Search

The article examines the ban on same-sex married couples' ability to enter into either paid or altruistic surrogacy agreements in Louisiana. Topics discussed include the approaches taken by different U.S. states to enforce gestational surrogacy agreements, the landmark same-sex marriage decisions by the U.S. Supreme Court, and the treatment of same-sex married couples that are considered unconstitutional under the Fourteenth Amendment's Substantive Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses.

Infertility is a hot topic for investors and entrepreneurs in the United States, and recent years have seen a sharp rise of interest in various assisted reproductive technologies. Gestational surrogacy, a form of assisted reproduction where the surrogate mother is not (as) genetically related to the child she is carrying, is now the most popular form of surrogacy in the United States. It costs between $75,000-150,000 per attempt, and results in the live births of hundreds of babies each year. Alone amongst developed nations, the United States has left this vast industry largely unregulated. No federal laws address the practice or regulate the companies that facilitate it, while a patchwork of extant state laws run the gamut from criminalization and bans of commercial surrogacy to wholesale authorization of it. In the rare instances where courts have been asked to decide issues related to the same, they have been likewise brief and varied in their approaches. Overall, when courts and lawmakers have addressed gestational surrogacy, they often oversimplify a complex biological phenomenon and cultural experience in favor of idealized fictions about reproductive biology and family life. As a result, policies surrounding gestational surrogacy do not align well with what actually happens to the mind and body during pregnancy, or how the surrogacy industry currently operates. A better understanding of the science of gestational pregnancy has the potential to animate legal policy that allocates rights amongst the parties involved more equitably, and in a way that reflects the reality of the physiological and psychological risks borne during the surrogacy process. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Revista de Derecho y Genoma Humano is the property of Dykinson SL and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

In this paper, I use a multi-scalar approach to understand the full repercussions of a national ban on the transnational practice of surrogacy in India. I use my ethnographic findings to analyse the effects of the ban on the local and the national. At the level of the local I revisit a surrogacy clinic and hostel in India, after a decade of my first ethnographic research, to argue that despite the legal upheavals, not much had changed for the gestational mothers themselves. The rigid discipline structure and the ambiguities around contract, payment, and post-natal care remain intact. There is, however, a noticeable dissipation in the gestational mothers' demands for change in part due to a management's strategy of manufacturing consent and loyalty. At the national level as India moves from specializing in babies 'Made in India' to 'Make in India', its role in the reproductive assembly line is transformed, with repercussions for gestational mothers. In the concluding remarks, I propose an alternative to the current debates by offering surrogacy as a praxis for opening up discussions about feminisms and transnational feminisms. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article offers a feminist critique of the Surrogacy (Regulation) Bill, 2019. Fifteen years since the first proposed regulation of assisted reproductive technologies and surrogacy, the 2019 Bill leaves much to be desired. It reflects a limited understanding of the complexities of surrogacy, is discriminatory in its approach, is plagued by lack of clarity, is unrealistic and most importantly, does not include adequate safeguards for the surrogate. Women's reproductive labour in performing surrogacy is valorized but not compensated. Even though the Bill may well accept some recommendations of the Rajya Sabha select Committee, its failure to address issues that we highlight will mean that if passed, it will be challenged in the courts on constitutional grounds. This will generate uncertainty for years, for many infertile couples and individuals who look to the law for streamlined regulation, defeating its main purpose in facilitating a novel mode of reproduction. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In Canada, the Assisted Human Reproduction Act (AHRA) criminalizes commercial surrogacy while allowing surrogates to be reimbursed for their out-of-pocket expenses and lost work-related income during pregnancy. These reimbursements must take place in accordance with the Reimbursement Related to Assisted Human Reproduction Regulations (Regulations), which were enacted in June 2020. This article explores the history and development of the AHRA and draws on interviews with 26 Canadian fertility lawyers to examine and critique the Regulations. I argue that while the final version of these regulations is more inclusive and flexible than prior drafts, the AHRA may still leave some surrogates in a precarious financial position. In turn, while the Regulations help clarify what is a legal reimbursement, they are unlikely to deter paid surrogacy and may generate new confusion about what is permitted under the AHRA. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In most states, married male same-sex couples who conceive children via gestational surrogacy using sperm from one member of the couple and donor ova must pursue adoption in order to establish legal parentage for the member of the couple who is not genetically related to the child. This is because only a minority of jurisdictions have surrogacy laws that recognize the non-biological intended parent as a legal parent in this situation, and across the United States cisgender male same-sex couples are excluded from the longstanding non-adoptive marriage-based avenues of establishing parentage currently available to both different-sex couples and female same-sex couples. Marriage-based avenues of establishing parentage, such as the marital presumption of parentage and spousal consent to assisted reproduction laws, represent the most common way to establish legal parentage in an individual other than the person who gave birth to the child. The exclusion of male same-sex couples from marriage-based avenues of establishing parentage is harmful, unwarranted, and unnecessary. Parenting abilities do not depend on sexual orientation or gender. Children raised by male same-sex couples fare just as well as children raised by different-sex couples and female same-sex couples, and men who function as primary caretakers to their children are as capable and effective as women who function in that role. Excluding male same-sex couples from marriage-based avenues of establishing parentage reinforces gender-based stereotypes around caretaking that harm and confine women and men both in the workplace and in the domestic sphere. Moreover, the conclusive presumption of parentage based upon the act of giving birth, which presents a major barrier to the extension of marriage-based avenues of establishing parentage to male same-sex couples, is an outdated concept that fails to reflect the realities of modern medical technology and the diverse circumstances under which children are conceived today. This Article advances a comprehensive proposal for extending marriage-based avenues of establishing parentage to male same-sex couples. If implemented, the proposal will provide a more equitable and effective legal framework for parentage establishment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This comment piece explores the decision in Whittington Hospital NHS Trust v XX [2020] UKSC 14. It argues that despite notable shifts in public policy in respect of the acceptability of surrogacy as a means of family formation in the past twenty years, the Supreme Court has taken a step too far in deciding that foreign commercial surrogacy is as widely socially accepted. This impacts on the reasonableness of any claim for damages in negligence for the costs of commercial surrogacy. It is posited that the issue of whether damages for foreign commercial surrogacy are reasonable or not will be the key battleground in future negligence cases of this type. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

With infertility on the rise in the United States and the legalization of same sex marriage, it has become increasingly difficult for many Americans to start a family. Advancements in modern medicine have addressed this issue and now couples can create their family through surrogacy. However, New York's current laws have not caught up to the changing times and surrogacy agreements are still invalid and unenforceable. This Note proposes the repeal of New York's surrogacy ban and the adoption of legislation to recognize and enforce surrogacy agreements in order to bring New York's laws within the purview of modern medicine. Key Points for the Family Court Community: New York, Indiana, Michigan, and Louisiana are the four remaining states that maintain either a civil or criminal statutory ban on commercial surrogacy agreements.Surrogacy agreements come in two forms: (1) traditional, where the surrogate has a genetic relationship with the child; and (2) gestational, where the surrogate does not have a genetic relationship with the child.Between 2004 and 2008, the number of gestational surrogacy agreements increased by 89%.Between 1999 and 2013, 18,400 infants were born as a result of gestational surrogacy agreements, with 10,000 of those infants being born after 2010.It is estimated that an average of nine babies are born in each state in the United States through surrogacy agreements each year. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Assisted Reproductive technologies (ARTs) like In Vitro Fertilization (IVF) and surrogacy have made aspirations of parenthood come true for many. With quality medical services, low costs and an indifferent regulatory regime, the surrogacy industry, particularly of the commercial and trans-border variety, has boomed in India so much so that India had once been termed as the 'baby factory' of the world. Through successive administrative measures the government of India has tried to regulate surrogacy with a view to prevent exploitation of women. At least two comprehensive bills to regulate various aspects of surrogacy arrangements have been tabled in the Parliament, viz: The Assisted Reproductive Technologies Bill -2008 and the Surrogacy Regulation (2016) Bill, both of which did not see light of the day. The Government's initiative to table a new bill on this subject is a welcome move. The Surrogacy Regulation (2019) Bill brings clarity on the rights of stakeholders in surrogacy arrangements and seeks to protect the vulnerable. This is an opportune time for a comprehensive discussion on all aspects related to surrogacy arrangements in India so that the legislation becomes an effective tool for social progress. In particular, considerable thought is needed on pressing issues arising out of the provisions of this bill, such as the possibility of a flourishing grey market in cases where commercial surrogacy is completely banned and the possibility of soft coercion of women by relatives, against their own choices, for altruistic surrogacy by matrimonial families. The rights of the child in cases of arrangements in contravention with the proposed law also need deliberation. This paper discusses the lacunae in the bill on the above aspects taking into consideration the Indian experience and that of the world and attempts to propose possible alternatives that may be adopted for a more meaningful and just legislation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This Essay examines the regulation of pregnancy through a less commonly explored lens--surrogacy legislation. Initially, the dominant position of feminist advocates was to understand the practice of surrogacy as antithetical to women's equality and reproductive autonomy. Due in part to their active and persuasive involvement, the early legislative trends tracked this position; most of the legislation enacted in the 1980s and early 1990s banned surrogacy. By the mid-1990s, however, the legislative tide turned. All of the comprehensive surrogacy statutes enacted since that time permit and regulate surrogacy. This shift was due in part to a growing sense among some feminists and others that permitting surrogacy can promote the goals of liberty and equality. At times, however, too little attention was paid to the details of these permissive surrogacy schemes. As a result, permissive surrogacy statutes in some states may undermine these aims. This Essay focuses on one such type of statute: surrogacy provisions that authorize potentially sweeping control over the lives, bodily integrity, and decision making of people acting as surrogates. For example, a number of permissive surrogacy schemes expressly authorize contract clauses that require people acting as surrogates to undergo risky and invasive medical procedures over their clearly stated, contemporaneous objection. But such schemes are not inevitable. This Essay concludes by highlighting recent examples that illustrate how permissive surrogacy legislation can foster, rather than impede, the ability of people to control decisions about their own bodies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

With the growing practice of gestational surrogacy, many women bear children with whom they have no genetic relationship, allowing intended parents to have children of their own when they are otherwise unable to do so. This practice, however, creates a ripple in the abortion debate. This Note addresses procreative autonomy in the context of gestational surrogacy agreements, examines the underlying constitutional interests at stake for each party involved, and suggests a solution to fill California's current statutory void. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Surrogacy has become a popular alternative for couples who are unable to carry their own children. As artificial reproductive techniques advance, so too must the law. States have codified surrogacy arrangements in a variety of ways, including intent-based and best interests tests. However, North Carolina remains one of several states that has not provided any guidance, either by statute or case law, for its citizens considering a surrogacy arrangement. North Carolina can and should pass a surrogacy law because it would give peace of mind to intended parents to help ensure their surrogate children are legally their own. North Carolina family law provides a landscape conducive to develop surrogacy jurisprudence. The state already uses intent-based and best interests tests to determine the custody of children. Therefore, this Comment argues that North Carolina should develop a surrogacy statute to determine the legal parentage of a child based on its own pre-existing custody law, using both intent of the parents and best interests of the child as guides. By adopting a surrogacy statute, the state can provide much-needed reassurance to people considering surrogacy without disrupting the current family law framework. In doing so, North Carolina will update its laws to better reflect its citizens' needs and bring it in line with modern reproductive practices. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Focusing on the UK as a case study, this article argues that having the choice to enter into an international commercial surrogacy arrangement can be harmful, but that neither legalisation nor punitive restriction offers an adequate way to reduce this risk. Whether or not having certain options can harm individuals is central to current debates about the sale of organs. We assess and apply the arguments from that debate to international commercial surrogacy, showing that simply having the option to enter into a commercial surrogacy arrangement can harm potential vendors individually and collectively, particularly given its sexed dimension. We reject the argument that legalizing commercial surrogacy in the UK could reduce international exploitation. We also find that a punitive approach towards intended parents utilizing commercial rather than altruistic services is inappropriate. Drawing on challenges in the regulation of forced marriage and female genital cutting, we propose that international collaboration towards control of commercial surrogacy is a better strategy for preserving the delicate balancing of surrogate mothers' protection and children's welfare in UK law. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of European Review of Public Law is the property of European Public Law Organization and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

The article discusses the need to amend New York's surrogacy contract laws. Other topics include conventional surrogacy, gestational surrogacy, the provision of New York Domestic Relations Law (DRL) on surrogacy parenting contract, the effect/s of the 'Baby M' case on the law, and the changing legal, scientific, and societal landscapes on surrogacy.

For hundreds of years, the act of gestating and giving birth to a child was the lynchpin of the mother-child relationship. Now, changes in technological and societal norms have made it possible for motherhood to be established by some combination of gestation, genetics, and intent. As maternity disputes have increased, courts have privileged genetic and intent-based claims to motherhood over gestation-based claims. This Note argues that in privileging genetic and intent-based claims to maternity over gestation-based claims, courts have implicitly devalued the historic importance of gestation in ways that privilege nuclear families at the expense of more marginalized women. Part II provides background on the evolution of the mother-child relationship in U.S. family law. Part III discusses the ways in which the legal systems current approach to maternity disputes was shaped by its historical approach to paternity disputes. Part IV explores the ways in which the current approach specifically disadvantages gestational mothers -- in particular, gestational surrogates and birth mothers. Part V proposes a model of reform that would more fully recognize both the contributions of gestational mothers and the rights of children to have relationships with all the women involved in their creation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Barren and advanced in age, Sarai proposed to Abram to take her maid, Hagar, as a wife so that they might have children through her. To some interpreters, this is sexual exploitation of Hagar. Using a reader-oriented approach, this article re-examines this mode of interpretation as well as assesses the perspectives in which the Hagar narrative appeals to the African reader. We found out that, when studied against its social background, the Abram-Hagar union is better understood as legitimate surrogacy. The research also found out that the text appeals to the African reader in the contexts of the problem of childlessness and modern surrogacy. The childless African reader thus finds solace in this narrative as it is suggestive of surrogacy as a pragmatic solution to his or her problem. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In the decade following legalization of commercial surrogacy in 2002, India became the largest provider of surrogacy services. Then, in December 2015 commercial surrogacy was banned. In this article I show that commercial surrogacy was no panacea for working-class women, but the ban can potentially be far worse because the Indian state now allows only altruistic surrogacy between citizen couples and their women kinfolk who will provide gestation services for no monetary compensation. By positing altruistic surrogacy as a superior alternative, the Indian state has effectively deregulated surrogacy, potentially allowing deeper exploitation of women. I conclude that if the state wants to halt exploitation of working-class women, which is the expressed reason for banning commercial surrogacy, then policies need to be directed at strengthening labor laws to protect women as productive individuals, rather than wives or mothers. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article explains the need of the state of New York to legalize surrogacy. It identifies the differences between gestational and traditional surrogacy and provides a summary of the surrogacy case In re Baby M handled by the Supreme Court of New Jersey. The imposition of penalties on those who enter surrogacy agreements in New York is discussed. In addition, the article compares New York's proposed surrogacy legislation to the laws adopted in other states including California and Delaware.

The article focuses on surrogacy does not properly belong in the realm of freedom of contract and mentions how surrogacy contracts inherently dehumanize the birth mother and child. It mentions birth mother consented before pregnancy and birth, in their freedom to contract with each other and controlled and relationship between contracts and human flourishing in the tradition of natural law. It also mentions freedom of contract and its limitation in contract law and public policy.

The article focuses on debate surrounding laws governing surrogacy in the U.S. It mentions about application of the choice theory of contract to surrogacy agreements in the country; the book "The Choice Theory of Contracts" by Dagan and Heller focusing on surrogacy contracts; and legal rights to the child's legal parents.

Attitudes to surrogacy vary widely across Europe, leading to great variation in the domestic legal regimes of the Member States of the Council of Europe. Confronted with such diverse approaches, the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) faces a difficult task in seeking to apply Convention rights in the surrogacy context, which it has tackled in the recent cases of Mennesson v France and Paradiso and Campanelli v Italy. The primary purpose of this article is to propose an argument as to what the Convention requires of the Member States in the field of surrogacy. It is argued that while tensions exist between the leading cases, they may be reconciled by appreciating the importance of the right to identity, a facet of the right to respect for private life. Properly understood, the case law imposes obligations on the Member States as regards the legal status of surrogate-born children in both cross-border and domestic surrogacy. The secondary purpose of this article is to argue that, in the surrogacy context, the concept of identity should be given a richer interpretation which encompasses the child’s relationship with genetic, gestational, and intended parents, and therefore that a narrow margin of appreciation must apply to all State interventions concerning the legal status of surrogate-born children. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper critically examines the amendment made in 2012 to section 10(2)(c) of the Assisted Human Reproduction Act, 2004 mandating the screening and testing of "obtained" ovum "donated" by a "donor" and used in her own surrogate pregnancy. The amendment at section 10(1) of the Act cites the federal government's obligation to reduce harm to human health and safety arising from use of sperm or ova for human reproduction, including the risk of disease transmission. This paper argues that the amendment mandating the screening and testing of surrogate ova when used by the surrogate in her own surrogate pregnancy creates a dangerous liminal regulatory space; one that transforms the surrogate into a third-party donor yet she incurs no health and safety risk to herself as she is the recipient of her own ova embryo. Genetic implications for the surrogate-born child makes a stronger case in support of mandatory testing, however the amendment imposes no similar screening and testing regime on the usual category of traditional surrogates: women who bear genetically-related children conceived through artificial insemination (IUI) rather than IVF. The paper questions the application of a health and safety evil that the amendment seeks to address. It suggests the real evil is a moral one whereby criminal code sanctions are being employed to discourage traditional surrogacy when practiced as a result of assisted reproduction techniques. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article focuses on laws governing surrogacy in Alabama. Topics discussed include psychological effects a woman risks; laws governing validity of surrogacy agreements based on Uniform Parentage Act and the American Bar Association Model Act Governing Assisted Reproductive Technologies; and Johnson v. Calvert court case on the same.

The article discusses background and laws governing surrogacy. Topics discussed include analysis of Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights for preventing conflicting values of surrogacy; promotion of international commercial surrogacy contracts.

The article highlights the laws concerning Artificial Reproductive Technology and Gendered Notions of Parenthood after the U.S. Supreme Court case "Obergefell v. Hodges." Topics discussed include the legal assumptions that shaped the New Jersey's In re Baby M Case; nature of surrogacy law; and family-related rights to gay and lesbian individuals.

This article marks the 30th anniversary of the Supreme Court of New Jersey's Baby M decision by offering a critical analysis of surrogacy policy in the United States. Despite fundamental changes in both science and society since the case was decided, state courts and legislatures remain bitterly divided on the legality of surrogacy. In arguing for a more uniform, permissive legal posture toward surrogacy, the article addresses five central debates in the surrogacy literature. First, should the legal system accommodate those seeking conception through surrogacy, or should it prohibit such arrangements? Second, if surrogacy is permitted, what steps can be taken to minimize the potential exploitation of women who are willing to rent their wombs for income? Third, what criteria should govern the eligibility to serve as a surrogate mother and an intended parent? Fourth, what principle(s) should serve as the basis for determining the parentage of children born through surrogacy? Fifth, is regulatory uniformity in the surrogacy realm desirable? Is it achievable? The article concludes that courts and legislatures should accept the validity of surrogacy contracts, determine parentage according to intent, and identify transparent criteria for the eligibility of both surrogates and intended parents. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Over the past several decades, gestational surrogacy has emerged as a rapidly growing industry. Such growth has prompted an enormous amount of debate among scholars, human rights advocates, economists, and the media over a wide array of legal and ethical issues. This debate is perhaps most evident in the divergence of state approaches to the regulation of gestational surrogacy—for example, some states ban the practice entirely, others allow only altruistic arrangements, and many states simply do not address surrogacy at all. The fractured landscape of surrogacy regulation has resulted in artificially high costs and, often, uncertainty for all parties involved. As such, the time has arrived for federal regulation of commercial surrogacy arrangements. This Note proposes that the Fair Labor Standards Act, originally enacted to prevent labor abuses and ensure wage and hour protection, offers a tenable statutory framework for regulating commercial surrogacy arrangements, as federal oversight will promote accountability among parties and further legitimize the surrogacy industry. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article examines the need of a pro-active regulation of cross-border egg and surrogacy markets. Topics discussed include ways to regulate surrogacy market failures; conduct of both cross-border markets and the main failures that raise the need for regulation in each market; and minimalistic and a pro-active approach to regulate the markets.

Many women in the Unites States have difficulty getting pregnant or carrying a baby to term. As a result, many couples turn to gestational surrogacy. Surrogacy became public in the United States in the late 1970s. In the mid 1980s, disputes began to arise and are still prevalent today. Courts first attempted to resolve these disputes by looking for public policy guidelines. However, the results were inconsistent. Still today, there is no uniform law. Even in states where surrogate contracts are legal, courts have refused to order specific performance to enforce abortion or reduction provisions. However, courts should not shy away from this. This Note proposes a federal statute mandating that gestational surrogate contracts be enforced thus protecting the rights of intended parents. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Over the past 15 years, international surrogacy has grown from a niche practice catering only to a few adventurous couples, to a convenient response to infertility for those who would otherwise be hindered by restrictive national regimes. While the Hague Conference on Private International Law continues to debate the desirability, and indeed viability, of an international convention in this area, governments and courts around the world have been confronted by the difficult question of whether to recognize an agreement that takes place legally in another jurisdiction, but which is contrary to their own laws. This paper will consider developments across Europe in regulating foreign surrogacy arrangements, in particular focusing on the recent decisions of the European Court of Human Rights of D v Belgium, Mennesson v France and Paradiso and Campanelli v Italy, and their potential impact on national approaches. The paper will argue that in light of these decisions, the ability of domestic authorities to regulate international surrogacy is substantially undermined. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

India’s proposed 2016 Bill on the regulation of surrogacy is its latest attempt to respond to criticism regarding the lack of protection given to those entering into a commercial surrogacy arrangement. Adaptive preference theorists presume that a decision made in an oppressive environment, which is inconsistent with the woman’s well-being, is not autonomous and that she is therefore exploited. This article challenges this presumption, arguing that some decisions may be suspected as adaptive preferences but they may nevertheless be autonomous. However, it is contended that even if the choice is autonomous, there may still be exploitation given the imbalance of bargaining power and the nature of the service. Rather than a blanket ban on commercial surrogacy, it would be better to reduce exploitative conditions by establishing adequate protection and safeguards for the commercial surrogate and others who are party to the arrangement. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Mother surrogacy in and of itself, as a procreative technique, poses a series of social, ethical and legal problems, which have been receiving widespread attention. Less prominent but equally important is the implementation of national surrogacy policies in private international law. The article isolates the key ethical challenges connected with surrogacy. It then moves on to show how, in private international law, the public policy exception works as a vehicle to shield national prohibitive policies against international system shopping and how it continues to do so precisely in the best interest of the child. Rather than recognizing foreign surrogacy arrangements, national legislators with intellectual support by an EU model law, should focus on adoption reform in order to re-channel intended parents’ demand for children. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

In the spring of 2013, I had the opportunity to accompany a group of Israeli gay couples to Mumbai to conduct ethnographic research on their experiences with transnational surrogacy. Based on this study, the article discusses their encounters with the Indian and Israeli bureaucracy establishing legal parenthood and citizenship to their children. The involved procedures seldom worked out smoothly, and brought about many moments of standstill. 1 suggest that these moments constituted crises of citizenship, in which the intended parents' experiences clashed with their expectations towards the state and their place in the world. As both countries had no written policies with regards to transnational surrogacy, the protocols and requirements were in flux and left them with constant anxiety from the unknown and with the feeling that many of the requirements were arbitrary, even exploitative or spiteful. The very same moments also unveiled my interlocutors' power, as agents and brokers--and at times even their social network back home--assisted them in the maze of bureaucracy and intervened on their behalf. Yet, their reliance on intermediators turned out to be a double-edged sword: The intended parents often felt that the middle men themselves were not engaged enough, overcharged them, or tricked them into additional payments. Vulnerability and privilege go here hand in hand, thus allowing for an understanding of intended parents that does not view them as either successful neoliberal citizens or vulnerable victims of the state. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article examines the approaches courts in the U.S. presently use to award frozen pre-embryos in a divorce proceeding. Topics discussed include a use of a predisposition contract as the preferred model, albeit with some concerns about procedural and substantive fairness; predisposition contracts with prenuptial and surrogacy agreements; and paradigm for implementing prenuptial and surrogacy contracts to predisposition agreements.

International surrogacy agreements involve a child born to a surrogate mother who is of a different nationality to the commissioning parent(s) in a state other than that of which the commissioning parent(s) are nationals or reside. Many of these arrangements lead to children being born stateless, which deprives that child of many rights that are directly linked to one's nationality as well as causing significant practical problems, such as difficulty in obtaining a passport. In undertaking the first Public International Law analysis of nationality and international surrogacy agreements, we map out how various provisions can be used to guarantee protections against statelessness. Accordingly, we argue that the drafting of a proposed new convention is not the ideal solution in this respect, and should not be to the detriment of the ratification and implementation of the relevant conventions that we identify; in particular, the 1989 Convention on the Rights of the Child. We argue that these protections offer the most meaningful protection in the short term and should be used to inform any future protections under the proposed Convention. We conclude by encouraging the advancement of Public International Law arguments when petitioning in a domestic context on behalf of stateless international surrogate children. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The regulation of many activities depends on whether societies consider them morally controversial or 'repugnant.' Not only have regulation and related ethical concerns changed over time, but there is also heterogeneity across countries at a given time. We provide evidence of this heterogeneity for three morally contentious activities, abortion, prostitution, and gestational surrogacy, and explore the relationship between a country's economic conditions and how these activities are regulated. We propose a conceptual framework to identify mechanisms that can explain our findings (including the role of non-economic factors), and indicate directions for future research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Nowadays surrogacy contracts are becoming increasingly more frequent all over the world. Nonetheless, the complex juridical and ethical issues involved raise relevant doubts in legal orders. This article focuses on legislation regarding surrogacy in China and Taiwan. Due to its special state structure, legislative attitudes towards surrogacy are different in Taiwan, the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, the Macao Special Administrative Region and the Chinese Mainland. Although surrogacy is only expressly allowed in Hong Kong, surrogacy contracts are also used in other jurisdictions, even if they "exist" in a grey area. This article will give a brief introduction about surrogacy legislation in these four regions in China and reveal the differences amongst them, many of which are due to the cultural specificities of each territory. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]