Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

Third-Party Reproduction pp 71–77Cite as

Surrogacy and Gestational Carrier Arrangements: Legal Aspects

  • Chapter
  • First Online:

  • 960 Accesses

Abstract

Assisted reproduction with gestational carriers is practiced with increasing frequency, but there is little consistency in the laws surrounding this option for family building. The legal goal is to obtain parental rights for those who choose to build their families through surrogacy, but whether this can be accomplished, and how, varies from state to state. Balancing what may be competing interests, and proceeding, in many places, without clear laws, exposes a minefield of complexities. The combined efforts of clinicians, including mental health professionals, and legal experts, allow the majority of these matters to proceed with minimal disruption.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   89.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   119.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD   169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

References

  1. In re Baby M., 537 A.2d 1227 (NJ 1988).

    Google Scholar 

  2. Kindregan C, McBrien M. Assisted reproductive technology: a lawyer’s guide to emerging law and science. Chicago: ABA Publishing; 2006.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Hinson D, McBrien M. Surrogacy across America. Family Advocate. 2011;34:2. Surrogacy contract enforcement is prohibited by statute in DC, KY, ND, TX, AZ, NE.

    Google Scholar 

  4. R.R. v. M.H., 426 Mass. 501, 689 N.E. 2d 790 (1998).

    Google Scholar 

  5. In re Marriage of Moschetta, 25 Cal. App. 4th1218, 30 Cal. Rptr. 2d 893 (1994).

    Google Scholar 

  6. Doe v. Doe, 244 Conn. 403, 710 A.2d 1297 (1998).

    Google Scholar 

  7. Utian WH, Goldfarb JM, Kiwi R, Sheean LA, Auld H, Lisbona H. Preliminary experience with in-vitro fertilization-surrogate gestational pregnancy. Fertil Steril. 1985;52:633–8.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Fletcher J, Layton MJ. Parents’ hope reborn with ‘gestational carrier’ [Internet] NJ: 2012 June 3; [cited 2012 December 10]. http://www.northjersey.com/news/156879885_Parents_hope_reborn_with_gestational_carier_html?.

  9. Johnson v. Calvert, 5 Cal. 4th 84, 851 P.2d 776, 19 Cal. Rptr. 2d 494 (1993).

    Google Scholar 

  10. Belsito v. Clark, 67 Ohio Misc. 2d 54, 644 N.E. 2d 760 (1994).

    Google Scholar 

  11. In Re Marriage of Buzzanca, 61 Cal. App. 4th 1410, 72 Cal. Rptr. 2d 280 (1998).

    Google Scholar 

  12. Culliton v. Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, 435 Mass. 285, 756 N.E. 2d 1133 (2001).

    Google Scholar 

  13. J.F. v. D.B., 879 N.E. 2d 740, 116 Ohio St. 3d 363 (Ohio 2007); J.F. v. D.B,.897 A.2d 1261 (Pa. 2006).

    Google Scholar 

  14. Robison v. Hollingsworth, Docket # FD-09-001838-07; 2011 (N.J. Superior Court, Hudson County) NJ.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Practice Committee of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine. Recommendations for practices utilizing gestational carrier: an ARM practice committee guideline. Fertil Steril [Internet]. 2012 June 97;6 [cited 2012 Dec. 10]; 1301:[about 8 pp]. http://www.asrm.org;uploadedFiles/ASRM_Content/News_and_Publications/Committee_Opinions/recommendations_for_practices_utilizing_gestational_carriers.pdf.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Roberston J. Children of choice: freedom and the new reproductive technologies. Princeton, NJ: The Princeton University Press; 1994.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Skinner v. Oklahoma,, 316 U.S. 535, 541 (1942), where the Court noted the importance of procreation as among “…the basic civil rights of man,…”, adding that “…marriage and procreation are fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race”; Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390, 393 (1923), where the Court indicated that the constitutional freedoms included “the right of an individual to marry, establish a home, and bring up children.”

    Google Scholar 

  18. Casey v. Planned Parenthood, 112 S.Ct. 2791 (1992).

    Google Scholar 

  19. Bragdon v. Abbott, 118 S.Ct. 2196, 2198 (1998).

    Google Scholar 

  20. Rao R. Constitutional Misconceptions. Mich. L. Rev. 1995; 93.1473; Massie AM. Regulating choice: a constitutional law response to Professor John A. Robertson’s Children of Choice. Wash & Lee L Rev. 1995;52:135.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  22. Eisenstadt v. Baird, 405 US 438 (1972).

    Google Scholar 

  23. Roe v. Wade, 410 US 113, 93 S.Ct. 705, 35 L.Ed.2d 147 (1973).

    Google Scholar 

  24. United States v. Jacobson, No. 92–5406, slip op. (4th Cir. Sept. 3, 1993) (unpublished), cert. denied, 62 U.S.L.W. 3717, 3722 (U.S. May 2, 1994).

    Google Scholar 

  25. The Fertility Clinic Success Rate and Certification Act of 1992 (Pub. L. 102–493, 42 U.S.C. 263a-1 et seq.).

    Google Scholar 

  26. Woodward v. Commissioner of Social Security, 435 Mass.536, 760 N.E. 2nd 257 (Mass. 202) (1996). However, in a 2012 case, the United States Supreme Court ruled that application of Social Security benefits for a posthumously-conceived child relied on the intestate laws of the particular state in question Astrue v. Capato, 13 S. Ct. 2021 (2012).

    Google Scholar 

  27. Diane L. Johnson et al., v. California Cryobank Ind., et al., 80 Cal. App.4th 1050; 2000.

    Google Scholar 

  28. http://cbc.ca/news/health/story/2008/12/09/mother.html. Retrieved from the website 09/24/2012; http://ndtv.com/article/world/66-year-old-swiss-woman-gives-birth-to-twins-182896. Retrieved from the website 09/24/2012; Dodge M, Geis G. Stealing Dreams: A fertility clinic scandal. Boston: Northeastern University Press; 2003.

  29. http://nydailynews.com/2011-06-02/gossip/296317201michael-kamroave-octomom-nadya-suleman-fetal-reduction. Retrieved from the website 09/25/2012.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. The Law Office of Margaret E. Swain, Towson, MD, 21204, USA

    Margaret E. Swain R.N., J.D.

Authors
  1. Margaret E. Swain R.N., J.D.
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Margaret E. Swain R.N., J.D. .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. University Hospitals of Cleveland Case Western Reserve University, Director of Fertility Services and In Vitro Fertilization, Cleveland, Ohio, USA

    James M. Goldfarb

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2014 Springer Science+Business Media New York

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Swain, M.E. (2014). Surrogacy and Gestational Carrier Arrangements: Legal Aspects. In: Goldfarb, J. (eds) Third-Party Reproduction. Springer, New York, NY. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-7169-1_6

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-7169-1_6

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, New York, NY

  • Print ISBN: 978-1-4614-7168-4

  • Online ISBN: 978-1-4614-7169-1

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation