The Updating of Baby M: A Confused Jurisprudence Becomes More Confusing

Posted: 6 Dec 2017

See all articles by Mark Strasser

Mark Strasser

Capital University - Law School

Date Written: 2016

Abstract

While there appears to be a trend to enforce gestational but not traditional surrogacy agreements, several recent decisions cast doubt on that understanding. This article discusses the differences between gestational and traditional surrogacy as well as Baby M. and Johnson v. Calvert, which together seemed to offer a possible approach to the conditions under which such contracts should be enforceable. The article then addresses some of the ways in which the legal approaches to the enforcement of gestational and genetic surrogacy contracts have blurred, creating the potential for harm to families and children. The article concludes that unless courts deciding surrogacy disputes take better account of some of the foreseeable results of their decisions, these courts may unwittingly bring about results that almost no one would prospectively endorse.

Keywords: Surrogacy, Genetic, Traditional, Gestational, Visitation, Custody

JEL Classification: K10

Suggested Citation

Strasser, Mark, The Updating of Baby M: A Confused Jurisprudence Becomes More Confusing (2016). 78 University of Pittsburgh Law Review 181-215 (2016) , Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3081108

Mark Strasser (Contact Author)

Capital University - Law School ( email )

303 E. Broad St.
Columbus, OH 43215-3200
United States
614-236-6686 (Phone)
614-236-6956 (Fax)

Do you have negative results from your research you’d like to share?

Paper statistics

Abstract Views
242
PlumX Metrics