Mothering for money: Regulating commercial intimacy

Indiana Law Journal

Volumn 88, Issue 4, 2013, Pages 1223-1279

  Laufer Ukeles, Pamela ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF DAYTON   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84883070388     PISSN: 00196665     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (231)

1. See Marsha Garrison, Law Making for Baby Making: An Interpretive Approach to the Determination of Legal Parentage, 113 HARV. L. REV. 835, 851 (2000).
2. "The earliest reported contemporary surrogate mother case is generally agreed to have been in 1980." R. J. Edelmann, Surrogacy: The Psychological Issues, 22 J. REPROD. & INFANT PSYCHOL. 123, 125 (2004).
3. Of course, there are a number of Biblical instances of surrogacy as well; although, those instances are closer to surrogate wives then surrogate motherhood. See Pamela Laufer-Ukeles, Gestation: Work for Hire or the Essence of Motherhood? A Comparative Legal Analysis, 9 DUKE J. GENDER L. & POL'Y 91, 120 (2002).
4. See Natalie Gamble & Louisa Ghevaert, Surrogacy, Parenthood and Disputes: Are There Any Lessons To Be Learned?, BIONEWS (Feb. 14, 2011), http://www.bionews.org.uk/page-89334.asp;
5. Christine L. Kerian, Surrogacy: A Last Resort Alternative for Infertile Women or a Commodification of Women's Bodies and Children?, 12 WIS. WOMEN'S L. J. 113, 130 (1997) ("The cases illustrated thus far demonstrate that conflicts over custody of a child born through surrogacy have been minimal.");
6. Karen Synesiou, Surrogacy: Myths and Realities, MOTHERINGINTHEMIDDLE. COM (Nov. 22, 2010), http://www.motheringinthemiddle.com/?tag=karen-synesiou.
7. But see, e.g., S. N. v. M. B., 188 Ohio App. 3d 324, 333
8. 2010-Ohio-2479, 935 N. E.2d 463, 470 (10th Dist.) (holding that Ohio's Parentage Act applies to any parentage determination, including surrogacy cases)
9. cause dismissed, 126 Ohio St 3d 1525
10. 2010-Ohio-3583, 931 N. E.2d 126.
11. See Surrogacy Arrangements Act, 1985, c. 49, § 1A (U. K.)
12. inserted by Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act, 1990, c. 37, § 36 (1) (U. K.);
13. Assisted Human Reproduction Act, S. C. 2004, c. 2, § 6 (1) (Can.).
14. See, e.g., Elizabeth S. Scott, Surrogacy and the Politics of Commodification, 72 LAW & CONTEMP. PROBS. 109, 137-44 (2009).
15. See, e.g., Susan Donaldson James, More Gay Men Choose Surrogacy to Have Children, ABC NEWS (Mar. 12, 2008), http://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/OnCall/ story?id=4439567&page=l.
16. See, e.g., Emily Gelmann, "I'm Just the Oven, It's Totally Their Bun": The Power and Necessity of the Federal Government to Regulate Commercial Gestational Surrogacy Arrangements and Protect the Legal Rights of Intended Parents, 32 WOMEN'S RTS. L. REP. 159 (2011) (couching the need to legalize surrogacy in the context of helping to fulfill couples procreative desires);
17. Catherine London, Advancing a Surrogate-Focused Model of Gestational Surrogacy Contracts, 18 CARDOZO J. L. & GENDER 391 (2012).
18. See, e.g., Lori B. Andrews, Surrogate Motherhood: The Challenge for Feminists, in SURROGATE MOTHERHOOD: POLITICS AND PRIVACY 167 (Larry Gostin ed., 1990);
19. JOHN A. ROBERTSON, CHILDREN OF CHOICE: FREEDOM AND THE NEW REPRODUCTIVE TECHNOLOGIES 130-32 (1994);
20. CARMEL SHALEV, BIRTH POWER: THE CASE FOR SURROGACY passim (1989) (arguing that permitting surrogacy supports women's autonomy over their bodies);
21. John Lawrence Hill, What Does it Mean to be a "Parent"? The Claims of Biology as the Basis for Parental Rights, 66 N. Y. U. L. REV. 353, 383 (1991);
22. Marjorie Maguire Shultz, Reproductive Technology and Intent-Based Parenthood: An Opportunity for Gender Neutrality, 1990 WIS. L. REV. 297, 309.
23. There are also claims that U. S. citizens have a procreative right to use surrogacy. See, e.g., John A. Robertson, Procreative Liberty and the State's Burden of Proof in Regulating Noncoital Reproduction, in SURROGATE MOTHERHOOD, supra, at 24, 25-27.
24. Pamela Laufer-Ukeles, Approaching Surrogate Motherhood, 26 VT. L. REV. 407, 413-14 (2002).
25. See, e.g., Elisabeth M. Landes & Richard A. Posner, The Economics of the Baby Shortage, 7 J. LEGAL STUD. 323 (1978);
26. (citing Ruby L. Lee, Note, New Trends in Global Outsourcing of Commercial Surrogacy: A Call for Regulation, 20 HASTINGS WOMEN'S L. J. 275, 286 (2009) (describing the failure to provide regulation to permit surrogacy as a problem of legal conservatism: the "[l]aws have not kept pace with advancing growth in reproductive technologies."));
27. See MARTHA FIELD, SURROGATE MOTHERHOOD (1988);
28. CHRISTINE OVERALL, HUMAN REPRODUCTION: PRINCIPLES, PRACTICES, POLICIES (1993);
29. JANICE G. RAYMOND, WOMEN AS WOMBS: REPRODUCTIVE TECHNOLOGIES AND THE BATTLE OVER WOMEN'S FREEDOM (1993);
30. BARBARA KATZ ROTHMAN, RECREATING MOTHERHOOD: IDEOLOGY AND TECHNOLOGY IN A PATRIARCHAL SOCIETY (1989);
31. Anita L. Allen, The Black Surrogate Mother, 8 HARV. BLACKLETTER J. 17 (1991) (raising racial concerns connected with the use of surrogacy and advocating alternately for a ban on surrogate contracts or refusal to enforce surrogate contracts);
32. Katherine T. Bartlett, Re-Expressing Parenthood, 98 YALE L. J. 293, 333-34 (1998);
33. Margaret Jane Radin, Market-Inalienability, 100 HARV. L. REV. 1849, 1928-36 (1987);
34. See, e.g., Karen Busby & Delaney Vun, Revisiting The Handmaid's Tale: Feminist Theory Meets Empirical Research on Surrogate Mothers, 26 CANADIAN J. FAM. L. 13, 32-36 (2010);
35. Amrita Pande, Commercial Surrogacy in India: Manufacturing a Perfect Mother-Worker, 35 SIGNS 969, 972 (2010).
36. See J. F. v. D. B., 66 Pa. D. & C.4th 1, 13 (Pa. Ct. Com. PI. 2004) ("Those states that make surrogacy (e.g., paid surrogacy or baby selling) expressly illegal are Delaware, Iowa, Michigan, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Utah, Washington D. C. and Wisconsin. Surrogacy is exempt from criminal baby selling statutes in Iowa, Alabama and Washington. Those states that ban surrogacy contracts are Arizona, Connecticut, Indiana, Louisiana, New Jersey, North Dakota and Tennessee.").
37. See, e.g., In re Baby M, 537 A.2d 1227, 1241, 1244-45 (N. J. 1988);
38. Jennifer Damelio & Kelly Sorensen, Enhancing Autonomy in Paid Surrogacy, 22 BIOETHICS 269, 270 (2008);
39. See, e.g., Ruth Macklin, Is There Anything Wrong with Surrogate Motherhood: An Ethical Analysis, in SURROGATE MOTHERHOOD, supra note 8, at 136, 141-42;
40. CHRISTINE OVERALL, ETHICS AND HUMAN REPRODUCTION: A FEMINIST ANALYSIS 118, 124-26 (1987);
41. Janice G. Raymond, Reproductive Gifts and Gift Giving: The Altruistic Woman, HASTINGS CTR. REP., Nov.-Dec. 1990, at 7, 11.
42. See, e.g., Vicki C. Jackson, Baby M and the Question of Parenthood, 76 GEO. L. J. 1811, 1816-1820 (1988).
43. See, e.g., PHYLLIS CHESLER, SACRED BOND: THE LEGACY OF BABY M 34 (1988).
44. See, e.g., Jennifer S. Hendricks, Not of Woman Born: A Scientific Fantasy, 62 CASE W. RES. L. REV. 399, 438 (2011);
45. Barbara Stark, Transnational Surrogacy and International Human Rights Law, 18 ILSA J. INT'L & COMP. L. 369 (2012).
46. See Janice C. Ciccarelli & Linda J. Beckman, Navigating Rough Waters: An Overview of Psychological Aspects of Surrogacy, 61 J. SOC. ISSUES 21, 22-24 (2005) (reporting twenty-seven empirical studies from January 1983-December 2003).
47. In re Baby M, 537 A.2d. 1227, 1235-40 (N. J. 1988).
48. See Olga B. A. van den Akker, Psychological Trait and State Characteristics, Social Support and Attitudes to the Surrogate Pregnancy and Baby, 22 HUM. REP. 2287, 2293-94 (2007);
49. Eric Blyth, "I Wanted To Be Interesting. I Wanted To Be Able to Say 'I've Done Something Interesting with My Life'": Interviews with Surrogate Mothers in Britain, 12 J. REPROD. & INFANT PSYCHOL. 189, 195-96 (1994);
50. Susan Fischer & Irene Gillman, Surrogate Motherhood: Attachment, Attitudes and Social Support, PSYCHIATRY, Feb. 1991, at 13, 16.
51. See, e.g., J. Herbie Di Fonzo & Ruth C. Stem, The Children of Baby M., 39 CAP. U. L. REV. 345, 357 (2011).
52. see also KRISTY STEVENS & EMMA DALLY, SURROGATE MOTHER: ONE WOMAN'S STORY (1985).
53. See Olga van den Akker, Genetic and Gestational Surrogate Mothers' Experience of Surrogacy, 21 J. REPROD. & INFANT PSYCHOL. 145, 147 (2003) [hereinafter van den Akker, Experience of Surrogacy] (reporting that some traditional surrogates reported some problems relinquishing the child but most did not, and none of the gestational surrogates did).
54. See, e.g., ELLY TEMAN, BIRTHING A MOTHER: THE SURROGATE BODY AND THE PREGNANT SELF 31-68 (2010) (describing in great detail her in depth interviews with more than twenty-six gestational surrogates and over forty-three intended families over a period of eight years);
55. Hal B. Levine, Gestational Surrogacy: Nature and Culture in Kinship, ETHNOLOGY, Summer 2003, at 173, 175.
56. See, e.g., Olga B. A. van den Akker, A Longitudinal Pre-Pregnancy to Post-Delivery Comparison of Genetic and Gestational Surrogate and Intended Mothers: Confidence and Genealogy, 26 J. PSYCHOSOMATIC OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY 277, 281 (2005) [hereinafter van den Akker, Longitudinal Comparison];
57. van den Akker, Experience of Surrogacy, supra note 35, at 151 (demonstrating how a majority of gestational surrogates but not genetic surrogates believe in the importance of a genetic link).
58. see also van den Akker, Longitudinal Comparison, supra note 37, at 282 (reporting that gestational surrogates relied on lack of genetic affiliation to facilitate process).
59. Hazel Baslington, The Social Organization of Surrogacy: Relinquishing a Baby and the Role of Payment in the Psychological Detachment Process, 7 J. HEALTH PSYCHOL. 57, 58, 64-67 (2002) (describing his thesis of maternal-fetal detachment during commercial surrogacy and noting the strong relationships developed with infertile couples using the concept of "deflection");
60. Melinda M. Hohman & Christina B. Hagan, Satisfaction with Surrogate Mothering: A Relational Model, 4 J. HUM. BEHAV. SOC. ENV'T 61, 67-69, 81-82 (2001);
61. Helena Ragoné, Chasing the Blood Tie: Surrogate Mothers, Adoptive Mothers and Fathers, 23 AM. ETHNOLOGIST 352, 359-62 (1996).
62. See LIZA MUNDY, EVERYTHING CONCEIVABLE: HOW ASSISTED REPRODUCTION IS CHANGING MEN, WOMEN, AND THE WORLD 136 (2007);
63. Amrita Pande, Transnational Commercial Surrogacy in India: Gifts for Global Sisters?, 23 REPROD. BIOMEDICINE ONLINE 618, 619 (2011);
64. See, e.g., HELENA RAGONÉ, SURROGATE MOTHERHOOD: CONCEPTION IN THE HEART 54 (1994) ("The quantifiable data collected from [twenty-eight] formal surrogate interviews reveal that surrogates are predominantly white, working class, of Protestant or Catholic background; approximately 30 percent are full-time homemakers, married, with an average of three children, high school graduates, with an average age of twenty-seven years.");
65. Isadore Schmukler & Betsy P. Aigen, The Terror of Surrogate Motherhood: Fantasies, Realities, and Viable Legislation, in GENDER IN TRANSITION: A NEW FRONTIER 235, 244 (Joan Offerman-Zuckerberg ed., 1989) (age);
66. Christine Hagan Kleinpeter & Melinda M. Hohman, Surrogate Motherhood: Personality Traits and Satisfaction with Service Providers, 87 PSYCHOL. REP. 957, 958-59, 962-63 (2000) (age, race, and religion);
67. van den Akker, Experience of Surrogacy, supra note 35, at 148 (age);
68. van den Akker, Longitudinal Comparison, supra note 37, at 279 (age).
69. van den Akker, Experience of Surrogacy, supra note 35, at 148;
70. van den Akker, Longitudinal Comparison, supra note 37, at 278-79.
71. See ADRIENNE RICH, OF WOMAN BORN: MOTHERHOOD AS EXPERIENCE AND INSTITUTION 64 (1976) (observing that in women's experience, the fetus challenges the inside-outside dualism in western philosophy by being at once introduced from without and nascent from within, so that "[t]he child that I carry for nine months can be defined neither as me or as not-me" (emphasis in original));
72. Theresa Glennon, Regulation of Reproductive Decision-Making, in REGULATING AUTONOMY: SEX, REPRODUCTION AND FAMILY 149, 154 (Shelley Day Sclater et al. eds., 2009).
73. See also Jill Elaine Hasday, Intimacy and Economic Exchange, 119 HARV. L. REV. 491, 493-96 (2005).
74. See, e.g., Morgan Holcomb & Mary Patricia Byrn, When Your Body Is Your Business, 85 WASH. L. REV. 647, 657 (2010) ("Provisions such as the specifics of the IVF treatment, prenatal care, and whether the intended parents can attend medical appointments are incorporated into the contract to reinforce that, while the surrogate may be the one carrying the child, it is not her pregnancy. From the parties' perspectives, the pregnancy belongs to the intended parents and the surrogate is hired to provide a valuable service." (footnotes omitted)).
75. Catherine London, Advancing a Surrogate-Focused Model of Gestational Surrogacy Contracts, 18 CARDOZO J. L. & GENDER 391, 413 (2012).
76. See, e.g., Kimberly R. Willoughby & Alisa A. Campbell, Having My Baby: Surrogacy in Colorado, 31 COLO. LAW. 103, 105-06 (2002) (itemizing the kind of restrictions found in surrogacy contracts).
77. see also Gleitman v. Cosgrove, 227 A.2d 689 (N. J. 1967) (discussing effects of rubella on fetus);
78. Cori S. Annapolen, Maternal Smoking During Pregnancy: Legal Responses to the Public Health Crisis, 12 Va. J. Soc. Pol'y & L. 744 (2005);
79. Michelle Oberman, Sex, Drugs, Pregnancy, and the Law: Rethinking the Problems of Pregnant Women Who Use Drugs, 43 Hastings L. J. 505 (1992).
80. See, e.g., Robert Martone, Scientists Discover Children's Cells Living in Mothers' Brains, SCI. AM. (Dec. 4, 2012), http://www.scientificamerican.com/ article.cfm?id=scientists-discover-childrens-cells-living-in-mothers-brain;
81. Nancy Shute, Beyond Birth: A Child's Cells May Help or Harm the Mother Long After Delivery, SCI. AM. (Apr. 30, 2010), http://www.scientificamerican. com/article.cfm?id=fetal-cells-microchimerism (describing a process of cellular exchange between gestating mother and fetus known as microchimerism);
82. see also Catherine Arcabascio, Chimeras: Double the DNA-Double the Fun for Crime Scene Investigators, Prosecutors, and Defense Attorneys?, 40 AKRON L. REV. 435, 439 (2007)
83. (citing J. Lee Nelson, Microchimerism: Incidental Byproduct of Pregnancy or Active Participant in Human Health?, 8 TRENDS IN MOLECULAR MED. 109, 109 (2002)).
84. Sonia M. Suter, Giving in to Baby Markets: Regulation Without Prohibition, 16 MICH. J. GENDER & L. 217, 222 (2009);
85. MARGARET JANE RADIN, CONTESTED COMMODITIES 137-38 (1996).
86. See Michael J. Sandel, What Money Can't Buy: The Moral Limits of Markets, in THE TANNER LECTURES ON HUMAN VALUES 87, 94-95 (Grethe B. Peterson ed., 2000);
87. Note, The Price of Everything, the Value of Nothing: Reframing the Commodification Debate, 117 HARV. L. REV. 689, 693 (2003).
88. See Jennifer A. Parks, Care Ethics and the Global Practice of Commercial Surrogacy, 24 BIOETHICS 333, 335 (2010).
89. See Joan C. Williams & Viviana A. Zelizer, To Commodity or Not to Commodity: That Is Not the Question, in RETHINKING COMMODIFICATION 362, 369 (Martha M. Ertman & Joan C. Williams eds., 2005).
90. VIVIANA A. ZELIZER, THE PURCHASE OF INTIMACY (2005).
91. See Nancy Folbre & Julie A. Nelson, For Love or Money-Or Both?, 14 J. ECON. PERSP. 123, 132 (2000) ("One could, of course, let self-interest overtake altruistic concerns and do the work in a cold-hearted way, but this not implied a priori. One could, in fact, be exceptionally nonmaterialistic and generous.").
92. Maxine Eichner, The Family and the Market-Redux, 13 THEORETICAL INQUIRIES L. 97, 99-102 (2012)
93. (citing MICHAEL WALZER, SPHERES OF JUSTICE (1983)).
94. See generally Kimberly D. Krawiec, Altruism and Intermediation in the Market for Babies, 66 WASH. & LEE L. REV. 203 (2009);
95. See Pamela Laufer-Ukeles, Money, Caregiving, and Kinship: Should Paid Caregivers Be Allowed to Obtain De Facto Parental Status?, 74 Mo. L. REV. 25, 55-59 (2009).
96. Martha M. Ertman, What's Wrong with a Parenthood Market?: A New and Improved Theory of Commodiflcation, 82 N. C. L. REV. 1, 55-59 (2003).
97. Naomi R. Cahn, The Coin of the Realm: Poverty and the Commodiflcation of Gendered Labor, 5 J. GENDER, RACE & JUST. 1 (2001).
98. Katherine Silbaugh, Commodiflcation and Women's Household Labor, 9 YALE J. L. & FEMINISM 81, 104-07 (1997);
99. see also Mary Becker, Care and Feminists, 17 WIS. WOMEN'S L. J. 57, 71-73 (2002).
100. (citing, among others, Hilary Hanafin, The Surrogate Mother: An Exploratory Study, in 45 DISSERTATION ABSTRACTS INTERNATIONAL 3335-36-B (1985));
101. van den Akker, Experience of Surrogacy, supra note 35, at 150-51.
102. (citing Joan Einwohner, Who Becomes a Surrogate: Personality Characteristics, in GENDER IN TRANSITION: A NEW FRONTIER 123, 123-32 (Joan Offerman-Zuckerberg ed., 1989)) ("40% of women state the fee was their main, although not their only, motivator.");
103. See Michele Goodwin, Relational Markets in Intimate Goods, 44 TULSA L. REV. 803, 805 (2009) ("The dual statuses of intimacy are employed here-both as a metaphor for relationships and affinity linkages... and also as the term relates to the exclusively yours: biological goods, such as kidneys, ova, sperm, and babies."). I add to intimate relationships and body parts described as "intimate" by Goodwin the leasing (selling) of bodily functions such as gestation.
104. see also Viviana A. Zelizer, From Baby Farms to Baby M, SOCIETY, Mar./Apr. 1988, at 28 (suggesting that proper regulation could make surrogacy a completely acceptable transaction but not specifying what kind of regulation or oversight would be necessary).
105. See, e.g., Kimberly D. Krawiec, A Woman's Worth, 88 N. C. L. REV. 1739, 1741-42 (2010) (while admitting that commodification arguments also apply to gender neutral sales of organ and to male sperm, she nonetheless argues that the bulk of anti-commodification arguments are directed at woman's labor).
106. For instance, the sale of organs. See, e.g., David E. Chapman, Comment, Retailing Human Organs Under the Uniform Commercial Code, 16 J. MARSHALL L. REV. 393, 405 (1983) ("[S]ociety should not view the sale of human organs any differently than the sale of other necessary commodities such as food, shelter, and medication. ");
107. Shelby E. Robinson, Comment, Organs for Sale? An Analysis of Proposed Systems for Compensating Organ Providers, 70 U. COLO. L. REV. 1019, 1050 (1999) (arguing that America's deficit of transplantable human organs can be solved through commodification).
108. 29 U. S. C. A. § 2601 (a) (5) (West 2009) ("[D]ue to the nature of the roles of men and women in our society, the primary responsibility for family caretaking often falls on women. ");
109. see Mary Anne Case, Pets or Meat, 80 CHI.-KENT L. REV. 1129 (2005).
110. Lisa C. Ikemoto, Reproductive Tourism: Equality Concerns in the Global Market for Fertility Services, 27 LAW & INEQUALITY 277, 305-07 (2009).
111. See, e.g., Anne Donchin, Reproductive Tourism and the Quest for Global Gender Justice, 24 BIOETHICS 323, 328 (2010).
112. ALDOUSHUXLEY, BRAVENEWWORLD (1932).
113. John Lawrence Hill, Exploitation, 79 CORNELL L. REV. 631, 691 (1994) (citing to a study that approximately forty percent of all surrogate applicants were unemployed or received financial assistance);
114. Dorothy E. Roberts, Spiritual and Menial Housework, 9 YALE J. L. & FEMINISM 51, 66 n. 81 (1997)
115. (citing GENA COREA, THE MOTHER MACHINE 276 (1985) (describing a reproductive brothel));
116. Jennifer L. Watson, Growing a Baby for Sale or Merely Renting a Womb: Should Surrogate Mothers Be Compensated for Their Services?, 6 WHITTIER J. CHILD & FAM. ADVOC. 529, 544 (2007) (arguing that the most frequent argument against surrogacy is that it could exploit poor women who enter into surrogacy agreements purely out of economic necessity).
117. Contra Lori B. Andrews, Beyond Doctrinal Boundaries: A Legal Framework for Surrogate Motherhood, 81 VA. L. REV. 2343, 2349-50 (1995);
118. Carol Sanger, Developing Markets in Baby-Making: In the Matter of Baby M, 30 HARV. J. L. & GENDER 67, 78 (2007) ("[S]urrogacy may produce at least the appearance of some social leveling: the surrogate's fertility makes up for 'perceived, if unacknowledged, economic differences' between the surrogate and the commissioning couple.").
119. In re Baby M, 537 A.2d 1227, 1248 (N. J. 1988) ("Under the contract, the natural mother is irrevocably committed before she knows the strength of her bond with her child. She never makes a totally voluntary, informed decision, for quite clearly any decision prior to the baby's birth is, in the most important sense, uninformed, and any decision after that, compelled by a pre-existing contractual commitment, the threat of a lawsuit, and the inducement of a $10, 000 payment, is less than totally voluntary.");
120. see Model Human Reproductive Technologies and Surrogacy Act, 72 IOWA L. REV. 943, 981-85 (1987);
121. Mark Strasser, Parental Rights Terminations: On Surrogate Reasons and Surrogacy Policies, 60 TENN. L. REV. 135, 143 (1992).
122. Jennifer Nedelsky, Reconceiving Autonomy: Sources, Thoughts and Possibilities, 1 YALE J. L. & FEMINISM 7, 8-9 (1989) ("[F]eminists are centrally concerned with freeing women to shape our own lives, to define who we (each) are, rather than accepting the definition given to us by others (men and male-dominated society, in particular).").
123. See, e.g., GRACE CLEMENT, CARE, AUTONOMY, AND JUSTICE: FEMINISM AND THE ETHIC OF CARE 21-22 (1996);
124. Susan Sherwin, A Relational Approach to Autonomy in Health Care, in THE POLITICS OF WOMEN'S HEALTH: EXPLORING AGENCY AND AUTONOMY 19, 26-28 (Susan Sherwin ed., 1998);
125. Carl E. Schneider, After Autonomy, 41 WAKE FOREST L. REV. 411, 413 (2006) ("The second criticism contends that the autonomy principle, while estimable and essential, promotes deleterious attitudes, perhaps principally by underwriting a corrosive individualism that alienates people from their family, friends, and physicians.").
126. See generally Margaret Ryznar, International Commercial Surrogacy and Its Parties, 43 J. MARSHALL L. REV. 1009 (2010) (describing in depth the nature and effects of international surrogacy).
127. See, e.g., Susan Frelich Appleton, Parents by the Numbers, 37 HOFSTRA L. REV. 11, 20-21 (2008);
128. Melanie B. Jacobs, Why Just Two? Disaggregating Traditional Parental Rights and Responsibilities to Recognize Multiple Parents, 9 J. L. & FAM. STUD. 309, 314-32 (2007);
129. Matthew M. Kavanagh, Rewriting the Legal Family: Beyond Exclusivity to a Care-Based Standard, 16 YALE J. L. & FEMINISM 83, 85 (2004);
130. Laura T. Kessler, Community Parenting, 24 WASH. U. L. J. & POL'Y 47, 74 (2007);
131. Pamela Laufer-Ukeles & Ayelet Blecher-Prigat, Between Function and Form: Towards a Differentiated Model of Functional Parenthood, 20 GEO. MASON L. REV. 419, 428-35 (2013);
132. Melissa Murray, The Networked Family: Reframing the Legal Understanding o/Caregiving and Caregivers, 94 VA. L. REV. 385, 394-95 (2008).
133. See, e.g., ARIZ. REV. STAT. ANN. § 8-107 (B) (1989) (West) (consent valid only seventy-two hours after birth);
134. In re Timothy W., 223 Cal. App. 3d 437, 445 (Cal. Ct. App. 1990) (holding that when a birth mother has formally refused to give her consent, the court shall order the adoptive parents to relinquish the child);
135. Carol Sanger, Separating from Children, 96 COLUM. L. REV. 375, 443 (1996).
136. See, e.g., Cathy J. Jones, Autonomy and Informed Consent in Medical Decisionmaking: Toward a New Self-fulfilling Prophecy, 47 WASH. & LEE L. REV. 379, 383 n. l4-15 (1990).
137. Cf. Robert H. Mnookin & Lewis Kornhauser, Bargaining in the Shadow of the Law: The Case of Divorce, 88 YALE. L. J. 950, 954-57 (1979) (discussing how the law affects separation agreement negotiations at divorce).
138. SCOTT B. RAE, THE ETHICS OF COMMERCIAL SURROGATE MOTHERHOOD: BRAVE NEW FAMILIES? (1994) (arguing that the woman who gives birth to the child should be considered the legal mother of the child);
139. Janet L. Dolgin, Just a Gene: Judicial Assumptions About Parenthood, 40 UCLA L. REV. 637, 673 (1993) (discussing the development of this dilemma based on the breakdown of natural parenthood);
140. Ruth Macklin, Artificial Means of Reproduction and Our Understanding of the Family, 21 HASTINGS CENTER REP. 5 (1991) (considering the various methods, including genetics, to determine the real mother);
141. Richard A. Posner, The Regulation of the Market in Adoptions, 67 B. U. L. REV. 59 (1987) (arguing for a free market in babies and reproductive services);
142. Suzanne F. Seavello, Are You My Mother? A Judge's Decision in In Vitro Fertilization Surrogacy, 3 HASTINGS WOMEN'S L. J. 211 (1992) (arguing for a genetics based determination).
143. 644 N. E. 2d 760 (Ohio Ct. Com. Pl. 1994).
144. See Soos v. Superior Court, 897 P.2d 1356, 1358-59 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1994) (holding that viewing gestation as opposed to genetics as the indicator of parenthood is not a violation of equal protection due to the differences between sexes in procreation);
145. ROBIN WEST, CARING FOR JUSTICE 35, 39-50, 81-89 (1997);
146. see also In re Union Pac. R. R. Emp't Practices Litig., 378 F. Supp. 2d 1139, 1147-48 (D. Neb. 2005);
147. Nancy S. Erickson, The Feminist Dilemma Over Unwed Parents' Custody Rights: The Mother's Rights Must Take Priority, 2 LAW & INEQ. 447, 461-62 (1984) (basing the rights of the birth mother on the fact that she is not only the primary caretaking parent but also the only caretaking parent at that point).
148. For scientific studies demonstrating this bond, see John C. Fletcher & Mark I. Evans, Maternal Bonding in Early Fetal Ultrasound Examinations, 308 NEW ENG. J. MED. 392, 392 (1983);
149. John H. Kennell & Marshall H. Klaus, Mother-Infant Bonding: Weighing the Evidence, 4 DEVELOPMENTAL REV. 275, 281 (1984);
150. Maureen A. Knippen, Microchimerism: Sharing Genes in Illness and in Health, ISRN NURSING, 2011, available at http://www.isrn. com/journals/nursing/ 2011/893819/;
151. Katharine K. Baker, Bargaining or Biology? The History and Future of Paternity Law and Parental Status, 14 CORNELL J. L. & PUB. POL'Y 1, 44-48 (2004).
152. See, e.g., Noa Ben-Asher, The Curing Law: The Evolution of Baby-Making Markets, 30 CARDOZO L. REV. 1885, 1914 (2009).
153. Susan Frelich Appleton, Presuming Women: Revisiting the Presumption of Legitimacy in the Same-Sex Couples Era, 86 B. U. L. REV. 227, 275-76 (2006);
154. Jennifer S. Hendricks, Essentially a Mother, 13 WM. & MARY J. WOMEN & L. 429, 430-31, 474-78 (2007);
155. Margaret Jane Radin, What, If Anything, Is Wrong with Baby Selling?, 26 PAC. L. J. 135, 144-45 (1995) (address given at the McGeorge School of Law on March 4, 1994);
156. MARGARET JANE RADIN, REINTERPRETING PROPERTY 136-39 (1993).
157. For a discussion of why intent cannot be a basis for determining "natural" motherhood, see In re Baby M, 537 A.2d 1227, 1240-50 (N. J. 1988) (discussing how intentional arguments that enforce contracts align with baby-selling);
158. Belsito, 644 N. E.2d at 765 (rejecting intent-based argument on grounds that it enforces contracts for the sale of children);
159. Jeffrey M. Place, Recent Development, Gestational Surrogacy and the Meaning of "Mother": Johnson v. Calvert 851 P.2d 776, 782 (Cal. 1993)
160. 17 HARV. J. L. & PUB. POL'Y 907, 913-14 (1994).
161. Johnson v. Calvert, 851 P.2d 776 (Cal. 1993)
162. cert, denied, 114 S. Ct. 206 (1993);
163. In re Marriage of Buzzanca, 72 Cal. Rptr. 2d 280, 288-91 (Cal. Ct. App. 1998) (declaring that when a child is conceived by implanting anonymously donated sperm and egg, the intended mother as expressed in the surrogacy contract-not the surrogate or the unknown egg donor-is the lawful mother).
164. Johnson, 851 P.2d at 782 ("We conclude that although the Act recognizes both genetic consanguinity and giving birth as means of establishing a mother and child relationship, when the two means do not coincide in one woman, she who intended to procreate the child-that is, she who intended to bring about the birth of a child that she intended to raise as her own-is the natural mother under California law.").
165. K. M. v. E. G., 117 P.3d 673, 675-76 (Cal. 2005).
166. See Randy Frances Kandel, Which Came First: The Mother or the Egg? A Kinship Solution to Gestational Surrogacy, 47 RUTGERS L. REV. 165 (1994) (arguing for multiple mothers from the perspective of a kinship relationship).
167. 537 A.2d. 1227 (N. J. 1988).
168. See CHARLES P. KINDREGAN, JR. & MAUREEN MCBRIEN, ASSISTED REPRODUCTIVE TECHNOLOGY: A LAWYER'S GUIDE TO EMERGING LAW AND SCIENCE 132 (2006);
169. DEBORA L. SPAR, THE BABY BUSINESS: HOW MONEY, SCIENCE, AND POLITICS DRIVE THE COMMERCE OF CONCEPTION 80-82, 84 (2006);
170. Erin Y. Hisano, Comment, Gestational Surrogacy Maternity Disputes: Refocusing on the Child, 15 LEWIS & CLARK L. REV. 517, 524 (2011) ("[B]ecause the surrogacy realm is largely unregulated, it is often difficult to find accurate statistics regarding the use of gestational surrogacy arrangements.").
171. See, e.g., Dara L. Hofrnan, "Mama's Baby, Daddy's Maybe:" A State-by-State Survey of Surrogacy Laws and Their Disparate Gender Impact, 35 WM. MITCHELL L. REV. 449, 451 (2009).
172. See Johnson v. Calvert, 851 P.2d 776, 789-90 (Cal. 1993) (Kennard, J., dissenting).
173. See Peter R. Brinsden, Gestational Surrogacy, 9 HUM. REPROD. UPDATE 483 (2003).
174. See MAGDALINA GUGUCHEVA, COUNCIL FOR RESPONSIBLE GENETICS, SURROGACY IN AMERICA 18 (2010) ("IVF is generally more invasive, and therefore more risky, than AI. IVF also carries a higher risk of multiple pregnancy, which is riskier than single pregnancy.").
175. See Resources: Gestational Surrogacy, THE CENTER FOR REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH, http://www.reproductivehealthctr.com/treatments-for-women-surrogacy.htm ("The medical process requires that the genetic mother's and the gestational carrier's menstrual cycles be synchronized. The genetic mother undergoes ovarian superovulation and egg retrieval.");
176. Jami L. Zehr, Note, Using Gestational Surrogacy and Pre-Implantation Genetic Diagnosis: Are Intended Parents Now Manufacturing the Idyllic Infant, 20 LOY. CONSUMER L. REV. 294, 297 (2008).
177. See van den Akker, Longitudinal Comparison, supra note 37, at 282.
178. See, e.g., van den Akker, Longitudinal Comparison, supra note 37, at 282 (indicating some greater difficulty experienced by traditional surrogates but not a substantial difference).
179. Austin Caster, Don't Split the Baby: How the U. S. Could Avoid Uncertainty and Unnecessary Litigation and Promote Equality by Emulating the British Surrogacy Law Regime, 10 CONN. PUB. INT. L. J. 477, 498 (2011);
180. Charles P. Kindregan, Jr. & Steven H. Snyder, Clarifying the Law of ART: The New American Bar Association Model Act Governing Assisted Reproductive Technology, 42 FAM. L. Q. 203, 206, 216-17 (2008) (suggesting legislation that mandates psychological consultations);
181. But see I. Glenn Cohen, Regulating Reproduction: The Problem with Best Interests, 96 MINN. L. REV. 423, 450-71 (2011) (contending that arguments justifying regulation of artificial reproductive technologies for the sake of future children are logically problematic).
182. cf. Pamela Laufer-Ukeles, Reproductive Choices and Informed Consent: Fetal Interests, Women's Identity, and Relational Autonomy, 37 AM. J. L. & MED. 567, 616-17 (2011) (suggesting informational counseling sessions as opposed to psychological screenings in the context of reproductive choices).
183. Compare id. (relating the results of Ciccarelli's 1997 study, which found that access to professional psychological support increased satisfaction among nearly all surrogate mothers studied), with van den Akker, Experience of Surrogacy, supra note 35, at 153 (reporting that the author's 2001 study revealed mixed results regarding the usefulness of counseling to surrogate mothers).
184. The average fee paid to a surrogate in the United States is about $25, 000, but overall costs are much greater, reaching about $100, 000 to $120, 000. See, e.g., Lorraine Ali & Raina Kelley, The Curious Lives of Surrogates, NEWSWEEK, Apr. 7, 2008, at 44 (the typical fee paid to a surrogate is $20, 000 to $25, 000);
185. See Tamara Audi & Arlene Chang, Assembling the Global Baby, WALL ST. J., Dec. 11, 2010, at C1.
186. See Richard F. Storrow, Assisted Reproduction on Treacherous Terrain: The Legal Hazards of Cross-Border Reproductive Travel, 23 REPROD. BIOMEDICINE ONLINE 538 (2011);
187. Richard F. Storrow, Quests for Conception: Fertility Tourists, Globalization and Feminist Legal Theory, 57 HASTINGS L. J. 295, 298-99 (2005).
188. See Claire Bigg & Courtney Brooks, Ukraine Surrogacy Boom Not Risk-Free, RADIO FREE EUROPE/RADIO LIBERTY, June 4, 2011, available at http://www.rferi.org/contentAvomb-for-hire-ukraine-surrogacy-boom-is-not-risk- free/24215336.html (discussing surrogacy in Ukraine);
189. Uday Mahurkar, Donating a Womb, INDIA TODAY, Aug. 13, 2007, at 56, available at http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/Donating+a+womb/1/1174.html (discussing surrogacy in India);
190. Surrogacy in Armenia, SURROGACY CLINICS (Feb. 13, 2012), httpy://www.surrogacyclinics.com/category/surrogacy-in-armenia/ (discussing surrogacy in Armenia);
191. Leslie Minora, Gaybies: Gay Couples in Florida Turn to Foreign Surrogacy, NEW TIMES (Broward Palm Beach), Jan. 27, 2011, available at http://www.browardpalmbeach.com/2011-01-27/news/gaybies-gay-couples-in- floridatum-to-foreign-surrogacy/ (discussing surrogacy in Panama).
192. Richard F. Storrow, "The Phantom Children of the Republic": International Surrogacy and the New Illegitimacy, 20 AM. U. J. GENDER SOC. POL'Y & L. 561, 597 n. 264 (2012)
193. (citing Nilanjana S. Roy, Protecting the Rights of Surrogate Mothers in India, N. Y. TIMES, Oct. 4, 2011, http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/05/world/asia/ 05iht-letter05.html ?-r=0 (finding that since commercial surrogacy was legalized in India in 2002, it has become key in the country's booming medical tourism market));
194. Usha Rengachary Smerdon, Crossing Bodies, Crossing Borders: International Surrogacy Between the United States and India, 39 CUMB. L. REV. 15, 22 (2008) ("Outside of the United States, India is quickly becoming the top destination spot for fertility tourists due to a number of interrelated factors creating a "perfect storm" for a booming commercial surrogacy market.").
195. There is no formal regulation of surrogacy contracts. There are, however, guidelines used by the clinics themselves, but they are not enforceable in courts. See LAW COMM'N OF INDIA, GOV'T OF INDIA, NEED FOR LEGISLATION TO REGULATE ASSISTED REPRODUCTIVE TECHNOLOGY CLINICS AS WELL AS RIGHTS AND OBLIGATIONS OF PARTIES TO A SURROGACY, REP. NO. 228, ¶¶ 1.14, 2.1-.2, at 14, 16-17(2009), http://lawcommissionofindia.nic.in/reports/report228.pdf [hereinafter LAW COMM'N REPORT].
196. See Neeta Lal, Pitfalls of Surrogacy in India Exposed, ASIA TIMES, May 24, 2012, http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South-Asia/NE24Df02.html;
197. Shilpa Kannan, Regulators Eye India's Surrogacy Sector, BBC NEWS, (Mar. 18, 2009, 22:33 GMT), http://news.bbc.co. Uk/2/hi/business/7935769.stm.
198. (citing LAW COMM'N REPORT, supra note 252, at ¶ 1. 7, at 11));
199. See I. Glenn Cohen, Circumvention Tourism, 97 CORNELL L. REV. 1309, 1381 (2012).
200. See, e.g., Kristiana Brugger, International Law in the Gestational Surrogacy Debate, 35 FORDHAM INT'L L. J. 665, 676 (2012).
201. Rina Chandran, Poverty Makes Surrogates of Indian Women in Gujarat, Reuters, (Apr. 8, 2009, 12:47 PM), http://www.reuters.com/article/2009/04/08/us- india-surrogate-idUSBOM1574520090408.
202. See Ian Williams & Rory Kress, A Baby Made in India: A Couple's Dream Comes True, NBCNEWS. COM (May 28, 2012, 8:13 AM), http://todayhealth.today. msnbc.msn. com/-news/2012/05/28/11883566-a-baby-made-in-india-a-couples-dream- comes-true?lite (surrogates in India live in a hostel so that doctors can monitor their health and nutrition);
203. See Alison Bailey, Reconceiving Surrogacy: Toward a Reproductive Justice Account of Indian Surrogacy, 26 HYPATIA 715, 721 (2011).
204. See Scott Carney, Cash on Delivery, MOTHER JONES, Mar./Apr. 2010, at 68 (explaining that although C-sections are often considered riskier for the baby and dramatically increase the woman's risk of death during childbirth, they are generally used for international surrogacy, perhaps because they are faster and less personal than vaginal deliveries).
205. Carney's article is available electronically under the alternative title Inside India's Rent-a-Womb Business, available at http://www.motherjones.com/ politics/2010/02/surrogacy-tourism-india-nayna-patel.
206. Rita Bakshi, India - a Suitable Destination of International Intended Parents, IVF SURROGACY INDIA (May 10, 2012), http://ivfcentreindia.blogspot.com/ 2012/05/indiasuitable-destination-of.html.
207. Amrita Pande, "At Least I Am Not Sleeping with Anyone": Resisting the Stigma of Commercial Surrogacy in India, 36 FEMINIST STUD. 292, 306-07 (2010).
208. (citing Outsourcing to Indian Surrogate Mothers (CNN television broadcast Oct. 17, 2006), available at http://transcripts.cnn. com/TRANSCRIPTS/0610/17/i- ins.01.html ("[T]o the extent that people are looking to India because of the less expensive [surrogate] arrangement they can make, if you do the math, [Indian surrogates are] making ten times their husband's [income], then that's the equivalent of paying somebody [in the United States] probably $150, 000 to $200, 000 for being a gestational surrogate.")).
209. (citing Sudha Ramachandran, India's New Outsourcing Business-Wombs, ASIA TIMES ONLINE (June 16, 2006), http://www.atimes. com/atimes/South-Asia/HF16Df03. html;
210. Sreeraman, India Urged to Regulate "Commercial Surrogacy", MEDINDIA (Dec. 12, 2009), http://medindia.net/news/India-Urged-to-Regulate- Commercial-Surrogacy-62159-2.htm);
211. See, e.g., KARI POINTS, THE KENAN INST, FOR ETHICS AT DUKE UNIV., COMMERCIAL SURROGACY AND FERTILITY TOURISM IN INDIA: THE CASE OF BABY MANJI 5-7(2009), available at http://kenan. ethics.duke.edu/wp-content/uploads/2012/ 07/Case-Study-Surrogacy.pdf (discussing how the commissioning couple divorced and then the father became enmeshed in litigation in two legal systems in trying to transport the baby back to Japan, which bans surrogacy, from India);
212. See, e.g., Jennifer Rimm, Comment, Booming Baby Business: Regulating Commercial Surrogacy in India, 30 U. PA. J. INT'L L. 1429, 1453-62 (2009).
213. See David J. Doorey, In Defense of Transnational Domestic Labor Regulation, 43 VAND. J. TRANSNAT'L L. 953 (2010) (discussing infringement on sovereignty arguments against transnational laws);
214. Emmanuelle Mazuyer, Labor Regulation in the North American Free Trade Area: A Study on the North American Agreement on Labor Cooperation, 22 COMP. LAB. L. & POL'Y J. 239, 258 (2001) (one country asserting its labor laws on other countries can raise significant concerns about infringing the other state's sovereignty).
215. See, e.g., Adelle Blackett, Global Governance, Legal Pluralism and the Decentered State: A Labor Law Critique of Codes of Corporate Conduct, 8 IND. J. GLOBAL LEGAL STUD. 401, 403-11 (2001);
216. cf. Cynthia L. Estlund, The Ossification of American Labor Law, 102 COLUM. L. REV. 1527, 1531, 1578-80 (2002) ("Resistance to transnational legal authority, endemic to American law, has insulated labor law from the potential influence of international human rights or other labor rights such as those that have forced the reexamination of national labor laws in Europe and elsewhere."). I am not judging whether one country should try to regulate a foreign jurisdiction's labor practices or whether international treaties should be enforced; I am only commenting on the customary practice of leaving each country to create its own system of labor laws.
217. But see Shima Baradaran & Stephanie Barclay, Fair Trade and Child Labor, 43 COL. HUM. RTS. L. REV. 1 (2011) (advocating transnational regulation to prevent child labor);
218. Jorge F. Perez-Lopez, Conditioning Trade on Foreign Labor Law: The U. S. Approach, 9 COMP. LAB. L. J. 253, 253-54 (1988).
219. The Hague Convention on Protection of Children and Co-operation in Respect of Intercountry Adoption, May 29, 1993, 32 I. L. M. 1134.
220. The Intercountry Adoption Act of 2000, Pub. L. No. 106-279, 114 Stat. 825 (2000)
221. codified at 42 U. S. C. §§ 14901-54(2006), is the implementing legislation for the Convention.
222. See 42 U. S. C. § 14921 (a) (l) - (2) (2006) ("Except as otherwise provided in this subchapter, no person may offer or provide adoption services in connection with a Convention adoption in the United States unless that person (1) is accredited or approved in accordance with this subchapter; or (2) is providing such services through or under the supervision and responsibility of an accredited agency or approved person. ");
223. see also Ann Laquer Estin, Families Across Borders: The Hague Children's Conventions and the Case for International Family Law in the United States, 62 FLA. L. REV. 47, 85-91 (2010) (describing the accreditation process for intercountry adoption agencies and how accreditation helps to prevent abuses);
224. International Adoption Becoming Difficult Amid Treaties, Regulation (PBS NewsHour television broadcast July 1, 2008), available at http://www.pbs.org/ newshour/bb/social-issues/july-dec08/adoptionabroad-07-01.html (discussing stringent adoption regulations that have been implemented by international organizations and foreign countries).
225. (citing Sara Corbett, Where Do Babies Come From?, N. Y. TIMES MAG., June 16, 2002, at 42;
226. Elissa Gootman, Investigation by I. N. S. Delays Obtaining Visas and Snarls Adoptions in Vietnam, N. Y. TIMES, Jan. 29, 2002, at B5 (describing a couple's heartbreak and anger with their failed attempt to adopt a Vietnamese child);
227. Seth Mydans, U. S. Interrupts Cambodian Adoptions, N. Y. TIMES, Nov. 5, 2001, at A7;
228. Elizabeth Olson, Families Adopting in Vietnam Say They Are Caught in Diplomatic Jam, N. Y. TIMES, Feb. 11, 2008, at A14;
229. U. S. Embassy Report Faults Vietnam's Oversight of Adoptions, N. Y. TIMES, Apr. 26, 2008, at A7).
230. See, e.g., Iris Leibowitz-Dori, Womb for Rent: The Future of International Trade in Surrogacy, 6 MINN. J. GLOBAL TRADE 329, 353 (1997) (proposing that surrogacy be regulated similar to international adoption in which member countries have to follow certain guidelines before adoptions with the country are recognized).
231. Cf I. Glenn Cohen, Protecting Patients with Passports: Medical Tourism and the Patient-Protective Argument, 95 Iowa L. Rev. 1467, 1515-23 (2010) (arguing for a certification process with regards to medical tourism more generally).