Make Gestational Carrier Agreements Enforceable
Despite the potential for complications, we favor its adoption. The act provides clear guidance to the public and limits the risk that needy women might be exploited for their reproductive capacity.
March 19, 2018 at 11:24 AM
3 minute read
The New Jersey Legislature is advancing a statute that would enable individuals to enter into enforceable agreements for surrogate parenthood via gestational carriers. The New Jersey Gestational Carrier Agreement Act (S-482, A-1704) awaits only final legislative approval and the signature of Gov. Phil Murphy to become law.
In gestational surrogacy, a woman agrees to be implanted with a fertilized egg that is not hers, and to carry the fetus to term. The fetus is conceived in vitro, using egg and sperm from donors who are unrelated to the woman. The act requires such agreements to be in writing; additionally, the carrier must be over age 21 and have already borne at least one child of her own; her spouse or partner must consent in writing, and the intended parents must provide financial and medical support to the woman throughout her pregnancy and delivery. All parties must also undergo psychological evaluation and be represented by independent counsel. The woman carrying the fetus must surrender custody of the baby to the intended parents immediately upon birth. The act specifies that during the pregnancy, the intended parents must initiate a proceeding for an order of parentage. After the birth, the state will issue a birth certificate listing only the intended parents as the legal parents. Records relating to the agreement will remain confidential, but the child may petition for access when he or she turns 18.
Gestational surrogacy is not a common form of assisted reproduction. According to the Centers for Disease Control, gestational surrogacy represents only 2 percent of all assisted-reproduction arrangements. More common is traditional surrogacy, in which the pregnant woman is the biological mother of the child. The complications inhering in traditional surrogacy are well known from In the Matter of Baby M, 109 N.J. 396 (1988). In that case, the surrogate mother, who had initially agreed to surrender custody to the biological father and his wife, changed her mind after the child's birth. In the ensuing litigation, the Supreme Court held that the agreement between the father and the surrogate mother was unenforceable as against public policy, inasmuch as New Jersey law favors the biological parents having custody of their children. The Baby M case is still good law, and traditional surrogacy agreements are unenforceable in New Jersey.
In contrast, gestational surrogacy arrangements do not present the problem of traditional surrogacy, as there is no genetic connection between the woman and the fetus she carries. Such arrangements are not, however, without emotional or medical risk. A woman going through pregnancy experiences a variety of emotions and physiological changes, the effects of which may pose complications for both her and the intended parents. For example, if the fetus is diagnosed with a deformity or a handicap, the intended parents may pressure the woman to abort the pregnancy; she, in turn, may oppose. In addition, gestational surrogacy makes it possible for someone desiring a child to select egg and sperm donors with particular traits; in other words, the creation of “designer babies.” These and other issues may arise once the act becomes law.
Despite the potential for complications, we favor its adoption. The act provides clear guidance to the public and limits the risk that needy women might be exploited for their reproductive capacity. We commend the Legislature for formulating a legal framework for this cutting-edge reproductive technology.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllNJ Justices Provide A Sensible Decision on the Individuals With Disabilities Education Act
4 minute readControversial Ethics Proceedings Against Mercer Judge Was Overreach. Stopping It Was the Right Thing to Do
3 minute readWe Applaud NJ Supreme Court's Balanced Rules for Reinstatement of Disbarred Attorneys
4 minute readAppellate Division Rulings Remind Us That, Despite Arbitration's Informal Nature, There Are Rules
7 minute readTrending Stories
- 1High-flying Genetics Testing Firm GeneDx Hires Ex-Zoetis GC as Legal Chief
- 2Manhattan Prosecutors Say They Will Oppose Efforts by Trump Legal Team to Dismiss Case
- 3Deposing Former Mayor Bill de Blasio; Misrepresentations To Induce Investment: This Week in Scott Mollen’s Realty Law Digest
- 4Which Outside Law Firms Are Irreplaceable, and Which Should Have Gotten the Ax Years Ago?
- 5Two Tesla Shareholder Cases in Del. Chancery Court Consolidated
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250