The new kinship

Georgetown Law Journal

Volumn 100, Issue 2, 2012, Pages 367-429

  Cahn, Naomi ^a  

^a GEORGE WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84860192607     PISSN: 00168092     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (402)

1. See, e.g., Courtney G. Joslin, Protecting Children(?): Marriage, Gender, and Assisted Reproductive Technology, 83 S. CAL. L. REV. 1177 (2010);
2. Alice Ristroph & Melissa Murray, Disestablishing the Family, 119 YALE L.J. 1236 (2010);
3. Laura A. Rosenbury, Friends with Benefits?, 106 MICH. L. REV. 189 (2007).
4. See, e.g., Colleen Carroll Campbell, Editorial, Children's Rights Often Overlooked in Today's Brave New World, ST. LOUIS POST-DISPATCH, Apr. 16, 2009, at A15
5. Ross Douthat, Op-Ed., The Birds and the Bees (via the Fertility Clinic), N.Y. TIMES, May 30, 2010, http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/31/opinion/31douthat. html
6. A "Twin" Brother!, DONOR SIBLING REGISTRY (Nov. 26, 2007), http://www.donorsiblingregistry.com/members/ViewSuccess.php?ssID=54&seed= 28244&PHPSESSID=dkjq4bjkb1ihmqn40dqf937823;
7. see also Randi Mandelbaum, Delicate Balances: Assessing the Needs and Rights of Siblings in Foster Care To Maintain Their Relationships Post-Adoption, 41 N.M. L. REV. 1 (2011)
8. See CTRS. FOR DISEASE CONTROL& PREVENTION, U.S. DEP'T OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVS., 2008 ASSISTED REPRODUCTIVE TECHNOLOGY SUCCESS RATES: NATIONAL SUMMARY AND FERTILITY CLINIC REPORTS 3-4 (2010), http://www.cdc.gov/art/ART2008/ PDF/ART-2008-Full.pdf.
9. See Abbott v. Abbott, 130 S. Ct. 1983, 1993 (2010)
10. Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558, 564, 578-79 (2003)
11. Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57, 70 (2000)
12. Michael H. v. Gerald D., 491 U.S. 110, 115, 131-32 (1989)
13. Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205, 207, 234-36 (1972)
14. Eisenstadt v. Baird, 405 U.S. 438, 453-55 (1972)
15. Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1, 12 (1967)
16. Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479, 485-86 (1965)
17. Pierce v. Soc'y of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510, 534-35 (1925)
18. Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390, 399, 402-03 (1923)
19. See, e.g., I. Glenn Cohen, The Constitution and the Rights Not To Procreate, 60 STAN. L. REV. 1135 (2008);
20. Marsha Garrison, Law Making for Baby Making: An Interpretive Approach to the Determination of Legal Parentage, 113 HARV. L. REV. 835 (2000);
21. Developments in the Law-The Law of Marriage and Family, 116 HARV. L. REV. 1996, 2052-74 (2003).
22. See, e.g., Gaia Bernstein, Essay, Regulating Reproductive Technologies: Timing, Uncertainty, and Donor Anonymity, 90 B.U. L. REV. 1189 (2010)
23. Reviewing NAOMI R. CAHN, TEST TUBE FAMILIES: WHY THE FERTILITY MARKET NEEDS LEGAL REGULATION (2009);
24. June Carbone & Paige Gottheim, Markets, Subsidies, Regulation, and Trust: Building Ethical Understandings into the Market for Fertility Services, 9 J. GENDER RACE & JUST. 509 (2006);
25. Dov Fox, Note, Racial Classification in Assisted Reproduction, 118 YALE L.J. 1844 (2009).
26. For further discussion, see, for example, Naomi Cahn & Evan B. Donaldson Adoption Inst., Old Lessons for a New World: Applying Adoption Research and Experience to ART, 24 J. AM. ACAD. MATRIMONIAL L. 1 (2011).
27. See, e.g., Naomi Cahn, Perfect Substitutes or the Real Thing?, 52 DUKE L.J. 1077 (2003).
28. See, e.g., J.F. v. W.M. (In re Paternity of M.F. and C.F.), 938 N.E.2d 1256, 1264 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010)
29. Ferguson v. McKiernan, 940 A.2d 1236, 1238, 1248 (Pa. 2007)
30. Nancy D. Polikoff, A Mother Should Not Have To Adopt Her Own Child: Parentage Laws for Children of Lesbian Couples in the Twenty-first Century, 5 STAN. J. C.R. & C.L. 201, 240-44 (2009) (same).
31. See Lyria Bennett Moses, Recurring Dilemmas: The Law's Race To Keep Up with Technological Change, 2007 U. ILL. J.L. TECH. & POL'Y 239, 241
32. See, e.g., June Carbone & Naomi Cahn, Embryo Fundamentalism, 18 WM. & MARY BILL RTS. J. 1015, 1015-16 (2010);
33. Judith F. Daar, Accessing Reproductive Technologies: Invisible Barriers, Indelible Harms, 23 BERKELEY J. GENDER L. & JUST. 18, 19-20 (2008).
34. DEBORA L. SPAR, THE BABY BUSINESS: HOW MONEY, SCIENCE, AND POLITICS DRIVE THE COMMERCE OF CONCEPTION 3 (2006).
35. RENE ALMELING, SEX CELLS: THE MEDICAL MARKET FOR EGGS AND SPERM 25-27 (2011);
36. DAVID PLOTZ, THE GENIUS FACTORY: THE CURIOUS HISTORY OF THE NOBEL PRIZE SPERM BANK 165 (2005).
37. Anne Reichman Schiff, Frustrated Intentions and Binding Biology: Seeking AID in the Law, 44 DUKE L.J. 524, 533 n.29 (1994) (same).
38. Jeff Stryker, Regulation or Free Markets? An Uncomfortable Question for Sperm Banks, SCI. PROGRESS (Nov. 7, 2007), http://www.scienceprogress.org/2007/ 11/regulation-or-free-markets/.
39. See Kimberly D. Krawiec, Altruism and Intermediation in the Market for Babies, 66 WASH. & LEE L. REV. 203, 212, 220-23 (2009).
40. NAOMI R. CAHN, TEST TUBE FAMILIES: WHY THE FERTILITY MARKET NEEDS LEGAL REGULATION 53-59 (2009).
41. Tamara Audi, Giving Life: Donor Dads Reach Out to Kids, DETROIT FREE PRESS, May 21, 2006, at A1.
42. See, e.g., Rene Almeling, Gender and the Value of Bodily Goods: Commodification in Egg and Sperm Donation, LAW & CONTEMP. PROBS., Summer 2009, at 37, 40, 42-56
43. Rene Almeling, Selling Genes, Selling Gender: Egg Agencies, Sperm Banks, and the Medical Market in Genetic Material, 72 AM. SOC. REV. 319, 320 (2007)
44. Rene Almeling, "Why Do You Want To Be a Donor?": Gender and the Production of Altruism in Egg and Sperm Donation, 25 NEW GENETICS & SOC'Y 143, 155 (2006)
45. Hereinafter Almeling, "Why Do You Want To Be a Donor?"
46. David Tuller, Payment Offers to Egg Donors Prompt Scrutiny, N.Y. TIMES, May 10, 2010, http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/11/health/11eggs.html
47. M. Cho & F. Licciardi, Egg Donors Significantly Under-Report Their Weights, 86 FERTILITY& STERILITY S138 (2006).
48. See A.L. Kalfoglou & J. Gittelsohn, A Qualitative Follow-Up Study of Women's Experiences with Oocyte Donation, 15 HUM. REPROD. 798, 800 (2000);
49. Nancy J. Kenney & Michelle L. McGowan, Looking Back: Egg Donors' Retrospective Evaluations of Their Motivations, Expectations, and Experiences During Their First Donation Cycle, 93 FERTILITY & STERILITY 455, 456 (2010);
50. Steven R. Lindheim, Jennie Chase & Mark V. Sauer, Assessing the Influence of Payment on Motivations of Women Participating as Oocyte Donors, 52 GYNECOLOGIC & OBSTETRIC INVESTIGATION 89, 89, 91 (2001).
51. See, e.g., Interview with Author Julia Derek, CHICK LIT BOOKS, http://chicklitbooks.com/authorinterviews/interview-with-author-julia-derek/ (last visited Oct. 8, 2011);
52. See also JULIA DEREK, CONFESSIONS OF A SERIAL EGG DONOR (2004)
53. Alana S., Debt and Donation, FAMILYSCHOLARS.ORG (May 13, 2010, 5:38 PM), http://familyscholars.org/2010/05/13/debt-anddonation/
54. See Practice Comm. of the Am. Soc'y for Reprod. Med. & Practice Comm. of the Soc'y for Assisted Reprod. Tech., 2008 Guidelines for Gamete and Embryo Donation: A Practice Committee Report, 90 FERTILITY & STERILITY S30, S40 (2008).
55. But see Aaron D. Levine, Self-Regulation, Compensation, and the Ethical Recruitment of Oocyte Donors, 40 HASTINGS CENTER REP. 25, 35 (2010)
56. See, e.g., Justine Durrell, Women's Eggs: Exceptional Endings, 22 HASTINGS WOMEN'S L.J. 187, 189-90 (2011);
57. Peter H. Schuck, Rethinking Informed Consent, 103 YALE L.J. 899, 916 (1994);
58. Sonia M. Suter, Giving In to Baby Markets: Regulation Without Prohibition, 16 MICH. J. GENDER & L. 217, 244 (2009).
59. See Practice Comm. of the Am. Soc'y for Reprod. Med., Repetitive Oocyte Donation, 90 FERTILITY & STERILITY S194, S194-95 (2008);
60. E.g., Susan Donaldson James, Confessions of a Sperm Donor: Hundreds of Kids, ABC NEWS (Aug. 19, 2010), http://abcnews.go.com/Health/sperm-donors-admit- fathering-hundreds-children-callregulation/story?id=11431918;
61. Rick Montgomery, Through the Web, Kids of Sperm-Donor Dads Connect with Siblings, DESERET NEWS, Mar. 27, 2009, http://www.deseretnews.com/article/ 705293478/Through-the-Web-kids-of-sperm-donor-dads-connect-with-siblings.html;
62. Jacqueline Mroz, One Sperm Donor, 150 Offspring, N.Y. TIMES, Sept. 5, 2011, http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/06/health/06donor.html?pagewanted=all;
63. Ginger Adams Otis, Pro Creators: Sperm Donors Dads to Dozens, N.Y. POST, June 19, 2011, http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/sperm-donors-dads-to-dozens- BPI3xZiOl4sQMpaqcolLkN.
64. See Cheryl Wetzstein, Extra Embryos Pose Dilemma, WASH. TIMES, Apr. 6, 2010, http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/apr/06/wetzstein-extra-embryos- pose-dilemma/.
65. For discussions of patients' approaches to their excess embryos, see, for example, Robert D. Nachtigall et al., What Do Patients Want? Expectations and Perceptions of IVF Clinic Information and Support Regarding Frozen Embryo Disposition, 94 FERTILITY& STERILITY 2069 (2010).
66. Anne Drapkin Lyerly et al., Fertility Patients' Views About Frozen Embryo Disposition: Results of a Multi-institutional U.S. Survey, 93 FERTILITY& STERILITY 499, 503, 506 (2010).
67. ANJANI CHANDRA ET AL., NAT'L CTR. FOR HEALTH STATISTICS, U.S. DEP'T OF HEALTH & HUMAN SERVS., FERTILITY, FAMILY PLANNING, AND REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH OF U.S. WOMEN: DATA FROM THE 2002 NATIONAL SURVEY OF FAMILY GROWTH 137 tbl.98 (2005), http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/series/sr-23/sr23-025.pdf.
68. See, e.g., LIZA MUNDY, EVERYTHING CONCEIVABLE: HOW ASSISTED REPRODUCTION IS CHANGING MEN, WOMEN, AND THE WORLD 61-74 (2007).
69. AM. SOC'Y FOR REPROD. MED., PATIENT FACT SHEET: DIAGNOSTIC TESTING FOR MALE FACTOR INFERTILITY (2008), http://www.sart.org/uploadedFiles/ASRM-Content/ Resources/Patient-Resources/Fact-Sheets-and-Info-Booklets/Testing-Male-Fact.pdf;
70. Infertility FAQ's, CTRS. FOR DISEASE CONTROL AND PREVENTION, http://www.cdc.gov/reproductivehealth/Infertility/index.htm (last updated June 28, 2011).
71. Cheryl Miller, Donated Generation, NEW ATLANTIS, Summer 2008, at 27, 32
72. See, e.g., DI Dads, Yahoo! Groups, http://groups.yahoo.com/group/di-dads/ (last visited May 31, 2011) (group for fathers);
73. LIFE AS DAD TO DONOR INSEMINATION (DI) KIDS, http://di-dad.blogspot.com/ (last visited Feb. 4, 2011)
74. T.J. MATHEWS & BRADY E. HAMILTON, NAT'L CTR. FOR HEALTH STATISTICS, U.S. DEP'T OF HEALTH & HUMAN SERVS., DELAYED CHILDBEARING: MORE WOMEN ARE HAVING THEIR FIRST CHILD LATER IN LIFE 1-4 (2009), http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/ databriefs/db21.pdf.
75. Carolyn Butler, Ovaries Have Not Adjusted to Many Women's Decision To Delay Having Children, WASH. POST, Feb. 23, 2010, http://www.washingtonpost.com/ wp-dyn/content/article/2010/02/22/AR2010022203639.html.
76. See Comm. on Gynecologic Practice of the Am. Coll. of Obstetricians & Gynecologists & Practice Comm. of the Am. Soc'y for Reprod. Med., Age-Related Fertility Decline: A Committee Opinion, 90 FERTILITY& STERILITY S154, S154 (2008).
77. NAOMI CAHN & JUNE CARBONE, RED FAMILIES v. BLUE FAMILIES: LEGAL POLARIZATION AND THE CREATION OF CULTURE 34-37 (2010).
78. See Ajay K. Nangia, Donald S. Likosky & Dongmei Wang, Access to Assisted Reproductive Technology Centers in the United States, 93 FERTILITY& STERILITY 745, 747-54 (2010).
79. Tarun Jain, Socioeconomic and Racial Disparities Among Infertility Patients Seeking Care, 85 FERTILITY& STERILITY 876, 879 (2006)
80. Tarun Jain & Mark D. Hornstein, Disparities in Access to Infertility Services in a State with Mandated Insurance Coverage, 84 FERTILITY & STERILITY 221, 222 (2005).
81. Mark P. Connolly, Stijn Hoorens & Georgina M. Chambers, The Costs and Consequences of Assisted Reproductive Technology: An Economic Perspective, 16 HUM. REPROD. UPDATE 603, 607 (2010);
82. Mary Lyndon Shanley & Adrienne Asch, Involuntary Childlessness, Reproductive Technology, and Social Justice: The Medical Mask on Social Illness, 34 SIGNS 851, 856-57, 860 (2009);
83. Ahmad O. Hammoud et al., In Vitro Fertilization Availability and Utilization in the United States: A Study of Demographic, Social, and Economic Factors, 91 FERTILITY & STERILITY 1630, 1633-34 (2009).
84. See, e.g., Suzanne B. Goldberg, Sticky Intuitions and the Future of Sexual Orientation Discrimination, 57 UCLA L. REV. 1375, 1388-1404 (2010)
85. Dan M. Kahan, The Cognitively Illiberal State, 60 STAN. L. REV. 115, 153-54 (2007)
86. Dan M. Kahan & Donald Braman, Cultural Cognition and Public Policy, 24 YALE L. & POL'Y REV. 149, 155-56 (2006)
87. Dan M. Kahan, Culture, Cognition, and Consent: Who Perceives What, and Why, in Acquaintance-Rape Cases, 158 U. PA. L. REV. 729, 802-04 (2010)
88. See, e.g., ROBIN L. BENNETT, THE PRACTICAL GUIDE TO THE GENETIC FAMILY HISTORY 245 (2d ed. 2010);
89. CAROLINE LORBACH, EXPERIENCES OF DONOR CONCEPTION: PARENTS, OFFSPRING AND DONORS THROUGH THE YEARS 167 (2003).
90. See Lawrie McFarlane, Donor Case Strikes at Basic Family Foundations, TIMES COLONIST (Victoria), July 15, 2011, http://www2.canada.com/ victoriatimescolonist/news/comment/story.html ?id=7074bc86-6d1a-41b5-b6e2- e3da99ec38d3&p=1
91. E.g., A Guide to the World of Donor Conception: Information for Donors, Parents and Donor-Conceived People, DONOR SIBLING REGISTRY 9-10, http://www.donorsiblingregistry.com/files/6612/9183/5956/DSR-Brochure-Final.pdf (last visited Oct. 3, 2011)
92. See, e.g., GEORGE LAKOFF, DON'T THINK OF AN ELEPHANT! KNOW YOUR VALUES AND FRAME THE DEBATE, at xv (2004)
93. Amy Kapczynski, The Access to Knowledge Mobilization and the New Politics of Intellectual Property, 117 YALE L.J. 804, 814 (2008)
94. See Martha M. Ertman, What's Wrong with a Parenthood Market? A New and Improved Theory of Commodification, 82 N.C. L. REV. 1, 3 n.5 (2003).
95. See MICHELE GOODWIN, BLACK MARKETS: THE SUPPLY AND DEMAND OF BODY PARTS 160-61 (2006).
96. E.g., J. Brad Reich & Dawn Swink, You Can't Put the Genie Back in the Bottle: Potential Rights and Obligations of Egg Donors in the Cybperprocreation Era, 20 ALB. L.J. SCI. & TECH. 1, 43-64 (2010)
97. Kimberly D. Krawiec, Sunny Samaritans and Egomaniacs: Price-Fixing in the Gamete Market, LAW & CONTEMP. PROBS., Summer 2009, at 59, 84-85;
98. Debora Spar & Anna M. Harrington, Building a Better Baby Business, 10 MINN. J.L. SCI. & TECH. 41, 60-62 (2009).
99. See Laura A. Rosenbury & Jennifer E. Rothman, Sex In and Out of Intimacy, 59 EMORY L.J. 809, 845-47 (2010)
100. Laura Crimaldi, Cali. Couple Seeks Egg-ceptional Donor, BOS. HERALD, Jan. 25, 2009, available at 2009 WLNR 1516873.
101. See Laura T. Kessler, New Frontiers in Family Law: Introduction, 2009 UTAH L. REV. 275, 275.
102. 11 J.L. & FAM. STUD. 227, 227 (2009)
103. See DAN MARKEL, JENNIFER M. COLLINS & ETHAN J. LEIB, PRIVILEGE OR PUNISH: CRIMINAL JUSTICE AND THE CHALLENGE OF FAMILY TIES 3 (2009).
104. Janet L. Dolgin, Biological Evaluations: Blood, Genes, and Family, 41 AKRON L. REV. 347, 396-97 (2008)
105. See Jennifer Egan, Wanted: A Few Good Sperm, N.Y. TIMES MAG., Mar. 19, 2006, http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/19/magazine/319dad.html.
106. see THE BACK-UP PLAN (CBS Films 2010).
107. DONOR SIBLING REGISTRY, http://www.donorsiblingregistry.com (last visited June 14, 2011).
108. California Cryobank Fact Sheet, CALIFORNIA CRYOBANK, http://www.cryobank. com/About-Us/Media-Inquiries/Online-Media-Kit/Fact-Sheet/(last visited Aug. 24, 2011).
109. See Andrea Mechanick Braverman, How the Internet Is Reshaping Assisted Reproduction: From Donor Offspring Registries to Direct-to-Consumer Genetic Testing, 11 MINN. J. L. SCI. & TECH. 477, 485 (2010).
110. Donor Conceived Offspring, Siblings, Parents-(Sperm or Egg), FACEBOOK, http://www.facebook.com/groups/6686905255/(last visited Aug. 24, 2011)
111. See Joanna E. Scheib & Alice Ruby, Contact Among Families Who Share the Same Sperm Donor, 90 FERTILITY & STERILITY 33, 36-37 (2008)
112. Naomi Cahn, No Secrets: Openness and Donor-Conceived "Half-Siblings, " 39 CAP. U. L. REV. 313, 329-39 (2011).
113. Rosanna Hertz & Jane Mattes, Donor-Shared Siblings or Genetic Strangers: New Families, Clans, and the Internet, 20 J. FAM. ISSUES 1, 5-7 & tbl.1 (2011).
114. See Tabitha Freeman, Vasanti Jadva, Wendy Kramer & Susan Golombok, Gamete Donation: Parents' Experiences of Searching for Their Child's Donor Siblings and Donor, 24 HUM. REPROD. 505, 514 (2009).
115. DAVID M. SCHNEIDER, AMERICAN KINSHIP: A CULTURALACCOUNT 30 (1968).
116. E.g., Amanda J. Turner & Adrian Coyle, What Does It Mean To Be a Donor Offspring? The Identity Experiences of Adults Conceived by Donor Insemination and the Implications for Counselling and Therapy, 15 HUM. REPROD. 2041, 2050 (2000).
117. Diane Beeson, Patricia Jennings & Wendy Kramer, Offspring Searching for Their Sperm Donors: How Family Type Shapes the Process, 26 HUM. REPROD. 2415, 2417-20 & tbl.4 (2011).
118. ELIZABETH MARQUARDT, NORVAL D. GLENN & KAREN CLARK, MY DADDY'S NAME IS DONOR: A NEW STUDY OF YOUNG ADULTS CONCEIVED THROUGH SPERM DONATION 21, 88 (2010), http://www.familyscholars. org/assets/Donor-FINAL.pdf.
119. See, e.g., Eric Blyth & Wendy Kramer, "My Daddy's Name is Donor": Read with Caution! (July 9, 2010), http://www.bionews.org.uk/page- 65970.asp;
120. Julie Shapiro, Choosing Studies: Eenie Meenie or Something More?, RELATED TOPICS (June 7, 2010), http://julieshapiro.wordpress.com/2010/06/07/choosing- studies-eenie-meenie-or-something-more/.
121. Karen Clark & Elizabeth Marquardt, The Sperm-Donor Kids Are Not Really All Right, SLATE (June 14, 2010, 11:23 AM), http://www.slate.com/ articles/double-x/doublex/2010/06/the-spermdonor-kids-are-not-really-all-right. html.
122. Introduction, INST. FOR AM. VALUES, http://www.americanvalues.org/intro/ (last visited May 31, 2011).
123. Vasanti Jadva, Tabitha Freeman, Wendy Kramer & Susan Golombok, Experiences of Offspring Searching for and Contacting Their Donor Siblings and Donor, 20 REPROD. BIOMED. ONLINE 523, 527-28 & tbl.4 (2010).
124. See Q & A with Wendy Kramer, in BEHIND CLOSED DOORS: MOVING BEYOND SECRECY AND SHAME 25, 30-31 (Mikki Morrissette ed., 2006).
125. Carey Goldberg, The Search for DGM 2598, BOS. GLOBE, Nov. 23, 2008, http://www.boston.com/news/science/articles/2008/11/23/the-search-for-dgm-2598/
126. Rick Montgomery, Donor-Conceived Siblings Connect: Online Registry Matches Relatives, SAN JOSE MERCURY NEWS, Apr. 19, 2009, at 9D.
127. Pim M.W. Janssens, Commentary, Colouring the Different Phases in Gamete and Embryo Donation, 24 HUM. REPROD. 502, 502 (2009);
128. See also All Things Considered: Donor-Conceived Kids Connect with Half Siblings (NPR radio broadcast Feb. 26, 2009)
129. See, e.g., CHERYL SHULER, SPERM DONOR = DAD: A SINGLE WOMAN'S STORY OF CREATING A FAMILY WITH AN UNKNOWN DONOR 81 (2010)
130. State Laws Related to Insurance Coverage for Infertility Treatment, NAT'L CONFERENCE OF STATE LEGISLATURES, http://www.ncsl.org/IssuesResearch/Health/ InsuranceCoverageforInfertilityLaws/tabid/14391/Default.aspx (last updated Apr. 2011);
131. See also I. Glenn Cohen & Daniel L. Chen, Trading-Off Reproductive Technology and Adoption: Does Subsidizing IVF Decrease Adoption Rates and Should It Matter?, 95 MINN. L. REV. 485, 537-40 (2010)
132. Yaniv Heled, The Regulation of Genetic Aspects of Donated Reproductive Tissue-The Need for Federal Regulation, 11 COLUM. SCI. & TECH. L. REV. 243, 255-58 (2010)
133. PETER CONRAD, THE MEDICALIZATION OF SOCIETY: ON THE TRANSFORMATION OF HUMAN CONDITIONS INTO TREATABLE DISORDERS 4 (2007);
134. See also Peter Conrad, Medicalization and Social Control, 18 ANN. REV. SOC. 209, 223-24 (1992)
135. See, e.g., Daniel Wikler & Norma J. Wikler, Turkey-Baster Babies: The Demedicalization of Artificial Insemination, 69 MILBANK Q. 5 (1991)
136. Steven S. v. Deborah D., 25 Cal. Rptr. 3d 482, 487 (Cal Ct. App. 2005)
137. See also J.F. v. W.M. (In re Paternity of M.F. and C.F.), 938 N.E.2d 1256, 1264 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010)
138. See, e.g., Steven S., 25 Cal. Rptr. 3d at 487
139. In re K.M.H., 169 P.3d 1025, 1042 (Kan. 2007)
140. C.M. v. C.C., 377 A.2d 821, 821-22, 824 (N.J. Cumberland Cnty. Juv. & Dom. Rel. Ct. 1977)
141. C.O. v. W.S., 64 Ohio Misc. 2d 9, 11-13 (Ohio Cuyahoga Cnty. Ct. Com. Pl. 1994)
142. See, e.g., FLA. STAT. ANN. § 742.14 (West 2010) (donor relinquishes all parental rights).
143. See Ami S. Jaeger, Assisted Reproductive Technologies, Collaborative Reproduction, and Adoption, in 2ADOPTION LAW & PRACTICE §§ 14.05, 14.20 (Joan Heifetz Hollinger ed., 2010).
144. See Embryo and Gamete Disposition Laws, NAT'L CONF. ST. LEGISLATURES, http://www.ncsl.org/programs/health/embryodisposition.htm (last updated July 2007)
145. See, e.g., Lori B. Andrews & Nanette Elster, Regulating Reproductive Technologies, 21 J. LEGAL MED. 35, 49 (2000);
146. Kira Horstmeyer, Note, Putting Your Eggs in Someone Else's Basket: Inserting Uniformity into the Uniform Parentage Act's Treatment of Assisted Reproduction, 64 WASH. & LEE L. REV. 671, 684-90 (2007).
147. See John J. Sampson, Uniform Parentage Act (2000), with Prefatory Note and Comments (and with Unofficial Annotations), 35 FAM. L.Q. 83 (2001);
148. John J. Sampson, Amendments to the Uniform Parentage Act as Last Amended in 2002 with Prefatory Note and Comments, 37 FAM. L.Q. 5 (2003).
149. See, e.g., ALA. CODE §§ 26-17-101 to 26-17-905 (LexisNexis 2009);
150. CAL. FAM. CODE §§ 7600-7730 (Deering 2006 & Supp. 2011);
151. COLO. REV. STAT. ANN. §§ 19-4-101 to -130 (West 2005 & Supp. 2010);
152. DEL. CODE ANN. tit. 13, §§ 8-101 to -904 (2009 & Supp. 2010);
153. HAW. REV. STAT. ANN. §§ 584-1 to -26 (LexisNexis 2010);
154. 750 ILL. COMP. STAT. ANN. 40/1 to /3, 45/1 to /28 (West 2009 & Supp. 2011);
155. KAN. STAT. ANN. §§ 38-1110 to -1138 (2000 & Supp. 2010);
156. MINN. STAT. ANN. §§ 257.51-.74 (West 2007 & Supp. 2011);
157. MO. ANN. STAT. §§ 210.817-.852 (West 2010);
158. MONT. CODE ANN. §§ 40-6-101 to -123, 40-6-131 (2011);
159. NEV. REV. STAT. §§ 126.011-.371 (2009);
160. N.J. STAT. ANN. §§ 9:17-38 to -59 (West 2002 & Supp. 2011);
161. N.M. STAT. ANN. §§ 40-11A-101 to -903 (2006 & Supp. 2011);
162. N.D. CENT. CODE §§ 14-20-01 to -66 (2009);
163. OHIO REV. CODE ANN. §§ 3111.01-.97 (West 2005 & Supp. 2011);
164. OKLA. STAT. tit. 10, §§ 7700-101 to -902 (2009);
165. R.I. GEN. LAWS §§ 15-8-1 to -28 (2003 & Supp. 2010);
166. TEX. FAM. CODE ANN. §§ 160.701-.763 (West 2008);
167. UTAH CODE ANN. §§ 78B-15-101 to -902 (LexisNexis 2008);
168. 2011 Wash. Legis. Serv. ch. 283 (West);
169. WYO. STAT. ANN. §§ 14-2-901 to -907 (2011).
170. Harry D. Krause, Bringing the Bastard into the Great Society-A Proposed Uniform Act on Legitimacy, 44 TEX. L. REV. 829 (1966).
171. Gursky v. Gursky, 242 N.Y.S.2d 406, 411 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1963).
172. Orford v. Orford (1921), 58 D.L.R. 251, 258 (Can. Ont. Sup. Ct.).
173. See Alfred Koerner, Medicolegal Considerations in Artificial Insemination, 8 LA. L. REV. 484, 494 (1948).
174. See generally Gaia Bernstein, The Socio-Legal Acceptance of New Technologies: A Close Look at Artificial Insemination, 77 WASH. L. REV. 1035, 1060-71 (2002)
175. UNIF. PARENTAGE ACT § 5 (1973).
176. Parentage Act Summary, UNIF. LAW COMM., http://uniformlaws.org/ ActSummary.aspx? title=Parentage%20Act (last visited Oct. 20, 2011);
177. see also Victoria Degtyareva, Note, Defining Family in Immigration Law: Accounting for Nontraditional Families in Citizenship by Descent, 120 YALE L.J. 862, 886-89 (2011)
178. Legislative Fact Sheet-Parentage Act, UNIF. LAW COMM., http://uniformlaws.org/LegislativeFactSheet.aspx?title=Parentage%20Act (last visited Oct. 10, 2011).
179. See ALA. CODE § 26-17- 702 (LexisNexis 2009)
180. Compare UNIF. PARENTAGE ACT §§ 102(4), (8) (2000) (amended 2002)
181. With ALA. CODE §§ 26-17-102(4), (8) (LexisNexis 2009).
182. see SUSAN L. CROCKIN & HOWARD W. JONES, JR., LEGAL CONCEPTIONS: THE EVOLVING LAW AND POLICY OF ASSISTED REPRODUCTIVE TECHNOLOGIES 134, 194 (2010).
183. See, e.g., Roderick M. Hills, Jr., The Political Economy of Cooperative Federalism: Why State Autonomy Makes Sense and "Dual Sovereignty" Doesn't, 96 MICH. L. REV. 813 (1998);
184. see also Heather K. Gerken, Foreword: Federalism All the Way Down, 124 HARV. L. REV. 4, 21-23 (2010)
185. See, e.g., CHARIS THOMPSON, MAKING PARENTS: THE ONTOLOGICAL CHOREOGRAPHY OF REPRODUCTIVE TECHNOLOGIES 128-29 (2005);
186. Lucy Frith, Gamete Donation and Anonymity: The Ethical and Legal Debate, 16 HUM. REPROD. 818, 822 (2001).
187. Elizabeth Cohen, Pregnant at 47: Can I Do That?, CNN (May 27, 2010), http://articles.cnn.com/2010-05-27/health/late.pregnancy.risks-1-donor-eggs- reproductive-biology-associates-age-limit?-s=PM:HEALTH;
188. Mia Freedman, Another Day, Another 47 Year Old Celebrity Pregnant with Twins, MAMAMIA (May 31, 2007, 12:29 PM), http://www.mamamia.com.au/ entertainment/another-day-another- 47-year-old-celebrity-pregnant-with-twins/.
189. Sheryl Gay Stolberg, Quandary on Donor Eggs: What to Tell the Children, N.Y. TIMES, Jan. 18, 1998, http://www.nytimes.com/1998/01/18/us/quandary-on- donor-eggs-what-to-tell-the-children.html;
190. see Victoria M. Grace, Ken R. Daniels & Wayne Gillett, The Donor, the Father, and the Imaginary Constitution of the Family: Parents' Constructions in the Case of Donor Insemination, 66 SOC. SCI. & MED. 301, 311 (2008);
191. see also ADAM PERTMAN, ADOPTION NATION: HOW THE ADOPTION REVOLUTION IS TRANSFORMING OUR FAMILIES-AND AMERICA 186-96 (2d ed. 2011)
192. Ethics Comm. of the Am. Soc'y for Reprod. Med., Informing Offspring of Their Conception by Gamete Donation, 81 FERTILITY& STERILITY 527, 530 (2004).
193. Ruth Landau & Ruth Weissenberg, Disclosure of Donor Conception in Single-Mother Families: Views and Concerns, 25 HUM. REPROD. 942, 943 (2010).
194. Joanna E. Scheib & Rachel A. Cushing, Open-Identity Donor Insemination in the United States: Is It on the Rise?, 88 FERTILITY & STERILITY 231, 231-32 (2007). (Pubitemid 47001414)
195. See 2011 Wash. Legis. Serv. ch. 283, § 53 (West)
196. Adding new section to WASH. REV. CODE ch. 26.26.
197. NAOMI CAHN, EVAN B. DONALDSON ADOPTION INST., OLD LESSONS FOR A NEW WORLD: APPLYING ADOPTION RESEARCH AND EXPERIENCE TO ASSISTED REPRODUCTIVE TECHNOLOGY 11 (2009), http://www.adoptioninstitute.org/publications/2009-02- OldLessons.pdf.
198. See Naomi Cahn, Accidental Incest: Drawing the Line-or the Curtain?-for Reproductive Technology, 32 HARV. J.L. & GENDER 59, 82-83 (2009).
199. K.M. v. E.G., 117 P.3d 673, 676 (Cal. 2005)
200. E.g., Clare Huntington, Repairing Family Law, 57 DUKE L.J. 1245, 1277 n.133 (2008);
201. Melissa Murray, The Networked Family: Reframing the Legal Understanding of Caregiving and Caregivers, 94 VA. L. REV. 385, 442 n.204 (2008);
202. Victoria Steely, . . . But a Child Can Have Two Mothers, 16 J. CONTEMP. LEGAL ISSUES 35, 38-42 (2007).
203. See, e.g., Hermesmann v. Seyer, 847 P.2d 1273, 1274, 1279-80 (Kan. 1993);
204. Wallis v. Smith, 22 P.3d 682, 682-86 (N.M. Ct. App. 2001);
205. Katharine K. Baker, Bionormativity and the Construction of Parenthood, 42 GA. L. REV. 649, 664-66 (2008);
206. I. Glenn Cohen, The Right Not to Be a Genetic Parent?, 81 S. CAL. L. REV. 1115, 1128-29 (2008).
207. See June Carbone & Naomi Cahn, Marriage, Parentage, and Child Support, 45 FAM. L.Q. 219, 224 (2011).
208. See In re Baby M, 537 A.2d 1227, 1240 (N.J. 1988)
209. See generally U.C.C. § 2-302 (2003)
210. see Naomi Cahn, Necessary Subjects: The Need for a Mandatory Donor Gamete Databank, 12 DEPAUL J. HEALTH CARE L. 203, 211-12 (2009).
211. Nancy D. Polikoff, Breaking the Link Between Biology and Parental Rights in Planned Lesbian Families: When Semen Donors Are Not Fathers, 2 GEO. J. GENDER & L. 57, 87-88 (2000)
212. Hereinafter Polikoff, Breaking the Link;
213. Nancy D. Polikoff, This Child Does Have Two Mothers: Redefining Parenthood To Meet the Needs of Children in Lesbian-Mother and Other Nontraditional Families, 78 GEO. L.J. 459, 468 & n.30 (1990)
214. Hereinafter Polikoff, Redefining Parenthood.
215. See Laura T. Kessler, Community Parenting, 24 WASH. U. J.L. & POL'Y 47, 73 (2007)
216. Jana B. Singer, The Privatization of Family Law, 1992 WIS. L. REV. 1443, 1461
217. Eisenstadt v. Baird, 405 U.S. 438, 453 (1972);
218. Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479, 483-86 (1965).
219. Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1, 11-12 (1967)
220. Griswold, 381 U.S. at 485-86
221. Pierce v. Soc'y of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510, 535 (1925)
222. Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390, 399, 403 (1923)
223. see also Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205, 219 (1972)
224. Eisenstadt, 405 U.S. at 453.
225. 505 U.S. 833, 893-95 (1992).
226. 539 U.S. 558, 578 (2003).
227. See Melissa Murray, Strange Bedfellows: Criminal Law, Family Law, and the Legal Construction of Intimate Life, 94 IOWA L. REV. 1253, 1298 (2009)
228. 550 U.S. 124, 163-64 (2007);
229. see also Jack M. Balkin, How New Genetic Technologies Will Transform Roe v. Wade, 56 EMORY L.J. 843, 848-49 (2007)
230. See, e.g., Laura A. Rosenbury, Between Home and School, 155 U. PA. L. REV. 833, 862-63 (2007).
231. Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57, 65-66, 75 (2000);
232. Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390, 402-03 (1923);
233. see also Pierce v. Soc'y of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510, 534-35 (1925).
234. See, e.g., Suter v. Artist M., 503 U.S. 347, 360 (1992);
235. DeShaney v. Winnebago Cnty. Dep't of Soc. Servs., 489 U.S. 189, 195-97 (1989)
236. Roberts v. U.S. Jaycees, 468 U.S. 609, 618 (1984)
237. Compare Sun v. Ashcroft, 370 F.3d 932, 944 n.18 (9th Cir. 2004)
238. Trujillo v. Bd. of Cnty. Comm'rs, 768 F.2d 1186, 1188-89 (10th Cir. 1985)
239. 405 U.S. 645, 649 (1972);
240. see also Lehr v. Robertson, 463 U.S. 248, 261 (1983)
241. Caban v. Mohammed, 441 U.S. 380, 394 (1979)
242. Quilloin v. Walcott, 434 U.S. 246, 255-56 (1978)
243. Michael H., 491 U.S. at 123.
244. See, e.g., Elizabeth Siberry Chestney, Note, The Right To Know One's Genetic Origin: Can, Should, or Must a State that Extends this Right to Adoptees Extend an Analogous Right to Children Conceived with Donor Gametes?, 80 TEX. L. REV. 365, 367 n.17 (2001).
245. See Julie L. Sauer, Comment, Competing Interests and Gamete Donation: The Case for Anonymity, 39 SETON HALL L. REV. 919, 939-47 (2009).
246. SASHA ROSENEIL, SOCIABILITY, SEXUALITY, SELF: RELATIONALITY AND INDIVIDUALIZATION (2010);
247. Sasha Roseneil, On Not Living with a Partner: Unpicking Coupledom and Cohabitation, 11 SOC. RES. ONLINE (Sept. 30, 2006), http://www.socresonline.org. uk/11/3/roseneil.html.
248. See, e.g., Devaney v. L'Esperance, 949 A.2d 743, 744 (N.J. 2008)
249. See also Ethan J. Leib, Friendship & the Law, 54 UCLA L. REV. 631, 632-33 (2007)
250. See Clare Huntington, Happy Families? Translating Positive Psychology into Family Law, 16 VA. J. SOC. POL'Y & L. 385, 395-96 (2009)
251. Charles Q. Strohm et al., "Living Apart Together" Relationships in the United States, 21 DEMOGRAPHIC RES. 177, 178 (2009), available at http://www.demographicresearch. org/volumes/vol21/7/21-7.pdf.
252. Irene Levin, Living Apart Together: A New Family Form, 52 CURRENT SOC. 223, 227 (2004).
253. See, e.g., ANNETTE LAREAU, UNEQUAL CHILDHOODS: CLASS, RACE, AND FAMILY LIFE 204-06 (2003);
254. JOAN C. WILLIAMS, RESHAPING THE WORK-FAMILY DEBATE: WHY MEN AND CLASS MATTER 165-70 (2010).
255. Ray Pahl & Liz Spencer, Personal Communities: Not Simply Families of 'Fate' or 'Choice,' 52 CURRENT SOC. 199, 215 (2004).
256. LIZ SPENCER & RAY PAHL, RETHINKING FRIENDSHIP: HIDDEN SOLIDARITIES TODAY 45 (2006).
257. Social Support and the Perception of Geographical Slant, 44 J. EXPERIMENTAL SOC. PSYCHOL. 1246, 1252-53 (2008).
258. See Candyce H. Kroenke et al., Social Networks, Social Support, and Survival After Breast Cancer Diagnosis, 24 J. CLINICAL ONCOLOGY 1105 (2006).
259. See Julianne Holt-Lunstad, Timothy B. Smith & J. Bradley Layton, Social Relationships and Mortality Risk: A Meta-Analytic Review, PLOS MED. (July 2010), http://www.plosmedicine.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pmed. 1000316;jsessionid= 1FEB1AAF83E79A31811CBCA854B74636.ambra02.
260. See NANCY LEVIT&DOUGLAS O. LINDER, THE HAPPY LAWYER: MAKING A GOOD LIFE IN THE LAW 90-91 (2010);
261. James H. Fowler & Nicholas A. Christakis, Dynamic Spread of Happiness in a Large Social Network: Longitudinal Analysis over 20 Years in the Framingham Heart Study, 337 BRIT. MED. J. 2338 (2008).
262. See, e.g., Nicholas A. Christakis & James H. Fowler, The Spread of Obesity in a Large Social Network over 32 Years, 357 NEW ENG. J. MED. 370, 378 (2007).
263. James N. Rosenquist, James H. Fowler & Nicholas A. Christakis, Social Network Determinants of Depression, 16 MOLECULAR PSYCHIATRY 273, 280 (2011).
264. Sasha Roseneil & Shelley Budgeon, Cultures of Intimacy and Care Beyond 'the Family': Personal Life and Social Change in the Early 21st Century, 52 CURRENT SOC. 135, 153 (2004).
265. See Ethan J. Leib, Contracts and Friendships, 59 EMORY L.J. 649, 703-05 (2010);
266. Ethan J. Leib, Friends as Fiduciaries, 86 WASH. U. L. REV. 665, 699 (2009);
267. See, e.g., UNIF. PARENTAGE ACT § 204(a)(5) (2000) (amended 2002);
268. Susan Frelich Appleton, Presuming Women: Revisiting the Presumption of Legitimacy in the Same-Sex Couples Era, 86 B.U. L. REV. 227, 258 (2006);
269. see also UNIF. PARENTAGE ACT § 607(b) (2000) (amended 2002)
270. See, e.g., Lehr v. Robertson, 463 U.S. 248 (1983).
271. See, e.g., Susan Frelich Appleton, Parents by the Numbers, 37 HOFSTRA L. REV. 11, 15-16 (2008);
272. Katharine T. Bartlett, Rethinking Parenthood as an Exclusive Status: The Need for Legal Alternatives When the Premise of the Nuclear Family Has Failed, 70 VA. L. REV. 879, 944 (1984)
273. See, e.g., Michael H. v. Gerald D., 491 U.S. 110, 124 (1989);
274. Johnson v. Calvert, 851 P.2d 776, 781 n.8 (Cal. 1993).
275. See, e.g., Abbott v. Abbott, 130 S. Ct. 1983, 1991 (2010);
276. Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57, 65-67 (2000).
277. see also Johnson, 851 P.2d at 781 n.8;
278. Smith v. Cole, 553 So. 2d 847, 854-55 (La. 1989);
279. Warren v. Richard, 296 So. 2d 813, 817 (La. 1974);
280. Rachel L. Kovach, Comment, Sorry Daddy-Your Time Is Up: Rebutting the Presumption of Paternity in Louisiana, 56 LOY. L. REV. 651, 658 (2010).
281. AM. LAW INST., PRINCIPLES OF THE LAW OF FAMILY DISSOLUTION: ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATIONS § 2.03(1) (2002).
282. See Eleanor Willemsen & Kristen Marcel, Attachment 101 for Attorneys: Implications for Infant Placement Decisions, 36 SANTA CLARA L. REV. 439, 472 (1996).
283. See, e.g., Jessica R. Feinberg, Friends as Co-Parents, 43 U.S.F. L. REV. 799, 801-02 (2009).
284. See E. Gary Spitko, Open Adoption, Inheritance, and the "Uncleing" Principle, 48 SANTA CLARA L. REV. 765, 768 (2008).
285. See Courtney Megan Cahill, Regulating at the Margins: Non-Traditional Kinship and the Legal Regulation of Intimate and Family Life, ARIZ. L. REV. (forthcoming 2012), available at http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm? abstract-id=1932743
286. Pratten v. British Columbia (Att'y Gen.), 2011 BCSC 656 (Can. B.C. Sup. Ct.), available at http://www.cbc.ca/bc/news/bc-110519-pratten-sperm-donor- ruling.pdf;
287. see also Writ of Summons and Statement of Claim ∥ 25, 30,
288. Pratten v. British Columbia (Att'y Gen.), 2011 BCSC 656 (Can. B.C.), available at http://www.arvayfinlay.com/news/ Writ%20of%20Summons%20and%20Statement%20of%20Claim.pdf.
289. Joanna Rose, in the United Kingdom, argued that she was legally entitled to the name of her sperm donor "father." Rose v. Sec'y of State for Health, [2002] 2 F.L.R. 962, ∥ 38, 47 (U.K);
290. see also Joanna Rose, A Critical Analysis of Sperm Donation Practices: The Personal and Social Effects of Disrupting the Unity of Biological and Social Relatedness for the Offspring 235 (2009) (unpublished manuscript), available at http://www.nla.gov.au/openpublish/index.php/aja/article/viewFile/1687/2048 (discussing author's court case).
291. Johnson v. Superior Court, 95 Cal. Rptr. 2d 864 (Cal. Ct. App. 2000);
292. Doe v. XYZ Co., 914 N.E.2d 117 (Mass. App. Ct. 2009).
293. See What You Can Find Out About Your Donor or Donor-Conceived Genetic Siblings, HUM. FERTILISATION & EMBRYOLOGYAUTH., http://www.hfea.gov.uk/112. html (last visited Aug. 25, 2011).
294. See Alison Motluk, Canadian Court Bans Anonymous Sperm and Egg Donation, NATURE NEWS (May 27, 2011), http://www.nature.com/news/2011/110527/full/news. 2011.329.html ("[The Pratten decision] may galvanise the offspring of American donors to attempt a similar challenge.").
295. David Crary, Sperm-Donors' Kids Seek More Rights and Respect, BOS. GLOBE, Aug. 15, 2010, http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2010/08/15/sperm- donors-kids-seek-more-rights-and-respect/
296. Annette Ruth Appell, Reflections on the Movement Toward a More Child-Centered Adoption, 32 W. NEW ENG. L. REV. 1 (2010) (urging greater attention to children in adoption).
297. Katherine M. Franke, Commentary, The Domesticated Liberty of Lawrence v. Texas, 104 COLUM. L. REV. 1399, 1419 (2004)
298. Katherine M. Franke, Longing for Loving, 76 FORDHAM L. REV. 2685, 2688 (2008) [hereinafter Franke, Longing for Loving].
299. Clare Huntington, Familial Norms and Normality, 59 EMORY L.J. 1103, 1156-59 (2010);
300. see also Richard H. McAdams, The Origin, Development, and Regulation of Norms, 96 MICH. L. REV. 338, 340 (1997)
301. Elizabeth F. Emens, Intimate Discrimination: The State's Role in the Accidents of Sex and Love, 122 HARV. L. REV. 1307, 1401 (2009).
302. See, e.g., Stanley v. Illinois, 405 U.S. 645, 658 (1972);
303. Nelson Tebbe & Deborah A. Widiss, Equal Access and the Right to Marry, 158 U. PA. L. REV. 1375, 1400 (2010).
304. For discussions of benefits based on marital status, see, for example, Gill v. Office of Pers. Mgmt., 699 F. Supp. 2d 374, 379-83 (D. Mass. 2010);
305. Goodridge v. Dep't of Pub. Health, 798 N.E.2d 941, 948 (Mass. 2003);
306. Letter from Dayna K. Shah, Assoc. Gen. Counsel, U.S. Gen. Accounting Office, to Honorable Bill Frist, Majority Leader, U.S. Senate (Jan. 23, 2004), available at http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d04353r.pdf.
307. For a sample list of surrogate decision makers, see, for example, ALA. CODE § 22-8A-11(d)(7) (LexisNexis 2006);
308. see also Ashley Bassel, Note, Order at the End of Life: Establishing a Clear and Fair Mechanism for the Resolution of Futility Disputes, 63 VAND. L. REV. 491, 501-02 (2010) (discussing surrogate decision-making statutes).
309. COLO. REV. STAT. ANN. § 15-22-105 (West 2011);
310. see also David D. Meyer, Fragmentation and Consolidation in the Law of Marriage and Same-Sex Relationships, 58 AM. J. COMP. L. 115 (2010).
311. For a nice accounting of how the state recognizes the rights accorded to family partners, see Appling v. Doyle, No. 10-CV-4434 (Wis. Cir. Ct. June 20, 2011), available at http://data.lambdalegal.org/in-court/downloads/appling-wi- 20110620-decision-and-order.pdf.
312. See 29 U.S.C. § 2612(a)(1) (2006);
313. 29 C.F.R. § 825.122(c)(3) (2011).
314. See, e.g., William M. Sage, Relational Duties, Regulatory Duties, and the Widening Gap Between Individual Health Law and Collective Health Policy, 96 GEO. L.J. 497, 503-05 (2008)
315. William D. White, Market Forces, Competitive Strategies, and Health Care Regulation, 2004 U. ILL. L. REV. 137 (discussing market competition);
316. Stephanie N. Sivinski, Note, Putting Too Many (Fertilized) Eggs in One Basket: Methods of Reducing Multifetal Pregnancies in the United States, 88 TEX. L. REV. 897, 913 (2010) (discussing focus on patient autonomy).
317. Dawn R. Swink & J. Brad Reich, Caveat Vendor: Potential Progeny, Paternity, and Product Liability Online, 2007 BYU L. REV. 857, 879-85.
318. See, e.g., Annette R. Appell, The Endurance of Biological Connection: Heteronormativity, Same-Sex Parenting and the Lessons of Adoption, 22 BYU J. PUB. L. 289, 290 (2008);
319. See, e.g., KAREY HARWOOD, THE INFERTILITY TREADMILL: FEMINIST ETHICS, PERSONAL CHOICE, AND THE USE OF REPRODUCTIVE TECHNOLOGIES (2007).
320. For suggestions, see, for example, American Bar Association Model Act Governing Assisted Reproductive Technology, 42 FAM. L.Q. 171, 178-79, 182-83 (2008)
321. SENATE LEGAL& CONSTITUTIONAL AFFAIRS REFERENCES COMM., DONOR CONCEPTION PRACTICES IN AUSTRALIA 60-61 (2011), http://www.aph.gov.au/senate/ committee/legcon-ctte/donor-conception/report/report.pdf.
322. Eric Blyth & Lucy Frith, Donor-Conceived People's Access to Genetic and Biographical History: An Analysis of Provisions in Different Jurisdictions Permitting Disclosure of Donor Identity, 23 INT'L J.L. POL'Y& FAM. 174, 178-79 (2009).
323. But see I. Glenn Cohen, Beyond Best Interests, 96 MINN. L. REV. (forthcoming 2011) (draft on file with author) [hereinafter Cohen, Beyond Best Interests];
324. I. Glenn Cohen, Regulating Reproduction: The Problem with Best Interests, 96 MINN. L. REV. (forthcoming 2011)
325. Michelle Dennison, Revealing Your Sources: The Case for Non-Anonymous Gamete Donation, 21 J.L. & HEALTH 1, 24-27 (2008).
326. See JEANNE A. HOWARD ET AL., EVAN B. DONALDSON ADOPTION INSTITUTE, FOR THE RECORDS II: AN EXAMINATION OF THE HISTORY AND IMPACT OF ADULT ADOPTEE ACCESS TO ORIGINAL BIRTH CERTIFICATES (2010), http://www.adoptioninstitute.org/ publications/7-14-2010-ForTheRecordsII.pdf;
327. Naomi Cahn & Jana Singer, Adoption, Identity, and the Constitution: The Case for Opening Closed Records, 2 U. PA. J. CONST. L. 150, 162 (1999).
328. 011 Wash. Legis. Serv. ch. 283, § 53 (West) (available online at Westlaw's tentative classification, WASH. REV. CODE ANN. § 26.26.0001).
329. ADMIN. FOR CHILDREN & FAMILIES, U.S. DEP'T OF HEALTH & HUM. SERVS., ACCESS TO ADOPTION RECORDS: SUMMARY OF STATE LAWS 4 (2009), http://www.childwelfare.gov/systemwide/laws-policies/statutes/infoaccessapall. pdf.
330. Eric Blyth et al., Wither the HFEA and the Fate of Donor Registers?, BIONEWS (Aug. 23, 2010), http://www.bionews.org.uk/page-69470.asp.
331. Pratten v. British Columbia (Att'y Gen.), 2011 BCSC 656, ∥ 330-35 (Can. B.C. Sup. Ct.), available at http://www.cbc.ca/bc/news/bc-110519-pratten- sperm-donor-ruling.pdf.
332. E.g., In re Baby M, 537 A.2d 1227, 1234, 1240-50 (N.J. 1988)
333. See Shelley v. Kraemer, 334 U.S. 1 (1948);
334. Mark D. Rosen, Was Shelley v. Kraemer Incorrectly Decided? Some New Answers, 95 CALIF. L. REV. 451 (2007).
335. See generally Russell Korobkin, Bounded Rationality, Standard Form Contracts, and Unconscionability, 70 U. CHI. L. REV. 1203, 1229-30 (2003).
336. E. Wayne Carp, Does Opening Adoption Records Have an Adverse Social Impact? Some Lessons from the U.S., Great Britain, and Australia, 1953-2007, 10 ADOPTION Q., 29, 34-38 (2007);
337. Elizabeth J. Samuels, The Idea of Adoption: An Inquiry into the History of Adult Adoptee Access to Birth Records, 53 RUTGERS L. REV. 367, 380 (2001);
338. Jennifer Butch, Note, Finding Family: Why New Jersey Should Allow Adult Adoptees Access to Their Original Birth Certificates, 34 SETON HALL LEGIS. J. 251, 262-65 (2010).
339. See, e.g., Lynn A. Baker, Promulgating the Marriage Contract, 23 U. MICH. J.L. REFORM 217, 252-54 (1990) (discussing cases and their rationales).
340. Pratten v. British Columbia (Att'y Gen.), 2011 BCSC 656 (Can. B.C. Sup. Ct.), available at http://www.arvayfinlay.com/news/ Writ%20of%20Summons%20and%20Statement%20of%20Claim.pdf;
341. see also Eric Blyth & Lucy Frith, The UK's Gamete Donor 'Crisis'-A Critical Analysis, 28 CRITICAL SOC. POL'Y 74, 87 (2008)
342. Pratten v. British Columbia (Att'y Gen.), 2011 BCSC 656, ∥ 230-34 (Can. B.C. Sup. Ct.).
343. See, e.g., Johnson v. Superior Court, 95 Cal. Rptr. 2d 864 (Cal. Ct. App. 2000);
344. Doe v. XYZ Co., 914 N.E.2d 117 (Mass. App. Ct. 2009);
345. See Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57, 65 (2000);
346. Naomi R. Cahn, Models of Family Privacy, 67 GEO. WASH. L. REV. 1225, 1235-37 (1999);
347. cf. Barbara Bennett Woodhouse, "Who Owns the Child?" Meyer and Pierce and the Child as Property, 33 WM. & MARY L. REV. 995 (1992).
348. See generally Jennifer A. Baines, Note, Gamete Donors and Mistaken Identities: The Importance of Genetic Awareness and Proposals Favoring Donor Identity Disclosure for Children Born from Gamete Donations in the United States, 45 FAM. CT. REV. 116, 120-21 (2007).
349. Barbara Bennett Woodhouse, "Are You My Mother?": Conceptualizing Children's Identity Rights in Transracial Adoptions, 2 DUKE J. GENDER L. & POL'Y 107, 128 (1995);
350. see also MARY LYNDON SHANLEY, MAKING BABIES, MAKING FAMILIES: WHAT MATTERS MOST IN AN AGE OF REPRODUCTIVE TECHNOLOGIES, SURROGACY, ADOPTION, AND SAME-SEX AND UNWED PARENTS 40 (2001).
351. HFEA To Help Donor-Conceived Siblings Contact Each Other, HUM. FERTILISATION & EMBRYOLOGY AUTH. (Apr. 6, 2010), http://www.hfea.gov.uk/ 5838.html.
352. see also ETHAN J. LEIB, FRIEND V. FRIEND: THE TRANSFORMATION OF FRIENDSHIP-AND WHAT THE LAW HAS TO DO WITH IT 99 (2011).
353. For issues involving surrogate decision making and guardianship, see SUSAN N. GARY, JEROME BORISON, NAOMI R. CAHN & PAULA A. MONOPOLI, CONTEMPORARYAPPROACHES TO TRUSTS AND ESTATES, ch. 13 (2011).
354. Angela Ferraris, Comment, Sibling Visitation as a Fundamental Right in Herbst v. Swan, 39 NEW ENG. L. REV. 715, 744-47 (2005)
355. For a discussion of these remedies, see, for example, Shahar Lifshitz, Married Against Their Will? Toward a Pluralist Recognition of Spousal Relationships, 66 WASH. & LEE L. REV. 1565 (2009).
356. See I. Glenn Cohen, Rethinking Sperm Donor Anonymity: Of Changed Selves, Nonidentity, and One- Night Stands, 100 GEO L.J. 431 (2012).
357. Vanessa L. Pi, Note, Regulating Sperm Donation: Why Requiring Exposed Donation is Not the Answer, 16 DUKE J. GENDER L. & POL'Y 379, 380-81, 395 (2009);
358. See generally John A. Robertson, Assisting Reproduction, Choosing Genes, and the Scope of Reproductive Freedom, 76 GEO. WASH. L. REV. 1490 (2008)
359. Neroli Sawyer, Who's Keeping Count? The Need for Regulation Is a Relative Matter, 92 FERTILITY& STERILITY 1811, 1812 (2009).
360. See, e.g., Eric D. Blyth, Lucy Frith & Abigail Farrand, Is It Possible To Recruit Gamete Donors Who Are Both Altruistic and Identifiable?, 84 FERTILITY& STERILITY S21 (2005).
361. See Ken Daniels & Othon Lalos, The Swedish Insemination Act and the Availability of Donors, 10 HUM. REPROD. 1871, 1872 (1995).
362. A. Lalos, K. Daniels, C. Gottlieb & O. Lalos, Recruitment and Motivation of Semen Providers in Sweden, 18 HUM. REPROD. 212, 212 (2003);
363. F. Shenfield, Privacy Versus Disclosure in Gamete Donation: A Clash of Interest, of Duties, or an Exercise in Responsibility?, 14 J.ASSISTED REPROD. & GENETICS 371, 371 (1997).
364. See New Donor Registrations, HUM. FERTILISATION & EMBRYOLOGYAUTH., http://www.hfea.gov.uk/ 3411.html (last updated Mar. 23, 2011)
365. Liza Mundy, Shortage? What Shortage? How the Sperm Donor Debate Missed Its Mark, THE GUARDIAN, Sept. 19, 2010, http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/ 2010/sep/19/sperm-donors-shortage-market-forces.
366. Kate Foster, Scots Giving Sperm . . . To Get Their Oats, DAILY STAR (Scottish ed.), March 19, 2010, at 22;
367. Marie Woolf, Sperm Bank Asks Sports Fans To Lend a Hand, SUNDAY TIMES (London), Jan. 10, 2010, http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life-and-style/health/ article6982300.ece;
368. see also Lucy Frith, Eric Blyth & Abigail Farrand, UK Gamete Donors' Reflections on the Removal of Anonymity: Implications for Recruitment, 22 HUM. REPROD. 1675, 1677-78 (2007).
369. See, e.g., Ken Daniels, Anonymity and Openness and the Recruitment of Gamete Donors. Part I: Semen Donors, 10 HUM. FERTILITY 151, 157 (2007);
370. Press Release, Sperm Donor Crisis-Researchers Find Sharp Fall Requires Urgent New Recruitment Strategies (Nov. 10, 2005), available at http://www.oxfordjournals.org/eshre/press-release/nov051.pdf (quoting Dr. Jane Stewart).
371. Sperm Donor Shortage Hits Canadian Fertility Clinics, CBC NEWS (Dec. 19, 2006, 2:19 PM), http://www.cbc.ca/health/story/2006/12/19/sperm-shortage.html.
372. See Debora L. Spar, As You Like It: Exploring the Limits of Parental Choice in Assisted Reproduction, 27 LAW & INEQ. 481, 491 (2009)
373. I. Glenn Cohen, Intentional Diminishment, the Non-Identity Problem, and Legal Liability, 60 HASTINGS L.J. 347 (2008);
374. See AMARTYA SEN, CHOICE, WELFARE AND MEASUREMENT 30-31 (1982);
375. AMARTYA SEN, DEVELOPMENT AS FREEDOM 144 (First Edition Books 2000) (1999);
376. Martha C. Nussbaum, Human Capabilities, Female Human Beings, in WOMEN, CULTURE, AND DEVELOPMENT: A STUDY OF HUMAN CAPABILITIES 61, 82-83 (Martha C. Nussbaum & Jonathan Glover eds., 1995);
377. see also Maxine Eichner, Dependency and the Liberal Polity: On Martha Fineman's The Autonomy Myth, 93 CALIF. L. REV. 1285, 1316 (2005)
378. Martha Nussbaum, Human Rights and Human Capabilities, 20 HARV. HUM. RTS. J. 21, 23 (2007).
379. Elizabeth Marquardt, On Gratitude for One's Existence, FAMILYSCHOLARS.ORG (May 22, 2010, 12:50 AM), http://familyscholars.org/2010/05/22/on-gratitude- for-ones-existence/.
380. See Seana Valentine Shiffrin, Wrongful Life, Procreative Responsibility, and the Significance of Harm, 5 LEGAL THEORY 117, 119-20 (1999).
381. See, e.g., Pratten v. British Columbia (Att'y Gen.), 2011 BCSC 656 (Can. B.C. Sup. Ct.), available at http://www.cbc.ca/bc/news/bc-110519-pratten-sperm- donor-ruling.pdf
382. NAT'L CTR. FOR HEALTH STATISTICS, CTRS. FOR DISEASE CONTROL AND PREVENTION, USE OF CONTRACEPTION IN THE UNITED STATES: 1982-2008, at 5 (2010), http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/series/sr-23/sr23-029.pdf;
383. R.E.J. Ryder, "Natural Family Planning": Effective Birth Control Supported by the Catholic Church, 307 BRIT. MED. J. 723, 723 (1993).
384. See, e.g., Ariela R. Dubler, Essay, Sexing Skinner: History and the Politics of the Right to Marry, 110 COLUM. L. REV. 1348, 1359 (2010)
385. Cass R. Sunstein, Is There a Constitutional Right To Clone?, 53 HASTINGS L.J. 987, 993-94 (2002)
386. Sonia M. Suter, The "Repugnance" Lens of Gonzales v. Carhart and Other Theories of Reproductive Rights: Evaluating Advanced Reproductive Technologies, 76 GEO. WASH. L. REV. 1514, 1520-27 (2008);
387. Elyse Whitney Grant, Note, Assessing the Constitutionality of Reproductive Technologies Regulation: A Bioethical Approach, 61 HASTINGS L.J. 997 (2010).
388. See Radhika Rao, Equal Liberty: Assisted Reproductive Technology and Reproductive Equality, 76 GEO. WASH. L. REV. 1457 (2008);
389. see John A. Robertson, Liberty, Identity, and Human Cloning, 76 TEX. L. REV. 1371, 1441 (1998).
390. Kate Benson, Fertility Law Change Puts Spotlight on Donors, SYDNEY MORNING HERALD (Austl.), Feb. 25, 2009, http://www.smh.com.au/national/ fertility-law-change-puts-spotlight-on-donors-20090224-8guk.html.
391. see also Caroline Lorbach, Information Needed on Donor Parents, TIMES-COLONIST (Can.), July 17, 2011, http://www.timescolonist.com/health/ Informationneededdonorparents/5115569/story.html#ixzz1SfXyKoZW
392. MADELYN FREUNDLICH, EVAN B. DONALDSON ADOPTION INST., FOR THE RECORDS: RESTORING A LEGAL RIGHT FOR ADULT ADOPTEES 18-19 (2007), http://www. adoptioninstitute.org/publications/2007-11-For-Records.pdf;
393. Dorothy A. Greenfeld & Susan Caruso Klock, Disclosure Decisions Among Known and Anonymous Oocyte Donation Recipients, 81 FERTILITY & STERILITY 1565, 1567 (2004)
394. Susan Caruso Klock & Dorothy A. Greenfeld, Parents' Knowledge About the Donors and Their Attitudes Toward Disclosure in Oocyte Donation, 19 HUM. REPROD. 1575, 1578 (2004)
395. Dena Shehab et al., How Parents Whose Children Have Been Conceived with Donor Gametes Make Their Disclosure Decision: Contexts, Influences, and Couple Dynamics, 89 FERTILITY & STERILITY 179, 182-83 (2008)
396. E.g., Harold D. Grotevant et al., Many Faces of Openness in Adoption: Perspectives of Adopted Adolescents and Their Parents, 10 ADOPTION Q. 79 (2008).
397. See, e.g., Alison Motluk, Anonymous Sperm Donor Traced on Internet, NEW SCIENTIST (Nov. 3, 2005), http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg18825244.200;
398. Alison Smith Squire, A Generation of Sperm Donor Children Are Discovering the Father They Know and Love Is NOT Their Father at All, DAILY MAIL (U.K.), Mar. 19, 2009, http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1163032/A- generationsperm-donor-children-discovering-father-know-love-NOT-father-all.html
399. see also Elizabeth E. Joh, Essay, Reclaiming "Abandoned" DNA: The Fourth Amendment and Genetic Privacy, 100 NW. U. L. REV. 857 (2006)
400. Monica Bowers, Cryobanks and Donor Anonymity, THE EXAMINER, Jan. 20, 2009, http://www.examiner.com/lgbt-parenting-in-national/cryobanks-and-donor- anonymity#ixzz1SYrhV3OK.
401. Daniel J. Solove, The Virtues of Knowing Less: Justifying Privacy Protections Against Disclosure, 53 DUKE L.J. 967, 1065 (2003).
402. See Daniel J. Solove, A Taxonomy of Privacy, 154 U. PA. L. REV. 477, 532-35 (2006).