Review, 67 (1984): 63. See, gen., Erickson , “Contracts to Bear a Child,” in Smith G. , ed., Ethical, Legal and Social Challenges to a Brave New World (New York: Associated Faculty Press, 1982), 98.

Smith , “Razor's Edge,” supra note 35, at 663; see Bitner , “Womb for Rent: A Call for Pennsylvania Legislation Legalizing and Regulating Parenting Agreements,” Dickinson Law Review, 90 (1985): 227.

Wadlington , supra note 22, at 511.

Note, “Redefining Mother,” supra note 18, at 192. See, gen., Robertson , “Embryos, Families and Procreative Liberty: The Legal Structure of the New Reproduction,” Southern California Law Review, 59 (1986): 939.

Capron , supra note 41, at 697.

Id.: 700.

Baby M , supra note 4, at 2027. See Smith , “The Perils and Peregrinations of Surrogate Mothers,” International Journal of Medicine & Law, 1 (1982): 325.