Assisted reproductive technologies: Changing conceptions of motherhood?

Affilia - Journal of Women and Social Work

Volumn 23, Issue 3, 2008, Pages 270-280

  Hammons, Stacy A ^a  

^a FRESNO PACIFIC UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Assisted reproductive technologies; Family; Motherhood

Indexed keywords

EID: 46249117765     PISSN: 08861099     EISSN: 15523020     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/0886109908319119     Document Type: Article

References (64)

1. Andolsen, B.H. (1987). Why a surrogate mother should have the right to change her mind: A feminist analysis of the changes in motherhood today. In H. Richardson (Ed.), On the problem of surrogate parenthood: Analyzing the Baby M case (pp. 41-55). Lewiston, NY: Edwin Mellon.
2. Andres A. v. Judith N., 591 N.Y.S. 2d 946, N.Y. Fam. Ct. (1992).
3. Andrews, L. (1989). Alternative modes of reproduction. In S. Cohen & N. Taub (Eds.), Reproductive laws in the 1990s (pp. 361-403). Clifton, NJ: Humana Press.
4. Beckman, L.J., & Harvey, S.M. (2005). Current reproductive technologies: Increased access and choice ? Journal of Social Issues, 61, 1-20.
5. Bem, S.L. (1993). The lenses of gender: Transforming the debate on sexual inequality. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
6. Bennett, B. (2003). Choosing a child's future? Reproductive decision-making and preimplantation genetic diagnosis. In J. Gunning & H. Szoke (Eds.), The regulation of assisted reproductive technology (pp. 167-176). Aldershot, UK: Ashgate.
7. Blankenship, K.M., Rushing, B., Onorato, S.A., & White, R. (1993). Reproductive technologies and the U.S. courts. Gender and Society, 7, 8-31.
8. Brashier, R.C. (2004). Inheritance law and the evolving family. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
9. Brenner, J., & Resnick, B. (1987). Baby M, family love and the market in women. Against the Current, 5, 3-6.
10. Buzzanca v. Buzzanca, 61 Cal. App. 4th 1410 (1998).
11. Cannold, L., & Gillam, L. (2003). A new consultation management process for managing divergent community views: Lesbian and single women's access to artificial insemination and ART's. In J. Gunning & H. Szoke (Eds.), The regulation of assisted reproductive technology (pp. 203-224). Aldershot, UK: Ashgate.
12. Chesler, P. (1988). Sacred bond: The legacy of Baby M. New York: Times Books.
13. Chodorow, N. (1978). The reproduction of mothering: Psychoanalysis and the sociology of gender. Berkeley: University of California Press.
14. Ciccarelli, J.C., & Beckman, L.J. (2005). Navigating rough waters: An overview of psychological aspects of surrogacy. Journal of Social Issues, 61, 21-43.
15. Ciccarelli, J.K., & Ciccarelli, J.C. (2005). The legal aspects of parental rights in assisted reproductive technology. Journal of Social Issues, 61, 127-137.
16. Corea, G. (1985). The mother machine: Reproductive technologies from artificial insemination to artificial wombs. New York: Harper & Row.
17. Cussins, C. (1996). Ontological choreography: Agency through objectification in infertility clinics. Social Studies of Science, 26, 575-610.
18. Doe v. Doe, 710 A. 2d 1297, Conn. (1998).
19. Dolgin, J.L. (1997). Defining the family: Law, technology, and reproduction in an uneasy age. New York: New York University Press.
20. Donovan, P. (1986). New reproductive technologies: Some legal dilemmas. Family Planning Perspectives, 18, 57-60.
21. Durkheim, E. (1997). The division of labor in society. New York: Free Press. (Original work published 1893).
22. Edwards, J.N. (1991). New conceptions: Biosocial innovations and the family. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 53, 349-360.
23. Ferree, M.M. (1990). Beyond separate spheres: Feminism and family research. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 52, 866-884.
24. Firestone, S. (1971). The dialectic of sex. New York: Bantam Books.
25. Gimenez, M.E. (1991). The mode of reproduction in transition: A Marxist-feminist analysis of the effects of reproductive technologies. Gender and Society, 5, 334-350.
26. Glaser, B., & Strauss, A. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Chicago: Aldine.
27. Golombok, S., Cook, R., Bish, A., & Murray, C. (1995). Families created by the new reproductive technologies: Quality of parenting and social and emotional development of the children. Child Development, 66, 285-298.
28. Harrison, M. (1987). Social constructions of Mary Beth Whitehead. Gender and Society, 1, 300-311.
29. In the matter of Baby "M," 217 N.J. Super. 313, 525 A. 2d 1128 (1987).
30. Ireland, M. (1993). Reconceiving women: Separating motherhood from female identity. New York: Guilford.
31. Johnson v. Calvert, 5 Cal. 4th 84, 851 P. 2d 776, 19 Cal. Rptr. 2d 494 (1993).
32. J. R., M. R., and W. K. J. v. Utah, 261 F. Supp. 1268, D. Utah (2002).
33. Kindregan, C.P., & McBrien, M. (2005). Assisted reproductive technology: A lawyer's guide to emerging law and science. Chicago: American Bar Association.
34. K. M. v. E. G., 117 P. 3d 673, Cal. (2005).
35. Kristine H. v. Lisa R., 117 P. 3d 690, Cal. (2005).
36. Litowitz v. Litowitz, 48 P. 3d 261, Wash. (2002), cert. denied, 537 U.S. 1191, U.S. (2003).
37. Llewellyn, K.N. (1949). Law and the social sciences-especially sociology. American Sociological Review, 14, 451-462.
38. Lorber, J. (2001). Gender inequality: Feminist theories and politics (2 nd ed.). Los Angeles: Roxbury.
39. Marcus, I. (1990). A sexy new twist: Reproductive technologies and feminism. Law and Social Inquiry, 15, 247-269.
40. Marx, K., & Engels, F. (1979). Marx and Engels on law. New York: Academic Press.
41. McDonald v. McDonald, 196 A.D. 2d 7, 608 N.Y.S. 2d 477 (1994).
42. McIntyre, L.J. (1994). Law in the sociological enterprise: A reconstruction. Boulder, CO: Westview.
43. McMahon, M. (1995). Engendering motherhood: Identity and self-transformation in women's lives. New York: Guilford.
44. Moschetta v. Moschetta, 25 Cal. App. 4th 1218, 30 Cal. Rptr. 2d 893 (1994).
45. Oakley, A. (1974). Woman's work: The housewife, past and present. New York: Pantheon.
46. Park, R.D. (2004). Development in the family. Annual Review of Psychology, 55, 365-399.
47. Ragone, H. (1994). Surrogate motherhood: Conception in the heart. Boulder, CO: Westview.
48. Rapping, E. (1990). The future of motherhood: Some unfashionably visionary thoughts. In K. Hansen & I. Philipson (Eds.), Women, class, and the feminist imagination: A socialist-feminist reader (pp. 537-548). Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
49. Rich, A. (1986). Of woman born: Motherhood as experience and institution. New York: Norton.
50. Richardson, H. (1987). On the problem of surrogate motherhood: Analyzing the Baby M case. Lewiston, NY: Edwin Mellon Press.
51. Rothman, B.K. (1987). Comment on Harrison: The commodification of motherhood. Gender and Society, 1, 312-316.
52. R. R. v. M. H., 689 N.E. 2d 790, Mass. (1998).
53. Ruddick, S. (1982). Maternal thinking. In B. Thorne & M. Yalom (Eds.), Rethinking the family: Some feminist questions (pp. 89-91). Palo Alto, CA: InstituteforResearchonWomen&Gender,StanfordUniversity.
54. Seymour v. Stotski, 611 N.E. 2d 454, Ohio App. (1992).
55. Shalev, C. (1989). Birth power: The case for surrogacy. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
56. Shapiro, V.B., Shapiro, J.R., & Paret, I.H. (2001). Complex adoption and assisted reproductive technology: A developmental approach to clinical practice. New York: Guilford.
57. Soos v. Super. Ct. of the State of Ariz., 182 Ariz. 470 (1994), 897 P. 2d 1356, 1359, Ariz. Ct. App. (1994).
58. Strauss, A. (1987). Qualitative analysis for social scientists. New York: Cambridge University Press.
59. Tong, R. (1989). Feminist thought: A comprehensive introduction. Boulder, CO: Westview.
60. Walker, K. (2003). Should there be limits on who may access assisted reproductive services? A legal perspective. In J. Gunning & H. Szoke (Eds.), The regulation of assisted reproductive technology (pp. 123-140). Aldershot, UK: Ashgate.
61. Weber, M. (1978). Economy and society. Berkeley: University of California Press.
62. Woodsong, C., & Severy, L. (2005). Generation of knowledge for reproductive health technologies: Constraints on social and behavioral research. Journal of Social Issues, 61, 193-205.
63. Young, M.E. (1995). Reproductive technologies and the law: Norplant and the bad mother. In L. McIntyre & M. B. Sussman (Eds.), Families and law (pp. 259-281) New York: Haworth.
64. Zucker, A. (1999). The psychological impact of reproductive difficulties on women's lives. Sex Roles, 40, 767-786.