Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-4hhp2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-13T08:32:27.061Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Surrogate Motherhood: The Challenge for Feminists

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 April 2021

Lori B. Andrews
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Surrogate motherhood presents an enormous challenge for feminists. During the course of the Baby M trial, the New Jersey chapter of the National Organization of Women met and could not reach consensus on the issue. The feelings ranged the gamut, the head of the chapter, Linda Bowker, told the New York Time. We did feel that it should not be made illegal, because we don't want to turn women into criminals. But other than that, what you may feel about the Baby M case may not be what you feel about another.

We do believe that women ought to control their own bodies, and we don't want to play big brother or big sister and tell them what to do, Ms. Bowker continued. But on the other hand, we don't want to see the day when women are turned into breeding machines.

Type
Women's Autonomy
Information
Law, Medicine and Healthcare , Volume 16 , Issue 1-2 , Spring 1988 , pp. 72 - 80
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of Law, Medicine and Ethics 1988

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

Peterson, Iver, “Baby M Custody Trial Splits Ranks of Feminists over Issue of Exploitation,” New York Times, Feb. 24, 1987 (quoting Linda Bowker).Google Scholar
Port, Bob, “Feminists Come to the Aid of Whitehead's Case,” St. Petersburg Times, Feb. 23, 1987, 1A.Google Scholar
Brief filed on behalf of Amici Curiae, the Foundation on Economic Trends et al., In the matter of Baby M, New Jersey Supreme Court, Docket No. FM-25314-86E (hereafter cited as “Brief”). (The feminists joining in the brief included Betty Friedan, Gloria Steinem, Gena Corea, Barbara Katz Rothman, Lois Gould, Michelle Harrison, Kathleen Lahey, Phyllis Chesler, and Letty Cottin Pogrebin.)Google Scholar
See, e.g., Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973); Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965); Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390 (>1923); Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510 (1928).1923);+Pierce+v.+Society+of+Sisters,+268+U.S.+510+(1928).>Google Scholar
See, e.g., Karst, , “The Freedom of Intimate Association,” Yale Law Journal, 89 (1980): 624.Google Scholar
Prior to conception and during pregnancy, the surrogate mother contract is a personal service contract. However, after the child's birth, no further services on the part of the surrogate are needed. Thus, enforcing a provision providing for the father's custody of the child is not the enforcement of a personal services contract. It is like the enforcement of a court order on custody or the application of a paternity statute.Google Scholar
Andrews, Lori, “The Aftermath of Baby M: Proposed State Laws on Surrogate Motherhood,” Hastings Center Report, 17 (Oct./Nov. 1987): 31–40, at 37.Google Scholar
In re Baby M, 217 N.J. Super. 313, 525 A.2d 1128, “59 (1987).Google Scholar
Jhordan C. v. Mary K., 179 Cal. App. 3d 386, 224 Cal. Rptr. 530 (1986).Google Scholar
Surrogate Parenthood and New Reproductive Technologies, A Joint Public Hearing, before the N.Y. State Assembly, N.Y. State Senate, Judiciary Committees (Oct. 16, 1986) (statement of Bob Arenstein at 103–4, 125); In The Matter of a Hearing on Surrogate Parenting before the N.Y. Standing Committee on Child Care (May 8, 1987) (statement of Adria Hillman at 174, statement of Mary Ann Dibari at 212 [“the prostitution of motherhood”]).Google Scholar
Surrogacy Arrangements Act of 1987: Hearing on H.R. 2433, before the Subcomm. on Transportation, Tourism, and Hazardous Materials, 100th Cong., 1st Sess. (Oct. 15, 1987) (statement of Gena Corea at 3, 5); Gould Robert, N.Y. Testimony (May 8, 1987), supra note 10, at 233 (slavery).Google Scholar
Morrell, Arthur, U.S. Testimony (Oct. 15, 1987), supra note 11, at 1.Google Scholar
Pierce, William, U.S. Testimony (Oct. 15, 1987), supra note 11, at 2, citing Harvard Law Professor Lawrence Tribe.Google Scholar
Brief, , supra note 3, at 19.Google Scholar
Port, , supra note 2, at 7A, quoting Phyllis Chesler.Google Scholar
Corea, Gena, U.S. Testimony (Oct. 15, 1987), supra note 11, at 3; Hillman, , N.Y. Testimony (May 8, 1987), supra note 10, at 174.Google Scholar
Goodman, Ellen, “Checking the Baby M Contract,” Boston Globe, March 24, 1987, 15.Google Scholar
Corea Gena, U.S. Testimony (Oct. 15, 1987), supra note 11, at 5; Hillman, , N.Y. Testimony (May 8, 1987) supra note 10, at 174.Google Scholar
Corea Gena, U.S. Testimony (Oct. 15, 1987), supra note 11, at 5.Google Scholar
Id.Google Scholar
Id.: 2.Google Scholar
Kane, Elizabeth, U.S. Testimony (Oct. 15, 1987), supra note 11, at 1.Google Scholar
Longcope, Kay, “Standing up for Mary Beth,” Boston Globe, March 5, 1987, 81, 83 (quoting Janice Raymond).Google Scholar
Brief, , supra note 3, at 14.Google Scholar
Gould, Robert, N.Y. Testimony (May 8, 1987), supra note 10, at 232.Google Scholar
Densen-Gerber, Judianne, N.Y. Testimony (May 8, 1987), supra note 10, at 253; Gould, Robert, N.Y. Testimony (May 8, 1987), supra note 10, at 232.Google Scholar
Gould, Robert, N.Y. Testimony (May 8, 1987), supra note 10, at 232.Google Scholar
Hyde, Henry, U.S. Testimony (Oct. 15, 1987), supra note 11, at 1 (“Commercial surrogacy arrangements, by rendering children into chattel, are in my opinion, immoral.”); DiBari, N.Y. Testimony (May 8, 1987), supra note 10, at 212.Google Scholar
Ray, John, U.S. Testimony (Oct. 15, 1987), supra note 11, at 7.Google Scholar
See, e.g., McGuire, Maureen Alexander, Nancy J., “Artificial Insemination of Single Women,” Fertility and Sterility, 43 (Feb. 1985): 182–84; Raschke, Raschke, , “Family Conflict and Children's Self-Concept: A Comparison of Intact and Single Parent Families,” Journal of Marriage and the Family, 41 (1979): 367; Weiss, , “Growing up a Little Fastet,” Journal of Social Issues, 35 (1979): 97.Google Scholar
See, e.g., Rynearson, , “Relinquishment and Its Maternal Complications: A Preliminary Study,” American Journal of Psychiatry, 139 (1982): 338; Deykin, Campbell, Patti, , “The Postadoption Experience of Surrendering Parents,” American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 54 (1984): 271.Google Scholar
Aigen, Betsy, N.Y. Testimony (May 8, 1987), supra note 10, at 18.Google Scholar
Arenstein, Robert, U.S. Testimony (Oct. 15, 1987), supra note 11, at 9.Google Scholar
Brief, , supra note 3, at 30–31.Google Scholar
In re Baby M, 109 N.J. 396; 537 A.2d 1227, 1248 (1988).Google Scholar
See Brief filed on behalf of Amicus Curiae the Gruter Institute, In the Matter of Baby M, New Jersey Supreme Court, Docket No. FM-25314-86E.Google Scholar
Hearing in re Surrogate Parenting: Hearing on S.B. 1429, before Senators Goodhue, Dunne, Misters Balboni, Abramson, and Amgott (April 10, 1987) (statement of Elaine Rosenfeld at 187). A similar argument made by Adria Hillman, N.Y. Testimony (May 8, 1987), supra note 10, at 175.Google Scholar
Einwohner, Joan, N.Y. Testimony (April 10, 1987), supra note 37, at 110–11.Google Scholar
Corea, Gena, The Mother Machine (New York: Harper & Row, 1985), 3.Google Scholar
Brief, , supra note 3, at 10, 13; Breidbart, Judy, N.Y. Testimony (May 8, 1987), supra note 10, at 168.Google Scholar
Cotton, K. Winn, D., Baby Cotton: For Love and Money (1985).Google Scholar
Peters, Karen, N.Y. Testimony (May 8, 1987), supra note 10, at 121.Google Scholar
In re Baby M, 109 N.J. 396; 537 A.2d 1227, 1253 (1988).Google Scholar
Carey v. Population Services Int'l., 431 U.S. 678 (1977).Google Scholar
Carey v. Population Services, Int'l., 431 U.S. 678, 688 (1976) (citation omitted).Google Scholar
Aigen, Betsy, N.Y. Testimony (May 8, 1987), supra note 10, at 11–12.Google Scholar
Hillman, Adria, N.Y. Testimony (May 8, 1987), supra note 10, at 177–78.Google Scholar
Leavy, Jane, “It Doesn't Take Labor Pains to Make a Real Mom,” Washington Post, April 4, 1987.Google Scholar
Regan, Donna, N.Y. Testimony (May 8, 1987), supra note 10, at 157.Google Scholar
Id.Google Scholar
Harrison, Michelle, “Social Construction of Mary Beth Whitehead,” Gender and Society, 1 (Sept. 1987): 300–311.Google Scholar
Teasdale, Owens, , “Influence of Paternal Social Class on Intelligence Level in Male Adoptees and Non-Adoptees,” British Journal of Educational Psychology, 56 (1986): 3.Google Scholar
Regan, Donna, N.Y. Testimony (May 8 1987), supra note 10, at 156.Google Scholar
See, e.g., the briefs filed by feminist organizations in Thornburgh v. American College of Obstetricians, 476 U.S. 747 (1986).Google Scholar
See, e.g., Fletcher, J., Coping with Genetic Disorders: A Guide for Counseling (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1982).Google Scholar
Pierce, William, N.Y. Testimony (May 8, 1987), supra note 10, at 86. It should be pointed out that kids hassle other kids for a wide range of reasons. A child might equally be made fun of for being the recipient of a kidney transplant or being the child of a garbage man.Google Scholar
M.P. v. S.P., 169 N.J. Super. 425, 438, 404 A.2d 1256, 1263 (Super. Ct. App. Div. 1979).Google Scholar
In re Baby M, 109 N.J. 396; 537 A.2d 1227, 1254 n. 13 (1988), citing In re A. C., 533 A.2d 611 (D.C. App. 1987).Google Scholar
Muller v. Oregon, 208 U.S. 412, 422 (1907).Google Scholar
See Brief, , supra note 3, at 11.Google Scholar