Conference turris::womannotes-v1

    AMEN

    I had a late shift yesterday (til 6 PM) and an early shift today
    (6 AM) so had to go to bed early and missed the news.  I heard that
    the Stern's were granted custody.  Can anyone give more info?
    
    BTW, I am *glad* the Stern's got custody.
    
    Was the contract upheld, or just as a custody hearing?  Will
    Dr. Stern be able to adopt the child?  Will Whitehead ever have
    visitation rights?  What about Whitehead's parents?
    
                 Carol
    

    I agree.

    re .2
    After making the decision the judge finalized the baby's adoption.
    
    No neither the Whiteheads nor the grandparents have any visitation
    rights.
    
    One of the arguements that he used was that if it was legal for
    a man to sell sperm it was legal for a woman to be a surrogate mother.

    He also said that the the surrogate mother could abort the baby
    if she so wished but once it was born the contract was valid.
    
    This is paraphrased from what I heard on the news this am -
    please feel free to correct any errors of fact.
    
    Bonnie

    Well, I *don't* agree.  There are certain rights you can't just
    "sign away" and having custody of your baby is one of them.  If
    I signed a contract allowing someone to beat me up every day of
    my life, is that a binding contract?
    
    In normal adoption proceedings, a mother *cannot* give her baby
    away until a few days (four days?) after it's born, by law (someone
    correct me if I'm wrong here).  Is that not a precedent for the
    Whiteheads to get Baby M?
    
    Ellen Goodman had a good column on this a couple of months ago.
    This whole issue is one of class, not of rights.  The Sterns are
    naturally viewed more favorably by the court by virtue of their
    privilege.  They were the ones able to afford the fancy lawyers
    in their $500 3-piece suits.  Of course, the child will be better
    off with the Sterns since they are the upper-middle class white couple
    with the $100K+ income.  The Whiteheads are lower middle class who
    missed a couple of mortgage payments, so they can't possibly compare
    as parents, right?

     	-Ellen

Associated Press Wed  1-APR-1987 10:45                          Surrogate Mom

  Judge's Ruling Endorses Surrogate Childbearing, Strips Mother Of Rights
                          By MICHAEL FLEEMAN
                        Associated Press Writer
   HACKENSACK, N.J. (AP) - A ruling upholding a surrogate mother
contract and awarding custody of the child to her father will give
Baby M her only real chance to grow up healthy and secure, the
father's lawyer said today.
   Superior Court Judge Harvey R. Sorkow on Tuesday upheld the
legality of the surrogate arrangement, denied the biological
mother, Mary Beth Whitehead, the right to see her child again and
granted custody to William Stern, whose sperm was used to
artificially inseminate Mrs. Whitehead.
   Minutes after the 121-page ruling was read, Stern's wife,
Elizabeth, adopted the year-old baby and Mrs. Whitehead's lawyer
requested a stay of the decision.
   The appeal is expected to go directly to the state Supreme
Court. Mrs. Whitehead has asked Sorkow that pending the appeal she
be allowed to continue seeing the child she called Sara, but who is
now Melissa Elizabeth Stern.
   Gary N. Skoloff, the attorney for the Sterns, said on NBC's
``Today'' show today that what Sorkow ``really concluded is the
only chance that Melissa has to grow up as a healthy, secure child,
was what all of the mental health experts said on all sides,
`You've got to end the publicity; you've got to end the warfare.'''
   ``And the judge absolutely read right that in this case there
would be no way the Sterns and the Whiteheads could ever raise that
child with any connection with each other,'' Skoloff said. ``He
took the very strong step of building the wall to give the child
the only chance that she has to make it in this world. One set of
parents. One home. Period.''
   The judge ruled that surrogate childbearing is not the same as
baby-selling because the father ``cannot purchase what is already
his.'' He said states should regulate the practice but that it is
legal because just as there is a law allowing abortion, ``the same
law may be used to create and celebrate life.''
   Just as men have the constitutional right to sell their sperm,
women can do what they want with their wombs, Sorkow said, and ``a
woman with her husband have the right to procreate and rear a
family.''
   His decision on this point differed from an earlier ruling in
Indiana. In October, Marion Superior Court Judge Victor S. Pfau
approved an adoption in a surrogate mother case, but voided the
contract, saying it was unenforceable and illegal. In that case,
the custody was not in dispute; the contract was challenged by a
court-appointed guardian for the child
   Pfau said a surrogate mother who accepted money to bear a child
for others commits profiting from an adoption, a felony. He also
said the contract exploited needy women and constituted baby
selling. But the ruling has no force in New Jersey.
   The judge described Mrs. Whitehead as manipulative and
exploitive, untruthful in testimony and unwilling to accept that
her husband's problems, especially his alcoholism, are hers.
   Sorkow said Mrs. Whitehead ``knew just what she was bargaining
for'' when she signed the $10,000 surrogate contract and agreed to
be inseminated with Stern's sperm.
   The Sterns, the judge said, offer a stable and caring
environment for the child.
   ``They have shown no difficulty in coping with crisis,'' Sorkow
said. ``It may be anticipated that because the child is unique and
at risk, crisis for the next several years will be part of their
lives.''
   The Sterns tearfully expressed sorrow about how their attempt to
have a child turned sour. They sympathized with Mrs. Whitehead but
said she had left them no alternative to launching the landmark
custody case.
   Stern promised to be frank with his daughter, who had been in
his temporary custody, and his wife said they would not stop her
from getting to know Mrs. Whitehead if she chooses.
   ``We'll have to start telling her right away about a kind woman
that wanted to do something nice for us,'' Stern said. ``And then
from there we'll have to start telling her how she changed her mind
and how things went awry.''
   Mrs. Whitehead heard the news at her Brick Township home, hours
after seeing her baby for what could be the last time. The
29-year-old housewife, mother of two other children, offered no
comment.
   ``She basically anticipated which way the judge was going to
rule,'' said her attorney, Randolph Wolf. ``The judge was very hard
on her.''
   ``What really is disappointing is that this court has said we
will not take into the consideration the morality of this
situation,'' said another of her lawyers, Harold J. Cassidy.
   The judge ordered the Sterns to pay Mrs. Whitehead the $10,000
but Wolf said he did not expect her to spend it pending the appeal.
   The precedent set by the judge's ruling applies in New Jersey,
but Noel Keane, the Dearborn, Mich., lawyer who arranged the
Stern-Whitehead contract, said it will be cited in future cases
nationwide.
   ``It gives an infertile couple greater assurance that surrogate
parenting agreements will be recognized and enforced,'' he said.
   Mrs. Whitehead signed the contract - she says without reading it
- in February 1985 but refused to give up the baby and fled to
Florida. Law offficers caught up with her after 87 days, returning
the baby to the Sterns, who then sued for permanent custody.
   The case generated worldwide debate.
   The Vatican condemned surrogate motherhood last month, saying it
``offends the dignity of the right of the child,'' and feminists
picketed the courthouse to support Mrs. Whitehead, saying no mother
should be forced to give up her baby.
   Others say surrogate motherhood exploits poorer women and
undermines traditional concepts of family.
   ``How can that be when the childless husband and wife so very
much want a child?'' the judge said. ``They seek to make a family.
... The male gave his sperm; the female gave her egg in their
pre-planned effort to create a child - thus, a contract.''
   No state regulates the practice, which has led to about 500
births since the first contract in 1976, but Sorkow said
legislatures must act.
   ``It took years of legislative debate and judicial inquiry to
define and develop today's laws of abortion and artificial
insemination,'' he said. ``With an increasing number of surrogate
births, legislation can avoid harm to society, the family and the
child.''
   Surrogate mothers can change their minds until conception,
Sorkow ruled. He also nullified a section of the contract that gave
the father the right to request an abortion.
   Surrogate contracts ``hold out so much hope'' to the estimated
10 percent to 15 percent of the married couples who cannot have
children, he said.
   Stern, a 41-year-old biochemist, said he sought surrogacy
because his 41-year-old wife, a pediatrician, worried childbirth
would aggravate her mild form of multiple sclerosis.
   Sorkow dismissed testimony that Mrs. Stern's fears were
unfounded and Mrs. Whitehead's allegations that the Tenafly couple
misrepresented themselves as infertile and that Mrs. Stern didn't
want pregnancy to interrupt her career.
   The judge's decision included an order barring the Whiteheads
and their parents from interfering, and he urged that litigation
end.
   Melissa, he said, ``needs stability and peace so she can be
nurtured in a loving environment free from chaos and sheltered from
the public eye. This court says that Melissa deserved nothing less
- stability and peace.''
   Mrs. Whitehead's lawyers argued that surrogate childbearing
should be outlawed because no woman can rationally agree before she
conceives to give up a child.
   The Sterns questioned Mrs. Whitehead's stability, especially her
threat to kill herself and the child if forced to give up the baby.
The judge agreed and noted in the decision that her marriage to
Richard Whitehead, 37, a sanitation worker, was ``plagued with
separations, domestic violence and severe financial difficulties.''

    Re .5, I agree with Ellen on this.
    

    It's a difficult decision but I do agree with the judge and the
    reason why is because *SHE* decided to become a surrogate mother.
    If I decided to do something like that I would have to know exactly
    what surrogate means.....and supposively she *KNEW* this.....now
    since she knew this and went through with this and then decided
    against it - it wasn't fair to the biological father and certainly
    not to the baby.  
    
    Why unfair to the baby?  Because this new baby wouldn't have been
    conceived if it wasn't for Mr. Stern.  This baby was not a planned
    baby by Mr. & Mrs.  Whitehead - this baby was a planned baby for
    Mr. & Mrs. Stern to bring up in a loving home.  With Mrs. Whitehead
    having
    financial problems and separation/alcoholic problems with her husband
    it would have been very difficult for Mr. Whitehead to accept that
    *baby*!!!!!  He did not WANT IT!!!!!  The Whiteheads should never
    been 
     surrogates.....because they have emotional problems and that's a flaw
    I hope they work out.   Those people need help and I hope they get
    it.
    
    I'm not a supporter of Surrogating and after this trial I hope people
    think twice about doing it.  Too many emotional issues to work out
    but I'm glad about the decision the judge made because frankly it's
    not the parents I worried about - it's THE BABY!!!!!
    
    bs

    >If i signed a contract allowing someone to beat me up
    >every day of my life, is that a binding contract.
    
    No. contracts for goods or services are only valid if
    those goods or services are not proscribed by law.
    Examples- contracts for prostitution or cocaine.
    
    Since surrogacy has not been declared illegal, the contract
    is binding.  Your analogy doesn't hold, Ellen.
    
    I would like to see passed the New York State proposition
    that surrogacy be allowed, but NOT for money. This would
    help ensure that women who volunteer to act as surrogates
    are truly concerned with helping infertile couples. 
    
    One issue that gets scant mention in all this is the con-
    flict between "sanctity of contract" and "whim". A deal
    is a deal, and noone can break a contract on whim. for
    the judge to have nullified this contract because the
    mother "wanted" to keep the baby would have created a
    nightmare precedent

    I think the decision STINKS!!!When she concieved....there really
    wasn't any bond with the child and how could she know at that time
    she would want to keep the child 9 months later...I'm sure she 
    thought it wasn't any big deal in the beginning and there was the
    $10k she would get after it was over.But,after she built the bond
    during the 9 months....she couldn't give it up....nor should she
    have to....after all...what did he do except supply the sperm??It
    isn't the same pregnancy as wife/husband or lovers have and a contract
    of this type should be breakable!!!The Sterns should have sought
    out someone with less financial and emotional problems BEFORE...so
    this wouldn't have happened!!!
    Of all the issues I've followed this is the only one thats prompted
    me to reply!!!Now I might have to register!!!
    
    Tony...

    Just my opinion, but, I think that all three parties in this case
    were represented by advocates of the court.  The judge wisely decided
    that a lawyer was also required for the baby in this case.
    
    The judge also ruled that you can't buy what is yours, in this case,
    referring to the father as being a part and parcel contributor (owner?)
    of the baby.
    
    The case was really an issue of contract law, which is the only
    thing it could have been.
    
    I do take exception to the judge saying that there should be
    legislation regarding surrogate parenting, as this is legislation
    of morals and morality.  If this were to be the case, who do you
    think would be one of the primary spokes parties against this, The
    Catholic Church???  I find it ludicrous that anyone or government
    should try to legislate peronal morality issues.
    
    Just my opinion.
    
    Dan

re .11 (Dan):

Right on!  Well stated.

This was a contract.  While this sort of contract may not be good 
for some people, "society" can not decide who in any intelligent
general way.

	~Mike

    re .8:
    
    >It's a difficult decision but I do agree with the judge and the
    >reason why is because *SHE* decided to become a surrogate mother.
    >If I decided to do something like that I would have to know exactly
    >what surrogate means.....and supposively she *KNEW* this.....now
    >since she knew this and went through with this and then decided
    >against it - it wasn't fair to the biological father and certainly
    >not to the baby.
    
    To reiterate something that has been said here already, a woman cannot
    KNOW what it's going to be like to give a baby away until that time
    comes.  "To know exactly what surrogate means" - exactly?  You can't
    really KNOW unless you've done it, I don't think.
    
    Also, I presume that the reason that Mary Beth decided to become
    a surrogate is because she was desperate for money.  And being
    desperate for money will make people sometimes do things that they
    later regret.
    
    re .9:    

    >>If i signed a contract allowing someone to beat me up
    >>every day of my life, is that a binding contract?
    
    >No. contracts for goods or services are only valid if
    >those goods or services are not proscribed by law.
    >Examples- contracts for prostitution or cocaine.
    
    >Since surrogacy has not been declared illegal, the contract
    >is binding.  Your analogy doesn't hold, Ellen.
    
    At one point, it was illegal for a woman to have an abortion too.
    But the courts decided that a woman has a right to control her own
    body.  By the same token, I argue that a woman has a right to keep
    her own child.  I do not believe that I (or any other woman) can
    sign away the right to have an abortion (the judge in this case
    said the same thing).  In the same vein, I do not believe that
    a woman can sign away her right to keep her own child.  The judge
    decided wrong on that (in my opinion).  If he had decided the way
    I think he should have, then it *would not* be binding to sign the
    contract ahead of time.
    
    My thoughts:  I do not believe it should be illegal or legislated
    that one cannot be a surrogate mother.  I *do* believe that it should
    not be binding until after the baby is born - just like normal,
    regular adoption proceedings.
    
    	-Ellen

	I agree with the decision made.  I think that too many people
	worry more about the rights of the mother than the father.
	This was not the first child Mrs. Whitehead had, so she should
	have been aware of any "bonding" that occurs.  I also think that
	"bonding" is a myth.  I find it hard to believe that it could
	happen if you weren't already pre-disposed towards it.  Maybe
	someone who dislikes babies and absolutely didn't want any, but
	got pregnant and "bonded" could tell me I'm wrong.  She had a 
	choice when she signed the contract, and by now the baby has
	probably already "bonded" with her natural father and his wife.
	Also, it's not Mrs. Whitehead's child, it's *their* (Whitehead and
	Stearn) child.

	..Karen

    This answer may seem like it is written by several people, but 
    that's how I feel....
    
    If the "baby M" issue is looked at strictly as a "contract" issue,
    then the judge's decision was correct. A contract, written and signed
    by consenting adults is valid and should be upheld, even if one
    of the party changes their mind. Unless there is a clause that allows
    for that possiblity, the law has always been very specific on contract
    law. (doesn't mean I like or agree with contract law...)
    
    If the issue was a "custody" issue, then again I have to agree with
    the judge. The argument that "I am the mother so I now what is
    best for the child, even more than the father" isn't valid anymore,
    at least in the court system. Fathers' right are becoming just as
    important as the Mothers' rights. I think the father's environment,
    at least on the surface, appears to be a better environment. I would
    question the stability of anyone who makes the statement that "...I
    gave her life, I can take that life away..." (not exact quote, but
    something like that).

    But, I have a big problem with all of the above arguments because we
    aren't talking about a bag of beans or some other commodity, we are
    talking about a baby. A live, breathing, lovable entity. The bond that
    must develop between a mother and the unborn   during the nine months
    of pre-birth, has to be one of the strongest bonds that can develop. To
    have to sever that, for whatever reason, must be extremely painful.

    I guess most of me agrees with the decision, but a part of me is
    crying for the mother. I agree with the idea of surragate parents
    (whether male or female), but I think that there has to be better
    way of contracting between the parties, so that it doesn't de-humanize
    the process.
    
    janet

    On Night Line last night, one of the first issues the Sterns'
    lawyer addressed was the constant comparison of this to an adoption
    case.  Essentially, what he said was that the premises were so
    different that there was hardly any real basis for the comparison,
    with Sterns as the biological father being the central point.
                                                     
    Fathers don't have emotional attachments?  I'm also surprised that
    so many people see it as *her* child.
    
    I heard a man say that  Whitehead's husband was possibly infertile
    and that this might have been a way for her to have another child.  He
    saw it as a case of Whitehead running off with some hapless man's
    sperm!

    re .various
    
    I agree with the court decision. The fact  is that both sides
    had an equal "claim" to the child when viewed from a biological
    standpoint: the biological father vs. the biological mother.
    As such, the decision must be based on other criteria in order
    to "break the tie".
    
    When looking at the case, the biological mother had acted in
    a way not conducive to trust: she absconded with the child and
    (as I recall) at one point threatened suicide. This was in addition
    to violating the terms of the contract.
    
    The only way the court could have favored the biological mother
    would be to indicate that the mother has a MUCH stronger "right"
    to the child than the father, sufficient to overcome the negative
    impact of her behavior (legal and otherwise). And wouldn't that
    be a big step backwards?
    

    
         There are just too many facts to logically disagree with the
    ruling.  Ms. Whitehead did sign the contract, and as a person (not
    a 'woman' or 'mother') she is bound by *HER* decision.  To say that
    the contract is contingent upon her later feelings on the situation
    is a thoroughly sexist point of view, and stretches the legal bonds
    far beyond the breaking point.
    
         Mr. Stern does have rights to his child, and ignoring them
    would be a heinous way to stand up for those of Ms. Whitehead. 
    There was no other way for this ruling to turn out.
    
         The child will be better off once this whole matter is forgotten,
    so if Ms. Whitehead continues to fight, that would prove who the
    better parents are.
    
                                Bubba
    

    re -1:
    
    >...stretches the legal bonds far beyond the breaking point...
    
    True, if you think a contract is just a contract is just a contract.
    That ignores my arguments that there are some rights one cannot sign away
    and cannot, by their very nature, be allowed to sign away in a binding
    form. (DO NOT misread this - I am not in favor of outlawing surrogacy!
    If someone *wants* to do it, then fine.  Obviously, Mary Beth changed
    her mind on wanting to and *didn't* want to at some point.)
    
    But this is the USA and the last time I checked, we all enjoyed certain
    rights that *no one* can take away from any one of us whether we
    sign a piece of paper or not.
    Some examples:
    	I cannot sign away my right to have an abortion.
    	I cannot sign away my right to free speech.
    	I cannot sign away my right to have a proper trial should I
    		be arrested for some crime.
    	I cannot sign away my right to participate in a certain religion
    		or church.
    	And I should not be allowed to sign away the right to raise
    		a baby to whom I have just given birth if I choose not
    		to.
    
    I maintain that this right falls under that category.
    
    You can say that, yes, Mr. Stern gave his sperm for this very purpose
    of creating and adopting a baby.  But if you look at who has taken care
    of it and whose body it was in for all that time, it was Mary Beth
    Whitehead's.  But this never was (or never should have been) a
    'custody' battle to begin with.
    
    BTW, I was not surprised in the least at the ruling.  I expected
    the ruling to go in favor of the Yuppies.
    
    	-Ellen

    
         You say Mr. Stern "gave his sperm" as if somehow this is less
    important to conception than "giving an egg" - not so ma'am.  Face
    it, somebody had to hold the developing fetus, and just because
    God decided to let the women do it that gives no superior right
    of parenthood to the mother.  My opinion stands until something
    more logical than that is put against it.
    
                               Bubba
    

    
       ALSO, the rights you referred to in .20 were for the most part
    constitutional ones.  The constitution says nothing about whether
    the mother or the father has superior rights to a child.
    
                                   Bubba
    
    PS: I didn't mean to sound so angry in -.1.  Ellen, you're just
    so mentally stimulating.
    

    
         And another thing, if the contract is signed *AFTER* the birth
    takes place.  It immediately becomes "BABY SELLING".  Quite illegal,
    you know.
    

    			I strongly disagree with the idea that
    		a surrogate's "maternal feelings" at the birth
    		of the child should be the criteria used to
    		decide the fate of a child (and that the biolo-
    		gical father should *not* be allowed to raise
    		a child that was specifically *conceived* for
    		him to raise) *merely* because the child spent
    		9 months in the Mother's womb.
    
    			If a woman conceives a baby for the
    		express purpose of giving it to another couple
    		to raise (as opposed to having an accidental
    		pregnancy), why should her maternal feelings
    		later carry more weight than all the *other*
    		considerations involved (not just contractual,
    		but also those involving the welfare of the
    		child *AND* the "paternal feelings" of the
    		biological Father)??
    
    			Ms. Whitehead is not just a poor woman
    		whose baby was stolen from her.  She is a woman
    		who would be a sorry example of emotional stability
    		for persons of *any* class.  She is also a woman
    		who threatened to *kill* the baby and herself if
    		she could not have her way in this matter.  A love
    		so desperate that it would rather *destroy* a child
    		than give it up is not the sort of love that *I*
    		would recommend for a young life.

    			It's easy to look at this case and say,
    		"Yeah, it's just a matter of money winning over the
    		people who don't have money."  Well, if the Stearns
    		had been the ones to threaten to kill the baby, and
    		if the Stearns had been the ones to have all the
    		other signs of emotional instability -- my guess is
    		that the case would have had a different outcome.
    
    			I can't stand on the side of Ms. Whitehead
    		only because she is the woman involved (and I can't
    		stand on her side because she represents the oppressed
    		lower-middle-class.)  As an *individual*, she had no
    		real case for trying to prevent Mr. Stearn from raising
    		the child that they had specifically conceived *for*
    		him and his wife.  Her maternal feelings *now* are
    		unfortunate for her, but I don't think for a minute
    		that those feelings should override *HIS* feelings
    		(*OR* especially, the welfare of the child.)
    
    			By the way, I don't automatically think that
    		upper-middle-class people make better parents than
    		lower-middle-class people.  I think that it all depends
    		on the individuals involved.  In this case, the Stearns
    		seemed to be the better choice for Baby M.
    
    			If we say that *all* biological Mothers make
    		the best parents (and *all* lower-middle-class people
    		should be given consideration over upper-middle-class
    		people) -- then we are buying into the same kinds of
    		stereotypes that we've been trying so hard to fight.
    
    						      Suzanne...

    I wonder if potential surrogate mothers receive any type of counseling.
    Seems to me as though they should have access to the type of counseling
    provided to women seeking abortions ("this is what you can expect,
    these are your choices, how will you feel about it in 5 years, 10
    years" and so forth).  I would have more faith in a choice made
    *after* this kind of counseling than a choice made out of desperation.
    
    I can imagine there being different types of surrogate mother contracts
    at some point.    There might be an absolute type ("I'll give you
    the baby no matter what, I relinquish my right to change my mind"),
    and a conditional type ("I have four days after the birth to
    decide whether to proceed with this or not").  I would feel more
    comfortable knowing that a potential surrogate mother consciously
    chose the "absolute" type of contract.  (The absolute type of contract
    might carry a higher price; the conditional type a lower one.)
    
    In the baby M case, I feel sad that Whitehead was banned from seeing
    the child *after* having developed a relationship with her.  At
    the same time, if I were one of the Sterns, I would have a hard
    time trusting Whitehead very much, and would feel extremely anxious
    about their visits together.
                                                                  
    No easy answers here.

    <--(.20)
    
    Actually, Ellen, people CAN sign away some of those rights:  by
    undertaking military (or certain other kinds of government) service
    both the right to free speech and the right to have a "proper" trial
    are given away for the length of the contract.  And the Court has
    repeatedly found that to be contractually lawful.
    
    					             =maggie

I have a very divided mind about the case.  From a strictly
contractual point of view, I don't think the result could
have been other than what it was, but law does not necessarily
equal justice, and I am disturbed that Mary Beth Whitehead
was found to have no rights whatsoever regarding the child.
She is an irrevocable part of that child's heritage and that
connection ought to receive some acknowledgement.

I have a lot of concerns about the whole business of
surrogacy, and I think that there needs to be a lot of
moral/ethical thought put into it by the feminist community.
Not too long ago, in the days before science and genetics,
children were thought to belong solely to the father,
his "seed" being planted in what was essentially an
incubator for his posterity.  Mothers, although
they had all the responsibility for bearing and nurturing,
had no legal rights at all.  Their wombs were bought by
the man through marriage.  To this day, most of us have
surnames that reflect this thinking.  

It makes me nervous that the idea of womb rental is
becoming acceptable, whether it is sanctified by contract
or not.  The idea that one of a woman's most intimate
and intrinsic functions can be treated as a commodity
disturbs me.  Women's functions: pregnancy, childbirth,
child rearing, etc., have been treated in our society
as insignificant, demeaning activities, necessary to
life (like excrement), but not reflecting any of its higher
and more meaningful possibilities.  They have often been
used an excuse for keeping women in subjection as a kind
of sub-human class.  The nineteenth century's sentimentalization
of motherhood did not serve to liberate women, it sought
only to decorate their chains.  Custody is generally awarded
to mothers because they are thought to be the ones most
fit for that dirty job, as men don't really want to do it.
They only want ownership of the results: fine, strong sons that
will follow them in the patriarchy.  

To say that there is nothing more to childbearing than
can be covered in a rental contract is to minimize women's
experiences.  Carrying a child is not like growing a wart.
There is a great deal of physical and emotional identification
between mother and child-to-be, and there is decidedly
a biological/psychological bonding that occurs at birth.
I've had two children, one of whom I seriously considered
aborting, and that experience has happened to me in spite
of myself.  I was NEVER the maternal type as a child and had
no interest whatsoever in children, babies, and women's
traditional roles.  I'm quite convinced the response is 
hormonal, because otherwise as soon as you realized you were 
never going to get a decent night's sleep again, you'd toss
the baby to the sabre-tooth tigers.  Childbirth itself can
be strangely exhiliarating; labor is undisguised pain, no 
matter what the natural childbirth types tell you, but the
delivery is quite a rush.  

I don't think these kinds of experiences should be negated
as folklore, or the province of uneducated, disturbed
women.  They deserve acknowledgement as a real part of
many women's lives, and somehow they must be accomodated.
    

    RE .20
    
>    You can say that, yes, Mr. Stern gave his sperm for this very purpose
>    of creating and adopting a baby.  

    This illustrates what I perceive to be your misunderstanding
    (I almost said "misconception") of the situation:
    
    Mr. Stern's purpose was NOT "adopting" this baby. He did not
    need to, and did not, adopt this baby, as it is his child.
    
    His wife, on the other had, did need to adopt the child, since
    she had no biological ties to it.

    	RE:  .27
    
    			Your comments are certainly thought-
    		provoking (about women and childbirth.)  Although
    		I do agree that a Mother goes through an intense
    		bonding experience, I'm not sure that the baby
    		bonds back to the same degree (at least not in
    		the same short amount of time that it supposedly
    		takes for the Mother to feel the bond.)
    
    			I can remember the feelings I had for my
    		son before he was born (as I felt his movements
    		and his waking/sleeping/hiccoughing patterns) --
    		and I think that I felt that I had a pretty strong
    		bond with him during that time.  But later, after
    		he was born (and came home with me), that "bond"
    		turned out to be *nothing* compared to what I felt
    		when I actually got to know him.  Those feelings
    		grew over time as well.  I never had the notion
    		that the love was cemented (and frozen in level)
    		at any one moment in particular.  Maybe I'm mis-
    		understanding what people mean when they say
    		the word "bond" (as it applies to Mother and child.)
    
    			As for Ryan, he had no idea of my presence
    		at first.  He knew when things felt nice (he liked
    		to nurse *immediately* after he tried it for the
    		first time, and he liked to be held.)  But he didn't
    		know that there was an entity that was doing all
    		these nice things until he was at least 3 weeks old.
    		When he did "find" me for the first time with his
    		eyes, he just kept looking at me as if he wasn't sure
    		what I was, but was curious about me.  He looked as
    		though he was trying to memorize me so that he could
    		find me again the next time (for furthur study.)
    
    			When he smiled for the first time (at me!),
    		I began to realize that he was growing fond of me
    		as a steady presence in his life.  A big, big moment
    		for me was the first time he broke away from nursing
    		and looked up directly into my face (as if to let me
    		know that he had finally figured out that *I* was
    		his milk!!)  He gave me a sly little smile as if he
    		had *known* that my face would be there if he nursed
    		(because I was his friend *and* his food!)
    
    			It wasn't until many months later that he
    		had bonded with me so completely that he would cry
    		if I walked away from him (or if I handed him to
    		someone else.)  Evidently, *his* bond grew over time
    		(much the way mine did.)
    
    			The experience of carrying and giving birth
    		to a child is remarkable and unique -- but I'm still
    		not totally convinced that there is any sort of
    		immediate psychic bond between mother and child.  
    
    			Sure, there are tremendous hormones that
    		affect us during the whole process -- but they are
    		not mystical or psychic.  They are physical -- even
    		though many of the side-effects are emotional.
    
    			I can't see what good it will do our positions
    		in the world (and the many struggles we face as women)
    		if we ask men to decide legal issues based on the
    		complex emotions that we feel because of our having
    		reproductive systems.  If we do that, aren't we just
    		building our own "prisons" for ourselves and acting
    		against our own best interests?
    
    			Speaking just for myself, I don't want to
    		go out into a world that is dominated by men and
    		say, "Well, don't expect me to be logical or rational.
    		I'm a woman/Mother and I have emotions that you 
    		will never understand.  Just accept them and let
    		me have my way."
    
    			We need to be *very* careful where we take
    		this issue.
    
    							Suzanne...

On a basic confusion I have, even after reading the newspiece earlier
in this topic:
Was Whitehead selling her egg, renting her womb, or both? Certainly
selling the egg is akin to selling sperm. Isn't renting her womb like
prostitution? (renting her [can I say that in notes?] ****) Anybody
here know enough about the contract to tell?
	Mez

    	re:  .31
    
    			My impression was that she *donated*
    		her egg, and that the Sterns *donated* $10,000
    		to her for the 9 month inconvenience of going
    		through a pregnancy (without having a child to
    		raise at the end of it.)
    
    			That's why I think that there should
    		be *NO FEE* for surrogates.  I would only be a
    		surrogate myself if I felt strongly that I wanted
    		to help others (in that particular way.)
    
    			When money is included in the deal, it
    		turns into the social issues that have evolved
    		out of this particular case (i.e., well-off
    		people hiring poor people to bear their children.)
    
    			The $10,000 fee brings the whole idea
    		dangerously close to child-selling.
    
    						Suzanne...

A sad situation

There were two decisions by the judge.  The first was on custody and the
second was on the validity of contracts for surrogacy.   

On the custody issue I think I agree with his findings, in that from what I
gather from the media (mental health, marital stability, and, yes
ability to provide for the child) the Sterns are more able to provide for
Baby M, emotionally, mentally and financially.  The judge mentioned each of
these factors in his decision.  The judge was hard on Mary Beth Whitehead
saying while she may be a good mother to her two older children, she
"smothers" baby M.  I wonder if her actions were in part related to a post
partum (sp?) depression.  Was that possibility raised?  Whether Ms.
Whitehead was the best potential parent or not she deserves our compassion
in what must be a very difficult time. 

I don't think Ms Whitehead was the best parent, but I also don't feel that
absolves the Sterns or society (our laws, conventions, etc.) from
partially responsibility for a bad situation.  

On the judge's upholding of the contract, I totally disagree.  One of the
considerations in contract law is Informed Consent.  Informed Consent is
basically the reason contracts with minors are not usually valid. The judge
dismissed this argument as a "non issue."  
                            >>>>>Opinion<<<<<
The complexities and wonders of conceptions, pregnancy, and birth are much
too intricate to be reduced intelligently to the mechanistic level required
by contract law.  We may understand the technology of this process.  We as
humans are all minors, mere infants, when it comes to understanding all the
factors and relationships (technological, emotional, rational, etc.)
involved and hence not able to give Informed Consent.  Contracts also raise
the ugly specter of the rich using the poor. 

I'm not against surrogacy.  But I find the legalistic/contractual approach
to it an invitation to the type tragedy we've witnessed here.  I don't
really have suggestions for other approaches.   The idea of surrogacy
without fees is intriguing.  Other idea which use the technology but learn
from this experience?

-Byron

    This is another case of a long history of women in sexual slavery.
    Can someone sign themselves into a binding contract to have her body
    used by someone else for a specific purpose?  I truly believe that if
    this goes to the Supreme Court that this type of contract cannot
    be binding.
    
    I know someone here will say that it is not a type of slavery because
    she [Mary Beth] signed a contract.  Again, I ask if I sign a contract
    allowing someone to do something to my body such as cut my hand off,
    force me to have an unwanted child or force me to have an abortion,
    etc., is that a binding contract?  Especially if that contract was
    signed under stress which, in Mary Beth's case, I think was.  It was
    her poverty which caused her to sign the contract.
        
    As to Bubba's comments about the baby belonging equally to the mother
    and father, that is true.  But I favor (in ususal custody cases,
    anyway) the child going to the parent who has taken care of the
    child most closely - 90% of the time the mother - because most fathers
    still do not take an equal responsibility for caring for their children
    (even in 1987, and I'm not talking financially, I'm talking diapers,
    feeding, dressing, day care, etc.)  And that's NOT sexist to say that
    the parent who has cared most for the child in that capacity should be
    awarded custody!  And in Baby M's case, based on that, the baby should
    *still* go to Mary Beth.
        
    As an aside, no one can know what the best home for the child is.
    Even psychologists, the presumed "experts", are still battling that one
    out.  So if someone were to say that the Sterns would be better parents,
    that would be subjective.  But this case was not about custody,
    or at least not in the ususal sense.
    
    	-Ellen

    re -1:
    
    I meant the US Supreme Court, that is.

    	How about an example of a man signing away the use of his body
    for a period of time?
    	
    	
    Professional sports.  They agree to put up with pain, enforced weight
    limits and restrictions on sex and drinking (or do they still do
    that? :-)).
    
    Don't see anyone complaining about their plight...
    
    
    
    I don't know what I feel about this whole issue.  As usual, I'm
    sitting on the fence with partial agreement on both sides.
    
    
    tlh
    
    

    I agree with most of how Ellen has presented her case....
    
    I was discussing this with a friend (I have a couple :-))last
    night and jogged my memory of a show on PBS about BONDING in
    that NOVA show they presented seals on a beach who were separated
    from their offspring and they would continuousily (sp) bark until
    they met up....they all sounded alike to humans.However,in each
    case the mother and offspring would meet!!Also,they did the same
    experiment with goose eggs,BUT this time a woman took the eggs
    and incubated them and talked to them for the entire time until
    they hatched....then they followed her around and swam with her
    as if she were the mother.....this was all done prior to birth where
    the bonding starts!!!
    
    Another thought I was wondering about.....would the Sterns have
    pursued this is baby m was born retarded???
    
    The judge was in a no lose situation as he knew the case would go
    to the Supreme Court!!
    
    Tony....

    re: .34
    The question was asked if a person signed a contract allowing someone
    to cut off a part of the body (a hand?) would this be binding?
    
    If I signed a contract allowing a doctor to amputate my hand, or
    to take out a kidney to donate to another person, then I would probably
    have the right to back out UNTIL THE PROCEDURE STARTED.  I can just
    see it now, I sign a contract that I am going to donate a kidney,
    then the doctor takes it out, and I wake up and tell the doctor
    I want it put back!?  Somehow I don't think this would be right.
    
    I understand that this is a difficult subject.  We each have an
    opinion (some of us may have more than one).  After considering the 
    emotional impact of surrogacy for all parties involved, I now
    understand better why the judge came to some of the conclusions
    that he had.
    
                 Carol    

    Men have been "renting" women and parts of women since the beginning
    of time and frankly I'm amazed at why renting a uterus is causing
    the nation such angst.
    
    The rich have been renting the poor since the beginning of time,
    the most notable instance is the common practice of renting
    "wet-nurses" who were always maids or unemployed, lower-class women.
                            
    Mary Beth was an experienced "child producer" and SHE decided that
    it was something she would do for $10,000.  Contract signed, it's
    her problem to now have to live up to the bargain she struck.  All
    this hooey about maternal feelings and 'bonding' and especially
    about women "not able to make such a decision rationally" really
    gets me.  Think what you want about maternal feelings and bonding
    but it's what Mary Beth thinks about it that counts and she knows
    what it is more than any male judge ever will, and SHE decided it
    was nothing compared to $10,000.  What more is there to say about
    it?                              
    
    As for the goose bonding in the last note, chicks have a unique
    aspect in that they "imprint".  They follow the very first thing
    they see after hatching and that's that.  If they were NEVER spoken
    to during incubation would make no difference.  If they were clucked
    at by real geese during incubation they would still follow the human
    if that's what they first saw at birth.  I still can see the photograph
    of Jean Piaget, the famous child-psychologist who worked with
    imprinting, walking away from the camera with his brood of chicks
    following.  Almost every psych book carries that picture and that
    research.  'Bonding' has nothing to do with it.
                        
    If the Sterns DIDN'T have a whole lot of money, I doubt the case
    ever would have been challenged in court because frankly Mary Beth
    didn't have a leg to stand on, legally.  But lawyers being what
    they are saw a chance for money and glory, (winning a landmark decision
    is every lawyers wet-dream, no?), and the case went to court for
    awhile before everyone agreed that Mary Beth didn't have a leg to
    stand on.
    
    Possession is 9/10's of the law and I say the Sterns were generous
    to offer visitation rights to Mary Beth.  Had they not, the onus
    would have been on Mary Beth to initiate legal action and I doubt
    she would have.  I feel bad the Sterns had to shell out money to
    lawyers to tell them something they already knew.  I have no sympathy
    for Whitehead.

    re .39
    
    um, wasn't that Konrad Lorenz and not Jean Piaget

    
         I say Mary Beth can have de Baby, if she gives back de sperm.
    
                                      Bubba
    
    PS: ALL of it.
    

    I agree with the decision made.
    
    Yes, all the father did was supply the sperm.  Still should he have
    any less rights to the child than the mother?  How would this case
    be any different than if the child had been conceived as a one night
    stand?  Unmarried fathers have rights too.  I *do* believe the Sterns
    had an emotional stake in this.  I can imagine planning for the
    baby, buying things for him/her, deciding on a name, etc, just as
    natural parents.
    
    This stuff about bonding between mother and baby before birth kind
    of implies that you believe that an adopted mother is less bonded
    to her children.  I know this is false.
    
    I also agree with the decision in that it will mean that infertile
    couples in the future will be able to use surrogate mothers.
    
    The only point I disagree on is visitation.  I think all parents
    should be allowed visitation - but that *could* have been written
    in the original contract.

    
    
    This seems strange to me but I do not have a strong opinion about
    this case.  In fact other than the note about surrogates not being
    paid this is a non-issue to me.  
    
    _peggy	Mother of 2 who doesn't not believe in child ownership.
    

  Seems to me that in the bible, the woman who was willing to have
  the child killed (cut in half, one half to each "mother") wasn't the one 
  awarded custody.  And in this case, Ms. Whitehead was the one who 
  threatened to kill the child.  Is this a precedent?

..Karen

    Re: -.1
    
         The problem is that two people wanted the same kid, and King
    Solomon's phone was busy.
    
                                   Bubba
    

    
    .45 referred to .43  BY THE WAY.
    

    If I had to decide whether surrogate parenthood should be legal
    or illegal, I THINK I might decide to make it illegal.  Regardless
    of opinions concerning the case, it's just caused too many problems.
     I think it could turn out to be a common thing for a desperate,
    poverty-stricken woman to agree to anything to get a few thousand
    dollars to get out of a hole but, THEN when she's about 9 months
    pregnant she suddenly realizes what she's about to do, and tries
    to back out.  It's human nature.  For those who have no sympathy
    for Ms. Whitehead, remember at various times in our lives situations
    force us to have different priorities.
    
    I would have let Ms. Whitehead keep her baby.  The idea of taking
    a baby away from the person who carried it inside her body for 9 months
    and then gave birth to it, just goes against the grain with me.
     I could only do it if the mother were criminally insane or something.
     To me, the right of a natural mother to keep her baby, takes priority
    over any of the other people's claims.  
    
    On the other hand, having seen pictures of Ms. Whitehead and heard
    about her life, if I were in Ms. Stern's place I don't think I'd
    want the baby anyway.  Ms. Whitehead is really strange looking and
    doesn't sound like much of a prize as a human being and I wouldn't
    want to take a chance raising a kid that was half composed of her
    genes.  
    
    In fact, I couldn't tolerate the idea of my husband donating HIS
    sperm to have another woman give birth to his child.  I wouldn't
    want the kid.  It wouldn't be mine.  I truly cannot understand why
    anyone would want to do this.  
    
    Lorna
    

    Konrad Lorenz?  Yiikes, you're right!  Back to psych 101 for a 
    refresher course!  Thanx, I never did like Piaget anyway!

            
    On the positive side being a surrogote mother so that some other
    couple can have a child is very an honorable. The fact that she
    gets paid or not is really not an issue. 
    
    Looking at it negatively. A couple has_to_have a new born so much
    that the thought of adopting an older child who needs parents is out.
    The surrogote mother has a way to make $10,000 dollars. Rent her womb 
    for 9 months.                                            
    
    If you say that a surrogote contract can not be held up, due
    to the  mother changing her mind in the end, or even the adoptive
    parents changing their minds then you have a problem.
                                
    If there is no guarentee that either party will uphold the contract
    then there is no contract, no guarentee of fullfillment. The surrogote
    mother takes the risk of when the baby is born that she is stuck
    with it and she doen't get her money and could get stuck with the
    bills. The new parents have no guarentee that they will get the
    child. With these risks the use of surrogote mothers will end.
    
    The court ruling was the correct one. I realize that this is an
    emotional issue, but if it is to succeed it must be approached
    on a strictly business basis.                       
    
    What must be done is to have very good screening of the potential
    surrogote mother. 
    
    Another issue should a single woman beable to be a surogotte ?
    Just think of the potential, ladies need money for collage,
    that car you've always wanted, or that dream vacation.
    
    Another, suppost the potential surogotte mother works. Is she 
    entitled to maternity leave ?                                 
    
    Am I crazy ??? Maybe.. Maybe not..
    
    
    

    re -1:
    
    >the ruling was the only way it could be
    
    Well, a lot of folks disagree and do not see it as "the only way
    it could be."
    
    	-Ellen

    
    Ellen 
    
    You don't mind if I call you be your first name do you ?
    
    Do you beleive in surrogote mothers as a way for infertile 
    married couples to have babies ?  If you do then you must 
    realize that the only way that it will work is if everyone 
    involved honors the contract. There for the ruling is correct.
    
    If you don't then the ruling is not correct. You are correct
    and we should abolish the idea of surrogotes.
    
    I am not a heartless person and realize that there is
    a lot of emotion attached to this issue. If anything comes
    out of this it will be to make potential adoptive parents
    be more selective about who will be a surrogote mother for
    them.
    
    Personally I would not like my wife to be one, actually
    I would be VERY opposed. 
    
    I also forsee (or is it "for see") potential problems for the 
    surrogote mother, adopitive parents (actually adoptive mother),
    and child in later years when the child discovers the facts.
    Probably simular to when a adopited child wants to see his/her
    biological parents.
    years    
    

    OK - I expect flames - but after reading your comments (diatribe
    is too strong, although it came to mind) I'll bet a buck on what's
    going to happen.   You see - within a few days - the case will be
    COMPLETELY out of the press.  Do you really think that the Whiteheads
    are going to let $10,000 sit in a bank collecting interest?  Do
    you really think that Mr. Whitehead wants that baby?  You know who
    wants to keep the furor going?  The legal community.  The only part
    of Ms. Whitehead's family that made a comment was her mother - the
    rest of her family doesn't talk to her - matter of fact, there's
    a lawsuit against her by her sister.  Ms. Whitehead will want to
    drop the case within a few months - and she's going to have some
    time with her lawyers - who will probably go ahead without her.
    She's going to move elsewhere with her family - and the whole thing
    will die down - until/unless the lawyers keep it up.
    
    The biggest mistake the Sterns made was not in checking the surrogate's
    mental stability, her financial background, her husband's feeling
    about the surrogacy.  
    
    I'm not really cynical - I'm a realist who was married for a long
    time to an investigative reporter and I've heard stories just as
    controversial as this one.  Since this is almost the anniversary
    of Womannotes - it will be easy to remember next year at this time
    that is - if anyone then even remembers who the Whiteheads and Sterns
    are.

    
         I'm just getting tired of hearing this '9 months of bonding'
    stuff.  I realize how much closeness develops between a mother and
    child (even before birth), but I must reiterate (ad nauseum if
    necessary) that Mr. Stern *IS* this child's father.  At that point,
    mom and pop have equal rights.  The matter that tips the scale toward
    the Stern (sorry) is that a contract was signed (weight number one),
    and one side of the agreement was kept (weight number two), and
    Ms. Whitehead is a little loopy (weight number three).  This and
    other points, which have already been mentioned, leave no other
    judgement to be made.  To the people who ignore this, Mr. Stern's
    side would have to have carried the baby in his briefcase for 9
    months in order to have any rights at all.  Similar liberties would
    not be given to a man by these people if one had 'given birth' to
    a huge sum of money, and his wife was filing for 'custody'.
    

    A lot of these conversations seem to deny or ignore the bonding
    that goes on between any adult and any child that the adult
    comes in contact with.  This is of course not universally true
    but many adults do not make distinctions as to the genetic
    background of the child before deciding to care for that child.
    
    There is a little girl down the street from me whose mother
    doesn't treat her very well. When she comes to my house to play
    with my daughter I hug her and kiss her and she hugs me back.
    We have a "bonded" relationship, even tho I am no mother to her
 
    If someone today came to me and said "I am the biologcial mother
    of one of your children, it is my right to take that child
    home with me" - I would throw them out of my house!
    
    Bonnie

The Baby M case separates into the contract and a custody battle
between two people who both feel that they have rights to the
child.  How does this custody battle differ from a divorce custody
battle?

Martin.

    This one has some interesting consequences .
    I feel that the judge made (in this case )the correct decision. 
    But....
    Who drew up the contract that Ms Whitehead signed ?
    What kind of legal advice did she have ,at the time of signing ?
    
    It may well turn out that therein lies the flaw ,from a legal
    standpoint in the Sterns' case, if Ms Whitehead tekes it any further.
    
    I don't believe that we should make surrogate motherhood illegal.
    I do believe that it should come under the jurisdiction of some
    regulations ,although it will be probably impossible to prevent
    the recurrence of the change of mind and subsequent custody battle.
    Maybe ,there could be specific agencies established which handle
    surrogate motherhood ,and which would be equipped to provide
    counselling,legal support,and selection instead of leaving it
    the hands of lawyers ,who can't be trusted any way.
    The Stern's could have avoided this by being more thorough in their
    preliminary investigations,although there was probably just as much
    emotion on their part at the expectation of having a child ,as on
    the part of Ms Whitehead's "bonding".
                                                       
    BTW ..any guesses as to the lawyer's fees charged Stern for setting
    the whole surrogacy up ? ....an acquaintance in law school tells
    me the standard fee is "about 25K"
                                      

I fully agree with the court decision.

But maybe if I were in the position of the contracting couple, 
knowing how much she wants the child, I'd consider giving him/her 
back.

On the other hand again, I don't think that would be doing the child
any favor in this case.


	~Mike 

    
    	My personal feeling in this, is that the court decision was
    	correct.  In the eyes of the law, they were dealing with a 
    	business contract.  It is indeed an unfair situation, in which
    	a baby, has been focused as the object of the transaction.
    	BUT, Ms. Whitehead, signed a contract.  If she didn't understand
    	the contract, or wasn't fully informed of what the contract
    	stood for, she should never had signed it, or had someone else,
    	other than the lawyer, explain it to her, and what the outcome
    	would be.  I think both parties, have been mentally hurt by
    	this whole thing.  Personally, I think it is something that
    	should happen, but, then again, the pain that the biological
    	mother suffers, after giving the baby back ,after the birth,
    	I don't think it is a good idea.  I am very wishy/washy on the
    	whole subject, so I really don't know what my feelings would
    	be, if I was subject to this.
    
    			Mike
    

        I accept the arguement that either you have to have surigacy
        contracts be enforceable *or* you have to outlaw the practice.
        Every day I lean more towards the notion that it ought to be
        outlawed. I am fairly convinced that surigacy and the
        male-equivalent of the "known donor" is ethically wrong. It sets
        you up for messes such as the Baby "M" case, cases that affect
        the baby as well as the parents. 
        
        JimB.

    Re:.59
    I agree that as this entire business is set up now ,it will only
    lead to more and more problems.
    What about a "double blind " surrogacy ,run through accredited
    agencies ,where neither male donor ,nor female surrogate know 
    who each other are ?
    My concern in thinking that there must be a way ,is based on sympathy
    for couples who are unable to conceive ,I have close friends who
    have seriously considered surrogacy.
    
    Robin...
    

    			As I understand it, most infertile women
    		actually do produce eggs.  So why not make it
    		standard among surrogate pregnancies to use the
    		couple's egg and sperm (fertilizing the egg in
    		a testtube and then implanting the embryo into
    		the surrogate mother.)

    			My feeling is that the Baby M case would
    		never have gotten to the mess that it became if
    		Melissa had been the biological child of both the
    		Sterns (and Ms. Whitehead had carried the child but
    		was not genetically related to her.)
    
    			This wouldn't work in all cases, of course,
    		but it would definitely be the choice that *I* would
    		have made, had I been in a situation similar to the 
    		Sterns.

    							Suzanne...

    re 51:
    
    >Do you beleive in surrogote mothers as a way for infertile 
    >married couples to have babies ?  If you do then you must 
    >realize that the only way that it will work is if everyone 
    >involved honors the contract. There for the ruling is correct.
    
    I think that if a woman wants to be one she should be, but it should
    be *voluntary* the whole way down the line.  I think that the
    *Sternses* should have been the ones in the position of having to
    "think twice" about what this would mean.  I guess I am saying that
    a contract like this should be "outlawed" (I hate that word, but
    what I mean is that a contract like this not be *enforceable*.)
    
    re .52:
    
    She's not going to "take the money and run".  I'm sure that her
    lawyers would never let her get away with that.
        
    >I'm just getting tired of hearing this '9 months of bonding'
    >stuff.  I realize how much closeness develops between a mother and
    >child (even before birth), but I must reiterate (ad nauseum if
    >necessary) that Mr. Stern *IS* this child's father.  At that point,
    >mom and pop have equal rights. 
    
    Are you just a bit jealous of women because we *can* have babies
    and bond to them in nine months and you cannot?

    	-Ellen

    re: .62
    As someone stated earlier, men can bond to the child in the womb
    also.
                 Carol

    Bonding aside, this is a custody issue, and starting from square
    one, both parents have equal rights to custody of the child.  The
    presumption is that custody is awarded based on the best situation
    for the child, and looking at the facts, I personally agree with
    the judge that custody should go to the Sterns.
    
    As to the contractual issue, if Ms. Whitehead accepted any money
    at all from the Sterns, she accepted the terms of the contract.
    In the absence of any legal precedents, I think this means that
    a contract existed.  The judge in the case was affirming the already
    existing contract and telling Ms. Whitehead to comply.
    
    I don't like the idea of surrogates because of all the sticky
    complications that can arise (and have).  
     

    I feel bad for Ms. Whitehead because of the heartache she must be
    going through but I think the judge was correct in his decision.
    
    Many of the news articles stated she was not given enough of a chance
    to change her mind.  Horseballs....
    
    She was a mature woman (not a 17 year old child).
    
    She already had children, therefore knew how hard it would have
    been to give up a baby.
    
    Some have stated she had made a hasty decision.  Come one, if she was
    such a zipperbrain about jumping into something as major as being a
    surrogate mother, would you want her raising Baby M.

    Others have stated a surrogate mother should be allowed to make up her
    mind after the baby is born.  If I recall correctly, it takes two
    to make a baby.  What about the father's feelings.  Must he wait
    9 months just to find out the "woman" decided "to hell with you,
    buddy, I'm keeping the baby".  No way, it is as much his as hers.
    It's just the contract she signed takes away her right to the child.
    
    I have often wondered how much of a battle (by either parent) would
    have erupted had there been anything phycially wrong with the child.
    It's so easy to want something when it is perfect, so easy to forget
    something less.  I hope that the Stern's would have taken (and loved)
    the baby regardless.
        
    Why are the Stern's being looked upon as "Well to Do YUPPIES". Why are
    they being criticized for making something of themselves. I am far from
    being "well to do" but if they both have worked hard to get ahead who
    are we to look down on them because of their professions.  And that
    goes for any of us who have worked hard to get ahead.  There will
    always be people more well off than us as well as poorer than us.  Money
    has nothing to do with how good of a parent someone is going to be.
    Sure, maybe if the roles were reversed and the Whitehead's had lots of
    money, the professions of those involved wouldn't even be an issue. 
    
    I think the most important thing in this case is the welfare of
    the Baby.  I hope that the Stern's raise Melissa with alot of love
    and affection and she grows up to be a wholesome human being.
    
    As far as Mary Beth Whitehead, I hope within time her pain will
    lessen.  I also hope this will make more people really "THINK" before
    making a hasty decision when it involves a human life.

    This reply isn't new.
    It seems inappropriate for the judge to confuse the custody issue
    - i.e. what's best for baby - with the contract issue.
    
    It seems reasonable to maintain that this baby will be better off
    in one family rather than in the other or in both.
    
    It seems irresponsible to confirm this nature of contract.
    
    Beryl

	Re: .62

   > I think that if a woman wants to be one she should be, but it should
   > be *voluntary* the whole way down the line.  I think that the
   > *Sternses* should have been the ones in the position of having to
   > "think twice" about what this would mean.  

   Would you have defended the Sterns this much if they had changed
   their minds and refused to accept the baby or pay the money ?
   If it can be *voluntary* for the mother then it would have to be 
   *voluntary* for the receiving parents. That would cause large
   problems. 

   
   Also how do you know that maybe she had no intention of giving
   up the baby in the first place.  
   

dave
  

    re -1:
    
    Yes, I don't believe this should be enforceable for either party.
    
    	-Ellen

    
   Re: .62
    
    Ms. Gugel... I am more than ecstatic to be a man.  What's more,
    attacking the man instead of the issue is a classic flaw of logic
    which exposes, to a greater degree, your lack of substantiation
    for your point of view.
    
                                    Bubba
    

    re -1:
    
    I forgot to include the smilely face on .62, Bubba.
    
    :-)
    
    	-Ellen

    
    Well, apparently Ms. Whitehead is proceeding with the appeal.  The
    "speedy" court date is sometime in September.  She has also asked
    for visitation during the interim.  We wait and watch.
    
                               Bubba
    

    
         Yesterday, Ms. Whitehead was granted visitation rights in the
    amount of 2 hours per week.
    
    

         I note that twice during the course of this conference the
    issue of a physical or mental disability has been brought up and
    effectively ignored by this community. How come? Its certainly a
    valid issue.
    
         It is one of the reasons I believe that Surrogacy must either
    be legislated and controlled or the contracts must be deemed illegal
    because they violate the principle of public good and morality.
    (In Canada, where I was educated, this principle has been effectively
    used to prohibit the distribution of hate literature. I don't know
    if there is a similar one in the US).
    
         Imagine what might happen if a child were born with cerebral
    palsy. Would the father be forced to take the child? Might they
    try suing the surrogate mother for negligency during the pregnancy?
    How about if she were a recreational drug user? (This is not as
    outlandish as it might sound; there is a similar case in California
    where a mother is being tried in the criminal courts for being
    negligent during her pregnancy. The prosecution contends that her
    drug abuse wwas the reason for the baby's subsequent death.) 
    
         As to the case of the Sterns and the Whiteheads. Based upon
    my reading of the case, the combined income of the Sterns exceeds
    that of the Whiteheads by only $10000. Of course the Whiteheads   
    have children and so the additional burden of fiscal expenditure
    places them at a disadvantage.
    
         My heart goes out to Marybeth Whitehead. As a mother I can't
    bear the thought of losing my child and can certainly understand
    the use of threats as potentially a weapon against what she must
    have veiwed as a no win situation.  However, I believe that in the
    best interests of the child, the court ruled correctly. No one should
    be awarded custody on the basis of being financially sound, but
    the Sterns displayed an air of dignity, control and level-headedness.
    I am sure that Marybeth Whitehead's use of the media was a mitigating
    factor against her. (The court referred to her as manipulating).
    
         I am interested in hearing(reading) the discussion on the above
    issues.
    
    Carol (Lauren's mom)
    
    

    RE: "defective merchandise"
    
    (Apologies for the offensive terminology, but if surrogacy does
    become a matter for contract law then it seems there would be a
    tendency to judge the outcome - the baby - as a "deliverable", if
    you'll pardon the expression.)
    
    There was a case a year or two ago in which a child was born with
    a birth defect and the (non-birth) parents refused to accept it.
    Does anyone know what the result of that was? Seems to me it should
    have gained at least the level of attention that the Stern/Whitehead
    case has; or did those people simply not have the money to go to
    court?

    As it happens, I believe that the risk of problems caused by an
    irresponsible surrogate would keep me from ever using a stranger
    as a surrogate mother for a child of mine. The only cases I've read
    of that felt right to me (subjective view, obviously) were those
    where one relative offered to bear the child for another. A sister
    for a sister, grandmother for a granddaughter, and so on. In that
    case all parties have the highest interest in a successful outcome,
    the non-birth parents know ahead of time what sort of life the
    surrogate tends to lead, and the surrogate knows that she will be
    able to participate in the child's upbringing, as aunt if not as
    mother.
    
    This doesn't spare anyone's feelings if the child is born disabled,
    of course, but perhaps the family would be more inclined to help
    each other than to try to place the blame. I'd hope so, anyway.
    
    -b

    Re: .74
    
         I think the topic of "What if Baby M was born disabled" was
    ignored, because it didn't happen.  Any discussion would be pure
    speculation, and as such, could lead nowhere.  Our discussions were
    abstract enough (on certain points) without proceeding into the
    outer limits.
    
                                    Bubba
    

    This is not a story of a surrogate child but of a adoptive child...
    
    Our 12 year old son is legally blind, mildly retarded and
    developmentally delayed. He was placed for adoption at birth
    and after a few months the adoptive parents surrendered him
    back to the agency when they discovered his handicaps. (To give
    them full credit here, the doctor that they took him too had
    diagnosed him as completely blind and completely deaf.) 
    
    I also know that some married couples who give birth to a handicapped
    child will surrender the child for adoption (in the old days such
    kids were often institutionalized.) 
    
    So to talk about "what ifs" in a surrogacy case as if it were something
    special with regard to a handicapped child isn't quite fair.
    
    The important thing is that there are lots of people who are willing
    to take a chance with adopting a handicapped child. It doesn't take
    saints tho it certainly does take patience and a willingness to
    be the child's advocate with the school department. :-)
    
    Bonnie

    Perhaps the real issue is whether or not surrogate mothering
    is a realistic concept after all.
    
    However, while it exists, the right of the mother has to be
    second to the welfare of the child.  I too, am a mother quite
    in love with my daughter and could not imagine being forced
    to seperate from her.  But if she had spent her first and only
    year (or more) of her life with someone else who gave her love
    and a good home, I can't believe I would want her uprooted and
    subjected to the trauma of seperation from the only family she'd
    known.  
    
    I strongly believe that the rights of the child are far more
    important here than the rights of a mother who changed her 
    mind "too late."
    
    However, I must add that this case has caused me to doubt the
    justification of surrogate parenting as a realistic procedure.
    
    
    Jacki