The Legal Consent Of Gestational Surrogacy

2. Given the lengthiness of court proceedings, the case may be declared no longer applicable and thrown out of court once McCorvey gave birth ( or at least passed the point where an abortion could be safely performed) (Dawn Stacey M.Ed, n.d.)

Commercial surrogacy is the process in which a woman is paid a fee to carry and deliver a baby to term. Once the baby is delivered, the woman relinquishes all parental rights to the commissioning couple who exclusively raise the child as their own. Altruistic surrogacy, by contrast, is an arrangement where the surrogate receives reimbursement but only for the expenses that she may have incurred during the pregnancy. In this essay I will argue that commercial surrogacy should not be market-inalienable. I will start by outlining Elizabeth Anderson’s argument in “Is Women’s Labor a Commodity?” in which she offers a number of criticisms to commercial surrogacy. I will then outline objections to the argument and highlight how her argument is highly speculative and does not provide an adequate basis for the prohibition of commercial surrogacy.

Gammy was born to a Thai surrogate who was paid by Australian intended parents. Gammy was born with down syndrome and a hole in his heart requiring extensive medical treatment. The intended parents chose to take Gammy’s healthy twin sister back to Australia, leaving Gammy with his surrogate. This case caused international concern, raising awareness of the lack of regulation of international surrogacy arrangements and highlighting the ethical considerations involved in the practice of

Cases of this kind emphasise the tension between two significant policy goals: the child’s best interests, which must dominate the court’s determination as to whether to grant parenting orders, and the prohibition of commercial surrogacy. The former, naturally, prevails. In every published case, the Family Court relied on the evidence tendered by the intended parents indicating the foreign birth mother’s consent to the applications, even where some of that evidence was quite concerning; the birth mother’s lack of interest in parenting the child;and the satisfactory nature of the parenting arrangements achieved under the agreement, in concluding that the best interests of the child were served by making the parenting orders.The earliest published international surrogacy case is Re Mark (an application relating to parental responsibilities). The facts are fairly typical. A couple from Victoria entered into a surrogacy contract under which a woman in California agreed to bear a child for them; the ovum was supplied by an anonymous woman, and one of the applicants provided the

Jane Roe, a pregnant mother wanting to abort her child sued in the interest of herself, and other women in comparable circumstances during a struggle to stop Texas from criminalizing all abortions except the ones that would save the life of a mother. Texas had made it a crime to receive an abortion except when the doctor advises the mother have an abortion for her own health and safety. Jane Roe wanted a ruling that declared these Texas’ statutes to be unconstitutional and also, she wanted to prevent the District Attorney from enforcing them. Roe alleged that she was pregnant and unmarried. She could not legally obtain an abortion by a licensed doctor because her life was not endangered. So, she argued that the law was unconstitutional and invaded upon her privacy rights that were protected by multiple amendments and laws. Claiming it invaded upon her privacy rights by not allowing her to abort her child.

Procedural Facts: In May 2010, a couple of months after Plaintiff Jacob Szafranski donated his sperm and have eight eggs fertilized for freezing, Plaintiff Jacob Szafranski sent Defendant Karla Dunston a text message ending the relationship. In August 2010, two months after the relationship ended, Plaintiff Jacob Szafranski filed a pro se complaint in the circuit court of Cook County. Plaintiff Jacob Szafranski sought to keep Defendant Karla Dunston from using the frozen pre-embryos so he was not forced to father a child against his will. Defendant Karla Dunston ended up counterclaiming and asking the court to grant her sole custody and control over the pre-embryos so she could someday use the pre-embryos to bear her children. Defendant Karla Dunston sited breach of contract and asked the court for relief under promissory estoppel. The circuit court ended up siding with Defendant Karla Dunston by granting her full custody and control over the use of the frozen pre-embryos.

Amie Cullimore, a medical practitioner, filed a child support claim against Michael Ranson, who more than two decades ago donated his sperm to Amie Cullimore, who subsequently conceived two children. Cullimore alleges that throughout the years, Ranson has assumed the role of loco parentis, which means that Ranson has stood in the place of the parent throughout the years. Ranson filed a response that Bill 28, also known as, All Families Are Equal Act, which extinguishes Cullimore`s claim based on the assertion that the surrogate parents who lack an intention to be parents cannot be considered parents in law.

A married couple, both addicted to drugs, is unable to care for their infant daughter. She is taken from them by court order and placed in a foster home. The years pass. She comes to regard her foster parents as her real parents. They love her as they would their own daughter. When the child is 9 yrs. old, the natural parents, rehabilitated from drugs, begin court action to regain custody. The case is decided in their favor. The child is returned to them, against her will.

NOW COMES, Stephanie Smith, the minor child in the above-captioned matter, and hereby moves this Court for a finding that the Department of Children and Families has abused its discretion, because the Department acted in an arbitrary and capricious manner, by removing Stephanie from the prison nursery, where she resides with her biological mother, Sofia Smith, and placing Stephanie with her paternal grandparents.

Surrogate motherhood is considered the most controversial form of medically assisted conception. Surrogacy is defined as an arrangement by which a woman gives birth to a baby on behalf of a woman who is incapable of conceiving babies herself or is infertile. The issue of surrogacy has been running for almost three decades. Elizabeth Cane was the first woman in the United States to legally become a surrogate mother in 1980 (Chittom and Wagner). Surrogate births are illegal in many countries, including some states in the United States. For example, it is illegal in Michigan, Washington, Utah, Arizona, New Mexico, and New York, whereas it legal in California, Oregon, Texas, and Arkansas (Chittom and Wagner). According to the Organization of Parents Through Surrogacy (OPTS), about 22,000 babies have been born from surrogate mothers in the United States since surrogacy became legal in the 1970s (Chittom and Wagner).

REASON The court held that it is the primary responsibility of the pregnant women’s physician to determine the termination of pregnancy during the first trimester. During the second trimester, the State is allowed to intervene in the termination of an unborn fetus with legitimate interest in the pregnant women’s health. The State would intervene by regulating the procedures surrounding the women’s health. In the third trimester, the State may regulate the procedures surrounding the women’s health and even prohibiting the abortion altogether, keeping the pregnant women’s health a top priority. The Supreme Court of the United States held that the lawsuit regarding pregnancy, is an exception to the general rule that a difference must occur during each stage of the judicial review, and not only when the action is proposed. The Does complaint searching for injunctive relief was solely based on the contingencies which might or might not have occurred. It was irrelevant for the Court to decide Dr. Hallford’s case for injunctive relief, because once the Supreme Court found the laws unconstitutional, the Texas Government were not allowed to enforce them. The dissenting opinion of Justice Rehnquist was that the right to an abortion is not widely accepted by everyone, and that the right to privacy on the matter of abortion is not constitutionally involved in this case. In addition, Justice White made his dissenting opinion based on the constitutional foundations surrounding Jane Roe and the Does, stating: "In every other case, there was something in the Constitution you could point to for support. There, nothing.” Justice White would later conclude that he would return the issue back

Jones was denied an abortion and also denied a viability test, that her fourteenth amendment right of due process was violated. Specifically denying her a viability test. By denying her the right to a viability test was stated in Roe and reaffirmed in Webster she was denied life, liberty or pursuit of happiness. But believe this brings up another issue that is much broader than any other part to this

The father of the foetus to be aborted has no right to be consulted or

All the arguments and examples above substantiate that, the couple is not morally permitted to purchase Mary Beth's agreement to be a surrogate mother, and Mary Beth is the legal and biological mother of Baby M, doubtlessly. In summary, Mary Beth deserves this identification for three reasons: First and foremost, the contract was not made in the perfect information -- Mary Beth could not predict how deep her love would be to the child, and therefore the contract was not legally acceptable and could not be enforced in any time, as is perfectly elaborated and remarked by Professor Michael Sandel. Secondly, even though the court concede the point of the validity of the contract, the Sterns could not legitimately purchase either the right of Mary Beth to her child, or her reproductive capacity even though they signed the pact voluntarily then.

Some states require a contract among all parties to the surrogacy birthing arrangement, and there are often requirements that the contract address certain issues. However, good practice requires that a host of additional issues be addressed in a contract in order to forge a true "meeting of the minds" on what is undoubtedly one of the most personal and complicated of concerted human actions… (Johnson 5.)