New York Times
Feb 4, 1988
Ruling Hailed By Opponents of Surrogacy
By Stacey Okun
LEAD: Opponents of surrogate motherhood applauded the New Jersey Supreme Court's
ruling in the Baby M case, saying it had confirmed their views on the dehumanizing
nature of surrogacy contracts.
Opponents of surrogate motherhood applauded the New Jersey Supreme Court's ruling in
the Baby M case, saying it had confirmed their views on the dehumanizing nature of
surrogacy contracts.
''I think this points us in the direction of legislation across the nation to discourage baby
brokering,'' said Jeremy Rifkin, co-chairman of the National Coalition Against Surrogacy.
''The court has acknowledged that women's bodies and wombs can't be rented or leased.''
However, William Handel, director of the Center for Surrogate Parenting in Los Angeles,
said that even if other legislatures took a cue from the New Jersey decision, which has
found commercial surrogacy illegal, it had become a fact of life in the United States.
''Now that the technology is readily available,'' he said, ''childless couples are recognizing
that it works and is necessary. It certainly does not stop people from coming in to the
centers.'' Decision Called Balanced
Amid the opposing views, legal experts, psychologists and advocates of children's rights
said the court's decision was balanced, because it invalidated the controversial contract
between William Stern and Mary Beth Whitehead-Gould but affirmed the parental rights
of both.
They also expressed concern for Melissa Stern, saying the 22-month-old child at the crux
of the case is a victim of a custody battle between parents whose only bond was a
financial deal now gone sour.
''The decision is pointing us back to where the fundamental moral issues lie,'' said Daniel
Callahan, director of the Hastings Center, a research institute on biomedical ethics in
Westchester County, ''and they lie with the welfare of Melissa and the tons of children
born of surrogate contracts, not love, who will face similar problems in their growing up.
It's up to the legislators now to come up with something appropriate and something fast.''
Jordan Lorence, the attorney who represents Concerned Women for America, a group
that opposes surrogacy, said the court's decision to invalidate the contract would make
couples who contemplated surrogacy insecure.
''Anyone thinking of entering into this kind of situation will now say, 'Why should I hire
a surrogate mother when there's no guarantee I will end up with a child?' '' he said.
''Psychologically this was being viewed as a test case of legitimacy. Women are going to
change their minds in these situations because they can't possibly project their feelings
from the sale of conception to the moment of birth.'' Feminists Are Pleased
Feminists said they were thrilled that Mrs. Whitehead-Gould's parental rights had been
restored. Her visitation rights with the child she still calls Sara will be determined by a
lower court.
''One of the things that has driven me crazy all along is that the real mother is being
called the surrogate mother,'' said Marilyn French, a feminist author who opposes new
reproductive technologies. ''I think there's something profoundly wrong with saying to a
mother who has just given birth, 'You have to do today what you said you would six
months ago.' ''
Several legal scholars praised the court for giving the Sterns custody and for permiting
women to volunteer for surrogacy if it is understood that they can change their minds
about giving up parental rights.
''One might do it out of love, for one's sister,'' said Angela Holder, a professor of law at
Yale University, ''but it's a whole different matter when you do it for someone down the
street.''
Copyright © New York Times