This paper only addresses commercial surrogacy defined where the surrogate is compensated above reasonable expenses, and agreements are facilitated by reproductive services agencies such as medical or legal facilities. All mention of surrogacy throughout this paper refers to this definition. All facts mentioned in this article with respect to case example were derived from the Indianapolis Star coverage unless otherwise noted.
2.
CorcoranK., “Adoption Deal Questioned,”Indianapolis Star, July 31, 2005, at A1.
3.
Id.
4.
Id.
5.
Id.;HolladayR., “Lawyer: N.J. Man Isn't Biological Father,”Indianapolis Star, August 7, 2005, at B1.
6.
CorcoranK., “Adoption Deal Questioned,”Indianapolis Star, July 31, 2005. The premature twins were being cared for in the neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) during this incident. According to the Indianapolis Star, it would not be medically advisable to remove the twins from the NICU because one twin was breathing with the assistance of oxygen.
7.
Id.
8.
Id.
9.
Id.
10.
Id.
11.
CorcoranK., “Judge Asks Feds to Review Surrogacy,”Indianapolis Star, August 2, 2005, at A1. Each element listed is based on a local judge's professional opinion of the case as discussed in the Indianapolis Star.
12.
IC 31-20-1-1 (1997).
13.
CorcoranK., “Judge Asks Feds to Review Surrogacy,”Indianapolis Star, August 2, 2005; CorcoranK., “Adoption Deal Questioned,”Indianapolis Star, July 31, 2005, at A1.
14.
M.C.L.A. 722.859 (1988); A.C.A. § 9-10-201 (1989); see also A.C.A. 9-9-207 (2005).
15.
CiccarelliJ. C.CiccarelliJ. K., “The Legal Aspects of Parental Rights in Assisted Reproductive Technology,”Journal of Social Issues61, no. 1 (2005): 127–137, at 132.
16.
Courts have adjudicated varied questions regarding the legal status of the contract; the enforceability of the contract; public policy issues; parentage determinations; and the best interest of the resulting child; they arrived at different results. See Johnson v. Calvert, 851 P.2d 776 (1993); Surrogate Parenting Associates, Inc. v. Com. Ex. Rel. Armstrong, 704 S.W.2d 209 (1986); Doe v. Attorney General, 487 N.W.2d 484 (1992).
17.
A.C.A. 9-10-201 (1989).
18.
V.T.C.A., Family Code § 161.103 (2003).
19.
IC 31-20-1-1 to IC 31-20-1-3 (1997); KRS § 199.590 (2005).
20.
IC 31-9-2-127 (1997).
21.
IC 31-20-1-1 (1997). Declaring enforcement of the terms of the contract as against public policy is distinct from classifying the surrogacy contract itself against public policy as implemented by the Louisiana, Michigan, New York, and Washington statutes. By stating the entire contract is against public policy, this suggests a more fervent statement of legislative opinion.
See Surrogate Mothers, Inc., supra note 23; Surrogate Parenting Associates, Inc., available at <http://www.babies-by-levin.com> (last visited April 11, 2007).
EdelmannR. J., “Surrogacy: The Psychological Issues,”Journal of Reproductive and Infant Psychology22, no. 2 (2004): 123–136, at 126.
40.
See Surrogate Mothers, Inc., supra note 23.
41.
RagoneH., Surrogate Motherhood: Conception in the Heart (Boulder: Westview Press, 1994): At 57; CiccarelliJ. C.BeckmanL. J., “Navigating Rough Waters: An Overview of Psychological Aspects of Surrogacy,”Journal of Social Issues61, no. 1 (2005): 21–43, at 30.
42.
Id.
43.
JadvaV., “Surrogacy: The Experiences of Surrogate Mothers,”Human Reproduction18, no. 10 (2003): 2196–2204, at 2199.
44.
See Ragone, supra note 41, at 57; see also Williams-JonesB., “Commercial Surrogacy and the Redefinition of Motherhood,”Journal of Philosophy, Science & Law2 (2002), available at <http://www.psljournal.com/archives/papers/comsur_williamsjones.cfm> (last visited July 18, 2006).
45.
CorcoranK., “Surrogate Mom Runs Day Care in S.C.,”Indianapolis Star, July 31, 2005, at A15.
46.
See Ragone, supra note 41, at 52.
47.
Goslinga-RoyG. M., “Body Boundaries, Fiction of the Female Self: An Ethnographic Perspective on Power, Feminism, and the Reproductive Technologies,”Feminist Studies26, no. 1 (2000): 113–141, at 123.
48.
See Ragone, supra note 41, at 72.
49.
See Williams-Jones, supra note 44.
50.
See van den Akker, infra note 52, at 150; see also CiccarelliBeckman, supra note 41, at 32.
51.
See Williams-Jones, supra note 44.
52.
van den AkkerO., “Genetic and Gestational Surrogate Mothers' Experience of Surrogacy,”Journal of Reproductive and Infant Psychology21, no. 2 (2003): 145–161, at 156.
53.
See CiccarelliBeckman, supra note 41, at 31.
54.
The Fertility Institutes, available at <http://www.fertility-docs.com> (last visited April 11, 2007); see Surrogate Mothers, Inc., supra note 23.
55.
See Fertility Futures, supra note 35.
56.
See Williams-Jones, supra note 44.
57.
See van den Akker, supra note 52, at 146; see also Ragone, supra note 41, at 62.
58.
See Ragone, supra note 41, at 52.
59.
Id., at 59
60.
See Jadva, supra note 43, at 2199.
61.
See Ragone, supra note 41, at 5.
62.
Affordable Surrogacy Options, available at <http://www.affordablesurrogacyoptions.com> (last visited July 12, 2006). Between the time the paper was drafted and final review for publication, the website had been taken down.
See Law Offices of Diane Michelsen, P.C., supra note 63.
77.
See Surrogacy Specialists of America, supra note 34; see also Reproductive Options, L.L.C., supra note 34.
78.
See Reproductive Options, L.L.C., supra note 34.
79.
See The Fertility Institutes, supra note 54.
80.
See Surrogate Parenting Associates, Inc., supra note 25.
81.
42 U.S.C.A. § 274e (1988); see also 18 U.S.C.A. § 2421 (1998) and 18 U.S.C.A. § 2422 (2003), which outline interstate regulation of prostitution, another business venture that compensates the service of the body.