reproductive technologies and the lawthe world of assisted reproductive technologies is a relative...

REPRODUCTIVE TECHNOLOGIES

AND THE LAW

Copyright © 2013 Carolina Academic Press, LLC. All rights reserved.

LexisNexis Law School PublishingAdvisory Board

Paul Caron

Charles Hartsock Professor of Law

University of Cincinnati College of Law

Olympia Duhart

Professor of Law and Director of Lawyering Skills & Values Program

Nova Southeastern University Shepard Broad Law School

Samuel Estreicher

Dwight D. Opperman Professor of Law

Director, Center for Labor and Employment Law

NYU School of Law

Steve Friedland

Professor of Law

Elon University School of Law

Joan Heminway

College of Law Distinguished Professor of Law

University of Tennessee College of Law

Edward Imwinkelried

Edward L. Barrett, Jr. Professor of Law

UC Davis School of Law

Paul Marcus

Haynes Professor of Law

William and Mary Law School

John Sprankling

Distinguished Professor of Law

McGeorge School of Law

Melissa Weresh

Director of Legal Writing and Professor of Law

Drake University Law School


REPRODUCTIVE

TECHNOLOGIES AND THE

LAW

Second Edition

Judith DaarAssociate Dean for Academic Affairs and Professor of Law

Whittier Law School

Clinical Professor of Medicine

University of California Irvine School of Medicine


ISBN: 978-0-7698-4603-3

Looseleaf ISBN: 978-0-7698-4604-0

E-Book ISBN: 978–0–3271–7935–1

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Daar, Judith.

Reproductive technologies and the law / Judith Daar. -- 2nd ed.

p. cm.

Includes index.

ISBN: 978-0-7698-4603-3

1. Human reproductive technology--Law and legislation--United States. 2. Human reproductive technology--

Law and legislation. I. Title.

KF3830.D33 2012

346.7301’7--dc23

2012035848

This publication is designed to provide authoritative information in regard to the subject matter covered. It is soldwith the understanding that the publisher is not engaged in rendering legal, accounting, or other professionalservices. If legal advice or other expert assistance is required, the services of a competent professional shouldbe sought.

LexisNexis and the Knowledge Burst logo are registered trademarks of Reed Elsevier Properties Inc., used underlicense. Moore’s Federal Practice is a registered trademark of Matthew Bender & Company, Inc. MatthewBender and the Matthew Bender Flame Design are registered trademarks of Matthew Bender Properties Inc.

Copyright © 2013 Matthew Bender & Company, Inc., a member of LexisNexis. All Rights Reserved.

No copyright is claimed by LexisNexis or Matthew Bender & Company, Inc., in the text of statutes, regulations,and excerpts from court opinions quoted within this work. Permission to copy material may be licensed for a feefrom the Copyright Clearance Center, 222 Rosewood Drive, Danvers, Mass. 01923, telephone (978) 750-8400.

NOTE TO USERS

To ensure that you are using the latest materials available in this area, please be

sure to periodically check the LexisNexis Law School web site for downloadable

updates and supplements at www.lexisnexis.com/lawschool.

Editorial Offices

121 Chanlon Rd., New Providence, NJ 07974 (908) 464-6800

201 Mission St., San Francisco, CA 94105-1831 (415) 908-3200

www.lexisnexis.com

(2012–Pub.3197)


Dedication

For Eric and our beloved sons,

Evan, Jared, Adam and Ryan

iii


Preface to the Second Edition

Tracking a field that is in constant motion poses unique challenges and opportunities.

In the six years since the first edition of this book appeared, the field of assisted

reproductive technologies (ART) has, at the same time, advanced, matured, stabilized and

stalled. Each of these trajectories is explored alongside the particular area to which they

attach. This new edition invites readers to plumb the origins of the world of assisted

conception and then trace its development to the present day. Now that the world has

welcomed more than 5 million children born via ART, and nearly 3 out of every 100

babies born in the United States are the product of assisted conception, the impact and

import of the field cannot be overstated.

While the book contains an array of new cases, statutes, policies and commentaries, the

fundamentals remain largely unchanged. ART continues to develop as an

interdisciplinary field in which physicians and scientists work to create and improve

techniques for family formation, and more recently medical therapy, while lawyers and

lawmakers strive to understand and organize society’s response to each new

development. As more ART laws pepper the legal landscape, and demand for the

technologies grow, so too will the need for informed practitioners who can represent the

interests and needs of each stakeholder in the complicated equation. This book is

designed to pique interest in ART as an academic discipline, as well as a robust and

satisfying practice option.

This new edition is the work product of many generous students, colleagues, assistants

and readers who have contributed their insights and efforts to help produce a book that is

worthy of today’s ART enthusiast. First, I want to thank the countless students who have

pondered the book’s material and reached out to share their thoughts and comments,

many of which are incorporated throughout the pages that follow. Next, enormous credit

and gratitude go to my tireless research assistants who have exhibited nothing but good

cheer is responding to myriad requests over several years. My sincere thanks to Gerrick

Warrington, Megan Emmer, Michael Ruttle and Nelly Ispiryan, all RAs extraordinaire.

Finally, our institution is enormously benefitted by the services of an outstanding staff,

including two members who worked with me throughout the writing process. Special

thanks to Jennifer Maniscalco for her consistently superb administrative assistance and

Rosalie Robles for her keen editing eye. Above all, any modicum of success this book or

its author enjoys is made possible by the loving support of my husband Eric and our four

sons. You are the light in my life.

Judith Daar

May 2012

v


Preface

The world of assisted reproductive technologies is a relative newcomer to the law

school curriculum, making its perceptible entrance only within the past two decades or

so. Yet the discipline mixing law and assisted conception seems to have established firm

roots, sustained by a nearly daily dose of activity somewhere around the globe. The study

of reproductive technologies has branched out from its founding in the late 1970s with

the introduction of in vitro fertilization, to a field that includes such emerging topics as

posthumous reproduction, embryonic stem cell research and human cloning. These topics

often take center stage in our political and social world, making them ideal for dissection

in the law school classroom.

This casebook is designed to introduce our students to the essentials in science,

medicine, law and ethics that underpin and shape each of the topics that combine to form

the law of reproductive technologies. As each new technology is introduced, an effort is

made to fully inform the reader about the clinical application of the technique — that is,

how the procedure is used to treat patients facing infertility or produce advances in

medical research. Once comfortable with the science, students can then contemplate the

legal parameters that do or should accompany the technology. Since so much of the law

in this area is either nascent or wholly unformed, students are free, and indeed

encouraged, to design legal systems that meet the needs of patients, parents, children and

society at large — participants all in the world of assisted reproduction.

A cautionary note about the intensity of feelings that often attaches to discussions

about the essential core of this book. At the heart of reproductive technologies beats the

debate over the moral status of the early human embryo, and no book could do justice to

the topic without fully exposing the depth and complexity of that debate. Early on, and

continuing throughout the book, students are asked to contemplate, and even reveal, their

views on the status of early human life so as to shape the various lenses through which

the class will see the panoply of issues that implicate embryonic development. In my

experience, this classroom discussion has been among the richest, often displaying a wide

range of views yet always breeding respect for difference and the rights of expression that

follow.

Writing this book has been nothing short of glorious. The mysterious world of a law

professor is filled with many joys, from watching students blossom in the classroom to

advancing one’s own fund of knowledge through dialogue with gifted colleagues. For my

already ideal academic world, the experience of preparing this casebook added an

exquisite dimension that served to buoy my enthusiasm for this subject and for the art of

writing in general. Though writing is a solitary sport, its very existence rests in the good

graces of the many who patiently support the writer in her pursuit of the perfect turn of

phrase. For me, those supporters were many and my gratitude is deep.

I want to first thank my dear friend Stacy Herman who assured me that she did indeed

want to read the entire manuscript as each page slowly emerged from the printer. In her

precious spare time, she diligently read every word, editing and making suggestions that

undoubtedly added to the overall quality of the work. In life, such friends are rare and to

be zealously cherished. Equal thanks are due Rosalie Robles, my law school assistant,

who aided throughout the writing process, showing particular strength in helping secure

vii


permission to include works from the many folks whose writing I have relied upon to

present a comprehensive view of the field.

Finally, and most importantly, I am profoundly grateful to my husband Eric, whose

unconditional love and abiding support has been the pillar of my existence for nearly a

quarter century. Together we have been blessed with the privilege of reproduction four

times over, and with the birth of each son I gained a further appreciation for the quest of

parenthood that, when elusive, can shake one to the core. I hope this book helps and

inspires our students to probe deeply into that quest, whether for academic or personal

satisfaction.

Judith Daar

May 2005

Preface

viii


Table of Contents

Preface

Acknowledgments

Chapter 1 HUMAN REPRODUCTION: NATURAL AND ASSISTED

METHODS OF CONCEPTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

SECTION I: THE WONDERS OF HUMAN REPRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

A. Natural Conception . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

Lawrence J. Kaplan & Carolyn M. Kaplan, Natural Reproduction and

Reproduction-Aiding Technologies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

Notes and Questions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

B. Infertility: When Natural Conception Does Not Occur . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

1. Defining the Causes of Infertility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

The New York State Task Force on Life and the Law, Assisted

Reproductive Technologies: Analysis and Recommendations for Public

Policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

2. Defining the Incidence of Infertility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

Notes and Questions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

SECTION II: JUDICIAL PERSPECTIVES ON THE MODERN ROLE OF

REPRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

A. An Introductory Case . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

Bragdon v. Abbott . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

Notes and Questions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

SECTION III: ASSISTED CONCEPTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

A. A Brief History of ART . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

1. The Earliest Years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

2. Human Artificial Insemination . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

Gursky v. Gursky . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29


B. Conception in the Laboratory — In Vitro Fertilization . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

1. Investigating the Possibility of Conception Outside the Body . . . . . . . 35

2. Advances in IVF and the Future of ART . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36

3. A Glossary of ART Terms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38

C. Successes and Failures in ART Medicine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40

1. Is ART Effective? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40


2. Is ART Safe for Children and Adults? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45

a. Safety to Children . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45

ix


Manon Ceelen, Mirjam M. Van Weissenbruch, Jan P.W. Vermeiden,

Flora E. Van Leeuwen, and Henriette A.

Delemarre-van de Wall, Growth and Development of Children Born

After In Vitro Fertilization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45

George Kovalevsky, Paolo Rinaudo, and Christos Coutifaris, Do

Assisted Reproductive Technologies Cause Adverse Fetal Outcomes?. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48

Notes and Questions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49

b. Safety to Adults . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53

Edward G. Hughes and Mita Giacomini, Funding In Vitro

Fertilization Treatment for Persistent Subfertility: The Pain and the

Politics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53


SECTION IV: WHAT IS THE NATURE AND STATUS OF THE HUMAN

EMBRYO? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56

A. The Biological Status of the Human Embryo . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56

Howard W. Jones, Jr. and Lucinda Veeck, What Is An Embryo? . . . . 56


B. The Legal Status of the Human Embryo . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60

1. An Introductory Case . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60

Davis v. Davis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60


2. Legal Responses to the Status of the Human Embryo . . . . . . . . . . . . 70

Timothy Stoltzfus Jost, Rights of Embryo and Foetus in Private Law

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70


C. The Moral Status of the Human Embryo . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74


Chapter 2 PROCREATIONAL LIBERTY: CONSTITUTIONAL

JURISPRUDENCE AND THE RIGHT TO

REPRODUCE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81

SECTION I: TRADITIONAL REPRODUCTION AND THE CONSTITUTION . . 81

A. Establishing Reproduction as a Fundamental Right . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81

1. The Early Cases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81

Meyer v. Nebraska . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81


Skinner v. Oklahoma . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87


2. State Support for Mandatory Sterilization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92

Buck v. Bell . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92


TABLE OF CONTENTS

x


Paul A. Lombardo, Facing Carrie Buck . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95

B. The Right to Avoid Procreation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100

1. Emerging Advances in Human Contraception . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100

Griswold v. Connecticut . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100


Eisenstadt v. Baird . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106


2. Abortion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111

a. The Seminal Case . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112

Roe v. Wade . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112

Notes and Questions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119

b. The Roe Progeny . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 120

Webster v. Reproductive Health Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 120

Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey . . 123


c. The Latest Word on Abortion, For Now . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 130

SECTION II: ASSISTED REPRODUCTION AS A FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT . . 130

A. Arguments for Recognizing ART as a Fundamental Right . . . . . . . . . 130

John A. Robertson, Children of Choice: Freedom and the New

Reproductive Technologies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 131

B. Arguments Against Recognizing ART as a Fundamental Right . . . . . . 138

Radhika Rao, Constitutional Misconceptions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 138

Ann MacLean Massie, Regulating Choice: A Constitutional Law

Response to Professor John A. Robertson’s Children of Choice . . . 143

Notes and Questions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 148

C. Judicial Perspectives on ART as a Fundamental Right . . . . . . . . . . . . 150

1. Equating ART and Natural Conception . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 151

Lifchez v. Hartigan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 151

Kass v. Kass . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 154


2. Distinguishing ART from Natural Conception . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 158

Davis v. Davis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 158


Gerber v. Hickman . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 165


Chapter 3 THE BUSINESS OF ART: SELLING, DONATING AND

INSURING ASSISTED REPRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . 173

SECTION I: UNDERSTANDING THE MARKET FOR REPRODUCTIVE

TECHNOLOGIES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 173

A. Fertility Clinics as Providers of ART Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 173

TABLE OF CONTENTS

xi


1. A Patient’s Perspective . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 173


2. The Physician’s Perspective . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 179

Ethics Committee of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine,

Shared-Risk or Refund Programs in Assisted Reproduction . . . . 179

B. Profiles of ART Clients . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 182

Dorothy E. Roberts, Race and the New Reproduction . . . . . . . . . . . 182

SECTION II: SPERM AND EGG “DONORS” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 188

A. Sperm Donations: Assessing Risks and Benefits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 188

1. Donor Disclosure: A Child’s Perspective . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 191

Notes and Problems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 194

2. The Pitfalls of Sperm Donation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 196

Johnson v. Superior Court . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 196


B. Egg Donations: Assessing Risks and Benefits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 205

1. The Business of Egg Donation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 207

Martha Frase-Blunt, Ova-Compensating?; Women Who Donate Eggs

To Infertile Couples Earn a Reward — But Pay a Price . . . . . . . 207

Judith Daar, Physical Beauty Is Only Egg Deep . . . . . . . . . . . . . 211


2. The Ethics of Egg Donation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 215


Financial Compensation of Oocyte Donors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 215


3. Informed Consent and Egg Donation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 223

a. Informing Egg Donors of Risks and Benefits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 223

Gregory Stock, Eggs for Sale: How Much Is Too Much? . . . . . 223

Judith Daar, Regulating the Fiction of Informed Consent in ART

Medicine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 225


b. Informing Donors About Gamete Placement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 228

Litowitz v. Litowitz . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 229


SECTION III: THE BENEFITS AND BURDENS OF AN ART MARKET . . . . . . 233

A. Should We Ban a Market for the Sale of Gametes? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 233

1. Arguments for Market Inalienability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 233

Mary Lyndon Shanley, Collaboration and Commodification in Assisted

Procreation: Reflections on an Open Market and Anonymous Donation

in Human Sperm and Eggs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 234


2. Arguments In Support of a Gamete Market . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 239

TABLE OF CONTENTS

xii


Richard A. Posner, The Ethics and Economics of Enforcing Contracts

of Surrogate Motherhood . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 239

B. Should the ART Market Be Open to All Willing Buyers and Sellers? . . 243

1. Exclusions Based On Age . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 243

Judith Daar, Death of Aging Mother Raises More Questions About IVF

Rules . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 243


Oocyte Donation to Postmenopausal Women . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 245


2. Exclusions Based on Health Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 247

Ethics Committee of the American Society for

Reproductive Medicine, Human Immunodeficiency Virus and Infertility

Treatment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 248

Notes and Problems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 252

3. Exclusions Based on Marital Status and Sexual Orientation . . . . . . . 256

North Coast Women’s Care Medical Group, Inc. v. San Diego County

Superior Court . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 256


SECTION IV: INSURING ART SERVICES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 262

A. The Market Landscape . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 262

1. The Status of Infertility Insurance Coverage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 262

a. Statutory Law . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 262

b. Case Law . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 266

Lisa M. Kerr, Can Money Buy Happiness? An Examination of the

Coverage of Infertility Services Under HMO Contracts . . . . . . 267


Saks v. Franklin Covey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 271


2. The Politics of ART Insurance Coverage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 280

Edward G. Hughes & Mita Giacomini, Funding In Vitro Fertilization

Treatment for Persistent Subfertility: The Pain and the Politics . . 280

Questions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 281

B. ART Insurance Coverage and the Effect on Clinical Outcomes . . . . . . 282

Problem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 283

Chapter 4 CHOOSING OUR CHILDREN’S TRAITS: GENDER AND

GENETIC SELECTION IN ART . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 285

SECTION I: THE CURRENT STATE OF TECHNOLOGY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 288

A. Choosing a Child’s Gender . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 289

1. Preconception Gender Selection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 292


TABLE OF CONTENTS

xiii


Preconception Gender Selection for Nonmedical Reasons . . . . . 292


2. Postconception Gender Selection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 299

The Ethics Committee of the American Society for Reproductive

Medicine, Sex Selection and Preimplantation Genetic Diagnosis . 299


John A. Robertson, Extending Preimplantation Genetic Diagnosis:

Medical and Non-medical Uses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 308

The President’s Council on Bioethics, Beyond Therapy: Biotechnology

and the Pursuit of Happiness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 310


B. Choosing a Child’s Genetic Make-Up . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 313

1. Using Preimplantation Genetic Diagnosis to Cure Illness . . . . . . . . . 314


Susan M. Wolf, Jeffrey P. Kahn, John E. Wagner, Using

Preimplantation Genetic Diagnosis to Create a Stem Cell Donor:

Issues, Guidelines & Limits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 316

R (on The Application of Quintavalle) v. Human Fertilisation and

Embryology Authority . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 323


Problem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 333

2. Using Preimplantation Genetic Diagnosis to Avoid Illness . . . . . . . . 334

a. PGD and the Meaning of Disability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 334


b. PGD and Adult-Onset Diseases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 339


3. Using Preimplantation Genetic Diagnosis to Achieve Pregnancy . . . 341

SECTION II: THE CURRENT STATE OF THE LAW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 343

Genetics & Public Policy Center, Preimplantation Genetic Diagnosis: A

Discussion of Challenges, Concerns, and Preliminary Options Related to

the Genetic Testing of Human Embryos . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 343


SECTION III: ETHICAL AND LEGAL DEBATE SURROUNDING GENDER

SELECTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 352

A. Constitutional Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 353

Carl H. Coleman, Is There a Constitutional Right to Preconception Sex

Selection? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 353


B. Ethical Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 356

Rebecca Dresser, Cosmetic Reproductive Services and Professional

Integrity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 356


TABLE OF CONTENTS

xiv


SECTION IV: ETHICAL AND LEGAL DEBATE SURROUNDING GENETIC

SELECTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 358

A. Ethical Dilemmas Surrounding Genetic Selection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 358

Maxwell J. Mehlman, The Law of Above Averages: Leveling the New

Genetic Enhancement Playing Field . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 359


B. Legal Dilemmas Surrounding Genetic Selection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 366

Paretta v. Medical Offıces for Human Reproduction . . . . . . . . . . . 366


Problem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 370

Chapter 5 FAMILY LAW ISSUES IN ART: QUESTIONS OF

PARENTAGE AND PARENTAL RIGHTS . . . . . . . . . . . 371

SECTION I: EARLY DILEMMAS IN FAMILY LAW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 371

A. Determining Paternity in AID Families . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 371

Strnad v. Strnad . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 371


People v. Sorensen . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 373


B. Early Changes in the Law . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 377

Jhordan C. v. Mary K. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 379


C. The Problem of Known Donors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 384

Ferguson v. McKiernan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 384


SECTION II: BUILDING FAMILIES THROUGH SURROGATE PARENTING

AGREEMENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 394

A. An Introductory Case . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 394

In the Matter of Baby M . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 394


B. Distinguishing “Traditional” and “Gestational” Surrogacy . . . . . . . . . 408

1. Traditional Surrogacy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 409

R.R. v. M.H. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 409


2. Gestational Surrogacy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 415

Johnson v. Calvert . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 415


A.H.W. v. G.H.B. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 427


3. Profiles in Surrogate Parenting Arrangements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 431

a. Profile of a Traditional Surrogate Mother . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 432

TABLE OF CONTENTS

xv


b. Profile of a Gestational Surrogate Mother . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 433

c. Profile of an Intended Mother . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 435


C. Statutory Responses to Surrogate Parenting Arrangements . . . . . . . . . 439

1. Laws Regulating Surrogacy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 439

a. Individual State Laws . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 439


b. Uniform Laws on Surrogacy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 447


2. Constitutionality of Surrogacy Laws . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 453

J.R., M.R. and W.K.J. v. Utah . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 453


SECTION III: BUILDING FAMILIES THROUGH THE USE OF DONOR

GAMETES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 462

A. The State of the Art in Donor Gametes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 462

B. The State of the Law in Donor Gametes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 464

1. Judicial Perspectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 464

In re Marriage of Buzzanca . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 464


2. Statutory Perspectives on Donor Gametes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 472

Questions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 474

SECTION IV: BUILDING FAMILIES IN SAME-SEX RELATIONSHIPS . . . . . . 474

A. The Prevalence of Same-Sex Parents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 474

B. Family Law Dilemmas For Same-Sex Parents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 478

1. Determining Paternity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 478

C.O. v. W.S. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 478

Lamaritata v. Lucas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 479


Adoption of Tammy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 483


K.M. v. E.G. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 489


SECTION V: MISHAPS IN THE LABORATORY: THE CHILDREN OF ART

GAMETE MIX-UPS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 498

A. Defining the Problem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 498

B. Judicial Perspectives on Gamete Mix-Ups . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 500

1. The Case of Physician Malfeasance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 500

Prato-Morrison v. Doe . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 500


2. Cases of Physician Negligence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 506

Robert B. v. Susan B. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 506


TABLE OF CONTENTS

xvi


Perry-Rogers v. Fasano . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 510

Leslie Bender, Genes, Parents, and Assisted Reproductive

Technologies: ARTs, Mistakes, Sex, Race, & Law . . . . . . . . . . . . 514


C. Legislative Perspectives on Gamete Mix-Ups . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 517

Chapter 6 LIFE AFTER DEATH: POSTMORTEM

REPRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 521

SECTION I: THE POSSIBILITIES FOR POSTMORTEM REPRODUCTION . . 522

A. Freezing Sperm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 522

1. Sperm Retrieval During Life . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 522

a. Sperm Freezing — Past and Present . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 522

b. Emerging Legal Disputes Over Frozen Sperm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 524

Hall v. Fertility Institute of New Orleans . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 525


Michael H. Shapiro, Illicit Reasons and Means for Reproduction: On

Excessive Choice and Categorical and Technological Imperatives

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 530

2. Sperm Retrieval After Death . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 533

Carson Strong, Ethical and Legal Aspects of Sperm Retrieval After

Death or Persistent Vegetative State . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 535


B. Freezing Eggs: Retrieval During Life and After Death . . . . . . . . . . . . 540

Problem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 542

C. Freezing Embryos . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 542

SECTION II: LEGAL DILEMMAS IN POSTMORTEM REPRODUCTION . . . . 545

A. Family Law Questions: Who Is A Parent? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 545

In re Estate of Kolacy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 546


B. Probate Law: Awarding Inheritance Rights and Death Benefits . . . . . . 551

Woodward v. Commissioner of Social Security . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 551


SECTION III: STATUTORY FRAMEWORKS FOR EVALUATING THE RIGHTS OF

POSTMORTEM CONCEPTION CHILDREN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 560

A. Uniform Laws Governing Postmortem Reproduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . 561

1. The Uniform Parentage Act . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 561


2. The Uniform Probate Code . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 563


B. Emerging Laws Governing the Rights of Posthumous Children . . . . . . 566


TABLE OF CONTENTS

xvii


C. Model Laws and Task Force Reports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 569

1. The ABA Model Act . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 569

Questions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 570

2. The New York State Task Force on Life and the Law . . . . . . . . . . . 570

Questions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 571

Chapter 7 ART AND DIVORCE: DISPUTES OVER FROZEN

EMBRYOS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 573

SECTION I: THE POPULARITY AND FRAILTY OF EMBRYO

CRYOPRESERVATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 574

Frisina v. Woman and Infant Hospital of Rhode Island . . . . . . . . . . . 575

Miller v. American Infertility Group of Illinois, S.C. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 580


SECTION II: THE LEGAL LANDSCAPE SURROUNDING FROZEN EMBRYO

DISPUTES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 585

A. An Introductory Case . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 585

Davis v. Davis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 585


B. The Contract Approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 591

Kass v. Kass . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 591


Litowitz v. Litowitz . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 604


C. The Public Policy Approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 612

A.Z. v. B.Z. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 612

Judith F. Daar, Frozen Embryo Disputes Revisited: A Trilogy of

Procreation-Avoidance Approaches . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 618


J.B. v. M.B. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 625


D. The Question of Parental Rights . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 634

In re O.G.M. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 634


SECTION III: THE PROBLEM OF EXCESS AND ABANDONED EMBRYOS . 638

A. Excess Embryos and Patient Choice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 639

1. Donate the Embryos for Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 639

a. Type of Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 639

b. State Law Prohibitions on Embryo Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 640

2. Discard the Embryos After a Designated Time Frame . . . . . . . . . . . 641

3. Maintain the Embryos in Frozen Storage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 642

4. Donate the Embryos to Another Couple . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 642

TABLE OF CONTENTS

xviii


B. Excess Embryos and Lack of Patient Choice: The Problem of

Abandonment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 645


York v. Jones . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 648


Problem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 652

Chapter 8 REGULATING REPRODUCTIVE TECHNOLOGIES . . 655

SECTION I: THE LEGAL LANDSCAPE FOR ART: AN INTRODUCTION . . . 656

A. The Goals of Regulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 656

Judith F. Daar, Regulating Reproductive Technologies: Panacea or Paper

Tiger? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 656


B. The Current State of Regulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 659

1. Direct Regulation by the Federal Government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 659

2. Indirect Regulation by the Federal Government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 661

3. Direct Regulation by State Governments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 662

4. Indirect Regulation by State Governments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 663

5. Self-Regulation by the Fertility Industry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 665


SECTION II: IS (INCREASED) ART REGULATION NECESSARY? . . . . . . . . 668

A. Protecting ART Patients . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 669

1. Luring Patients: False Advertising and Deceptive Statements . . . . . . 669

Karlin v. IVF America, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 669


2. Lack of Informed Consent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 673

Elements to Be Considered in Obtaining Informed Consent for

ART . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 673

3. Treatment Errors: Negligence, Theft, and Fraud . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 675

4. Protecting Patient Health . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 677

B. Protecting ART Offspring . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 680

Doolan v. IVF America (MA), Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 680


C. Protecting ART Physicians . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 686

1. Enhancing Public Confidence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 686

2. Authorizing Treatment Denials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 687

The Ethics Committee of the American Society for Reproductive

Medicine, Child-Rearing Ability and the Provision of Fertility Services

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 687


SECTION III: PROPOSED REGULATORY SCHEMES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 691

TABLE OF CONTENTS

xix


President’s Council on Bioethics, Reproduction & Responsibility: The

Regulation of New Biotechnologies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 693


Chapter 9 HUMAN EMBRYONIC STEM CELL RESEARCH . . . . 703

SECTION I: THE SCIENCE OF EMBRYONIC STEM CELL RESEARCH . . . . 704

A. Introduction to the Terms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 704

Jennifer L. Enmon, Stem Cell Research: Is the Law Preventing Progress?. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 704


B. Human and Animal Stem Cell Studies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 712

Problem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 716

C. Framing the Debate Over Stem Cell Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 717

The President’s Council on Bioethics, Monitoring Stem Cell Research

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 717

SECTION II: THE LEGAL FRAMEWORK SURROUNDING STEM CELL

RESEARCH . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 718

A. Laws Relating to Aborted Fetuses as Sources of Stem Cells . . . . . . . . 719

1. Federal Law Relating to Aborted Fetuses as Sources of Stem Cells . . 719

National Bioethics Advisory Commission, Ethical Issues in Human

Stem Cell Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 719


2. State Laws Relating to Aborted Fetuses as Sources of Stem Cells . . . 724



Margaret S. v. Edwards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 726


B. Laws Relating to Embryos as Sources of Stem Cells . . . . . . . . . . . . . 731

1. Federal Law Relating to Embryos as Sources of Stem Cells . . . . . . . 731

Kara L. Belew, Stem Cell Division: Abortion Law and Its Influence on

the Adoption of Radically Different Embryonic Stem Cell Legislation in

the United States, the United Kingdom, and Germany . . . . . . . . 731


Doe v. Shalala . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 735

Question . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 741

2. State Laws Relating to Embryos as Sources of Stem Cells . . . . . . . . 741




SECTION III: GOVERNMENT FUNDING OF STEM CELL RESEARCH . . . . . 745

A. Federal Funding of Stem Cell Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 746

TABLE OF CONTENTS

xx


1. The First Presidential Proclamation: August 9, 2001 . . . . . . . . . . . . 746

Remarks by the President on Stem Cell Research . . . . . . . . . . . . 746


2. Defending and Questioning the Bush Administration Policy . . . . . . 751

O. Carter Snead, The Pedagogical Significance of the Bush Stem Cell

Policy: A Window into Bioethical Regulation in the United States

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 751

James F. Childress, An Ethical Defense of Federal Funding for Human

Embryonic Stem Cell Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 756


Problem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 759

3. President Obama and a New Era of Stem Cell Research Policy . . . . 760

The White House, Removing Barriers to Responsible Scientific

Research Involving Human Stem Cells . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 760


Sherley v. Sebelius . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 764

B. State Funding of Stem Cell Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 768

1. California . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 768

2. New Jersey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 770

3. Other State Activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 772

Problem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 773

SECTION IV: INTERNATIONAL AND CROSS-CULTURAL PERSPECTIVES ON

STEM CELL RESEARCH . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 774

A. International Perspectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 774


B. Religious Perspectives on Embryonic Stem Cell Research . . . . . . . . . 786

National Bioethics Advisory Commission Summary of Presentations on

Religious Perspectives Relating to Research Involving Human Stem

Cells, May 7, 1999 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 787


Chapter 10 HUMAN REPRODUCTIVE CLONING . . . . . . . . . . . . . 797

SECTION I: THE SCIENCE OF HUMAN REPRODUCTIVE CLONING . . . . . 797

A. Three Types of Cloning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 798

1. Reproductive Cloning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 798

2. Therapeutic Cloning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 799

3. Embryo Cloning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 800

B. Advances in Animal Cloning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 801

1. Safety and Efficacy Concerns . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 802

2. Purposes of Animal Cloning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 804

C. Inroads Into Human Cloning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 805

TABLE OF CONTENTS

xxi


Judith F. Daar, The Prospect of Human Cloning: Improving Nature or

Dooming the Species? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 807

Lori B. Andrews, Is There a Right to Clone? Constitutional Challenges to

Bans on Human Cloning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 811


Problem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 815

SECTION II: THE POLITICS OF HUMAN CLONING . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 816

A. Initial Reaction from the Federal Government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 816

National Bioethics Advisory Commission, Cloning Human Beings . 816


B. Later Reactions from the Federal Government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 822

The President’s Council on Bioethics, Human Cloning and Human

Dignity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 823


C. Reactions from the States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 826


SECTION III: CONSTITUTIONAL ASPECTS OF HUMAN CLONING . . . . . . . 831

A. Cloning and Procreational Autonomy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 831

Elizabeth Price Foley, Human Cloning and the Right to Reproduce

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 833

George J. Annas, Lori B. Andrews and Rosario M. Isasi, Protecting the

Endangered Human: Toward an International Treaty Prohibiting

Cloning and Inheritable Alterations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 838


B. Cloning and the Right to Scientific Inquiry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 842

John Charles Kunich, The Naked Clone . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 842


GLOSSARY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 849

TABLE OF CASES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . TC-1

INDEX . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-1

TABLE OF CONTENTS

xxii


ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The author acknowledges the permissions kindly granted to reproduce excerpts from, or

illustrations of, the materials indicated below.

Books and Articles

Andrews, Lori B., Is There A Right To Clone? Constitutional Challenges to the Ban on

Human Cloning, 11 Harv. J. Law & Technology 643, 649-57 (1998). Copyright ©

1998 by the President & Fellows of Harvard College and Lori B. Andrews.

Reprinted by permission of the author.

, George J. Annas & Rosario M. Isasi, Protecting the Endangered Human:

Toward an International Treaty Prohibiting Cloning and Inheritable Alterations,

28 Am. J. L & Med 151, 157-162 (2002). Copyright © 2005 by The American

Society of Law, Medicine & Ethics. Reprinted by permission of the authors and

the American Journal of Law & Medicine.

Belew, Kara L., Stem Cell Division: Abortion Law and its Influence on the Adoption of

Radically Different Embryonic Stem Cell Legislation in the United States, the

United Kingdom, and Germany, 39 Texas Int’l Law Journal 479, 499-506 (2004).

Copyright © 2004 by the Texas International Law Journal. Reprinted by

permission of the author and the Texas International Law Journal.

Bender, Leslie, Genes, Parents, and Assisted Reproductive Technologies: ARTs,

Mistakes, Sex, Race & Law, 12 Colum. J. Gender & L. 1, 33-36 (2003). Copyright

© 2003 by Leslie Bender. Reprinted by permission of the author.

California Cryobank Donor Essays. Copyright © 2012 by the California Cryobank, Inc.

Reprinted by permission of the California Cryobank, Inc.

Ceelen, Manon, Mirjam M. Van Weissenbruch, Jan P.W. Vermeiden, Flora E. Van

Ieeuwen & Henriette A. Delemarre-Vande Wall, Growth and Development of

Children Born After In Vitro Fertilization, 90 Fertility & Sterility 1662 (2008).

Copyright © 2008 by the American Society for Reproductive Medicine. Reprinted

by permission of Elsevier, Inc.

Childress, James F., An Ethical Defense of Federal Funding for Human Embryonic

Stem Cell Research, 2 Yale J. Health Policy, Law & Ethics 157 (2001). Copyright

© 2001 by the Yale Journal of Health Policy, Law & Ethics. Reprinted by

permission of the author.

Coleman, Carl H., Is There A Constitutional Right To Preconception Sex Selection?, 1

Am. J. Bioethics 27 (2001). Copyright © 2001 American Journal of Bioethics.

Reprinted by permission of the author and Taylor & Francis, Inc.,

http://www.taylorandfrancis.com.

Daar, Judith, Regulating Reproductive Technologies: Panacea or Paper Tiger? 34

Hous. L. Rev. 609, 646-9 (1997). Copyright © 1997 by Judith F. Daar.

, Physical Beauty Is Only Skin Deep, Los Angeles Times, October 28, 1999

at B11. Copyright © 1999 by Judith F. Daar.

, Regulating The Fiction of Informed Consent in ART Medicine, 1 Am. J.

Bioethics 19 (2001). Copyright © 2001 Taylor & Francis Inc. Reprinted by

permission of the author and Taylor & Francis, Inc.,


xxiii


, Embryo Disputes Revisited: A Trilogy of Procreation-Avoidance Ap-

proaches, 29 J Law Med & Ethics 197, 198-199 (2001). Copyright © 2001 by the

Journal of Law Medicine & Ethics. Reprinted by permission of the author and the

Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics.

,The Prospect of Human Cloning: Improving Nature or Dooming the

Species? 33 Seton Hall L. Rev. 511, 527-535 (2003). Copyright © 2003 by Judith

F. Daar. Reprinted by permission of the author and the Seton Hall Law Review.

, Death of Aging Mother Raises More Questions About IVF Rules, Los

Angeles Daily Journal, July 29, 2009. Copyright © 2009 by Judith F. Daar.

Dresser, Rebecca, Cosmetic Reproductive Services and Professional Integrity, 1 Am. J.

Bioethics 11 (2001). Copyright ©2001 by the American Journal of Bioethics.

Reprinted by permission of the author and Taylor & Francis, Inc.,


Enmon, Jennifer L., Stem Cell Research: Is The Law Preventing Progress? Utah Law

Review 621, 622-628 (2002). Copyright © 2002 by the Utah Law Review.

Reprinted by permission of the author and the Utah Law Review.

Ethics Committee of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine, Shared-Risk or

Refund Programs in Assisted Reproduction, Vol. 70, no. 3 Fertility & Sterility

414-415 (1998). Copyright © 1998 by the American Society for Reproductive

Medicine. Reprinted by permission of Elsevier, Inc.

, Sex Selection and Preimplantation Genetic Diagnosis, Vol. 72, no. 4

Fertility & Sterility 595-598 (1999). Copyright © 1999 by the American Society

for Reproductive Medicine. Reprinted by permission of Elsevier, Inc.

, Preconception Gender Selection for Nonmedical Reasons, Vol. 75, no. 5



, Oocyte Donation to Postmenopausal Women, Vol. 82, Fertility & Sterility,

Supp. 1, pp. 254S -5S (2004). Copyright © 2004 by the American Society for

Reproductive Medicine. Reprinted by permission of Elsevier, Inc.

, Elements to Be Considered in Obtaining Informed Consent for ART, Vol. 86

No. 4 Fertility & Sterility S272 (2006). Copyright © 2006 by the American Society


, Financial Compensation of Oocyte Donors, 88 Fertility & Sterility 305

(2007). Copyright © 2007 by the American Society for Reproductive Medicine.

Reprinted by permission of Elsevier, Inc.

, Child-Rearing Ability and the Provision of Fertility Services, Vol. 92, no. 3



, Human Immunodeficiency Virus and Infertility Treatment, Vol. 94, no. 1

Fertility & Sterility 11-15 (2010). Copyright © 2010 by the American Society for


Frase-Blunt, Martha, Ova-Compensating? Women Who Donate Eggs to Infertile

Couples Earn a Reward — But Pay a Price, Washington Post Dec. 4, 2001, at F1.

Copyright © 2001 by Martha Frase-Blunt. Reprinted by permission of the author.

Genetic and Public Policy Center, Preimplantation Genetic Diagnosis: A Discussion of

Challenges, Concerns, and Preliminary Options Related to the Genetic Testing of

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

xxiv


Human Embryos, Jan. 2004, pp. 7-10. Copyright © 2004 by the Genetics & Public

Policy Center/The Pew Charitable Trusts. Reprinted by permission of the Genetics

and Public Policy Center.

Hughes, Edward G. & Mita Giacomini, Funding In Vitro Fertilization Treatment For

Persistent Subfertility: The Pain and the Politics, Vol. 76, No. 3 Fertility &

Sterility 434, 436 (2001). Copyright © 2001 by the American Society for


, Funding In Vitro Fertilization Treatment For Persistent Subfertility: The

Pain and the Politics, Vol. 76, no. 3 Fertility & Sterility 431-442 (2001).

Copyright © 2001 by the American Society for Reproductive Medicine. Reprinted

by permission of Elsevier, Inc.

Jones, Jr., Howard J. & Lucinda Veeck, What Is An Embryo?, Vol. 77, no. 4 Fertility

& Sterility 658-659 (2002). Copyright © 2002 by the American Society for


Jost, Timothy, Rights of Embryo and Fetus in Private Law, 50 Am. J. Comp Law 633

(2002). Copyright © 2002 by the American Journal of Comparative Law.

Reprinted by permission of the author and the American Journal of Comparative

Law.

Kahn, Jeffrey P, John E. Wagner & Susan M. Wolf, Using Preimplantation Genetic

Diagnosis to Create a Stem Cell Donor: Issues, Guidelines & Limits, 31 Am. J.

Law, Med. Ethics 327 (2003). Copyright © 2003 by The American Journal of Law,

Medicine and Ethics. Reprinted by permission of the authors and The American

Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics.

Kaplan, Lawrence & Carolyn Kaplan, The Ethics of Reproductive Technology pp.15-19

(1992). Copyright © 1992 by Oxford University Press, Inc. Reprinted by

permission of the author and Oxford University Press.

Kerr, Lisa M., Can Money Buy Happiness? An Examination of the Coverage of

Infertility Services Under HMO Contracts, 49 Case W. Res. L. Rev. 599 (1999).

Copyright © 1999 by Case Western Reserve University Law Review. Reprinted by

permission of Case Western Reserve University.

Kovalevsky, George, Paolo Rinaudo, Christos Coutifaris, Do Assisted Reproductive

Technologies Cause Adverse Fetal Outcomes? Vol. 79, no. 6 Fertility & Sterility

1270-1272 (2003). Copyright © 2003 by the American Society for Reproductive

Medicine. Reprinted by permission of Elsevier, Inc.

Kunich, John Charles, The Naked Clone, 91 Kentucky L. J. 1, 48-55 (2002). Copyright

© 2002 by the Kentucky Law Journal. Reprinted by permission of the author and

the Kentucky Law Journal.

Lombardo, Paul, Facing Carrie Buck, 33 Hastings Center Report 14 (March-April

2003). Copyright © 2004 by The Hastings Center. Reprinted by permission of the

author and The Hastings Center.

Massie, Ann M., Regulating Choice: A Constitutional Law Response to Professor John

A. Robertson’s Children of Choice, 52 Wash. & Lee Law Rev. 135 (1995).

Copyright © 1995 by Washington and Lee Law Review. Reprinted by permission

of the author and the Washington and Lee Law Review.

Mehlman, Maxwell, The Law of Above Averages: Leveling the New Genetic Enhance-

ment Playing Field, 85 Iowa L. Rev. 517 (2000). Copyright © 2000 by Iowa Law

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

xxv


Review. Reprinted by permission of the author and the Iowa Law Review.

National Bioethics Advisory Commission, Ethical Issues in Human Stem Cell Re-

search, pp. 29-33, 35-36, 99-104 (1999). Reprinted by permission of the National

Bioethics Advisory Commission, http://bioethics.georgetown.edu/nbac.

, Cloning Human Beings, Executive Summary I-V (1997). Reprinted by

permission of the National Bioethics Advisory Commission,

http://bioethics.georgetown.edu/nbac.

New York State Task Force on Life and the Law, Assisted Reproductive Technologies:

Analysis and Recommendations for Public Policy, pp. 8-10 (1998). NY State

Dep’t. of Health. Reprinted with permission from the New York State Department

of Health.

Posner, Richard A., The Ethics and Economics of Enforcing Contracts of Surrogate

Motherhood, 5 J. Cont. Health Law & Policy 21 (1989). Copyright © 1989 by

Richard A. Posner. Reprinted by permission of the author.

President’s Council on Bioethics, Reproduction and Responsibility: The Regulation of

the New Biotechnologies, 151-153, 205-218 (2004). Copyright © 2004 by the

President’s Council on Bioethics. Reprinted by permission of the President’s

Council on Bioethics.

, Monitoring Stem Cell Research, 5-7 (2004). Copyright © 2004 by the

President’s Council on Bioethics. Reprinted by permission of the President’s

Council on Bioethics.

, Human Cloning and Human Dignity, Executive Summary xxvii-xxix (2002).

Copyright © 2002 by the President’s Council on Bioethics. Reprinted by

permission of the President’s Council on Bioethics.

Price Foley, Elizabeth, Human Cloning and the Right to Reproduce, 65 Albany L. Rev.

625, 638-46 (2002). Copyright © 2002 by the Albany Law Review Association.

Reprinted by permission of the author and the Albany Law Review.

Rao, Radhika, Constitutional Misconceptions, 93 Michigan Law Review 1473 (1995).

Copyright © 1995 by the Michigan Law Review Association. Reprinted by

permission of the author and the Michigan Law Review.

Roberts, Dorothy E., Race and the New Reproduction, 47 Hast. L. Journal 935 (1996).

Copyright © 1996 by University of California, Hastings College of Law.

Reprinted by permission of the author and The Hastings Law Journal.

Robertson, John, Children of Choice: Freedom and the New Reproductive Technolo-

gies, pp. 22-42 (1994). Copyright © 1994 by Princeton University Press. Reprinted

by permission of the author and Princeton University Press.

, Extending Preimplantation Genetic Diagnosis: Medical and Nonmedical

Uses, 29 J. Med. Ethics 213 (2003). Copyright © 2003 BMJ Group. Reprinted by

permission of the author and BMJ Group.

Shanley, Mary Lyndon. Collaborations and Commodification in Assisted Procreation:

Reflections on an Open Market and Anonymous Donation in Human Sperm and

Eggs. 37 Law & Society Rev. 257 (2002). Reprinted by permission of John Wiley

& Sons, Ltd.

Shapiro, Michael H., Illicit Reasons and Means for Reproduction: On Excessive Choice

and Categorical and Technological Imperatives, 47 Hast. L. J. 1081, 1127 (1996).

Copyright ©1996 by University of California, Hastings College of the Law.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

xxvi


Reprinted by permission of the author and University of California, Hastings

College of the Law.

Snead, O. Carter, The Pedagogical Significance of the Bush Stem Cell Policy: A

Window into Bioethical Regulation on the United States, 5 Yale Journal of Health

Policy, Law & Ethics 491 (2005). Copyright © 2005 by the Yale Journal of Health

Policy, Law & Ethics. Reprinted by permission of the author.

Stock, Gregory, Eggs For Sale: How Much Is Too Much? 1 Am. J. Bioethics 26 (2001).

Copyright © 2001 by Taylor & Francis, Inc. Reprinted by permission of Taylor &

Francis, Inc., http://www.taylorandfrancis.com.

Strong, Carson, Ethical and Legal Aspects of Sperm Retrieval After Death or Persistent

Vegetative State, 27 J. Law, Med., & Ethics 347 (1999). Copyright © 1999 by the

American Society of Law, Medicine & Ethics. Reprinted by permission of the

author and the American Society of Law, Medicine & Ethics.

Surrogacy.com, One Surrogate’s Experience. Reprinted by permission of www.sur-

rogacy.com.

, Surrogate’s Diary. Reprinted by permission of www.surrogacy.com.

, Thoughts On Becoming A Mommy. Reprinted by permission of www.sur-

rogacy.com.

Photographs and Illustrations

Blackmun, Harry. Photograph of Justice Harry A. Blackmun. Harris & Ewing

Collection of the Supreme Court of the United States. Reproduced by permission.

Blood, Diane with Son Liam. Photograph. Copyright © by Reuters/CORBIS. Repro-

duced by permission

Brown, Louise, and her parents. Photograph by Adrian Arbib. Copyright © by Adrian

Arbib/CORBIS. Reproduced by permission.

Brennan, William. Photograph of Justice William Brennan. Collection of the Supreme

Court of the United States. Reproduced by permission.

Buck, Carrie, and her mother. Photograph. Arthur Estabrook Papers, M.E. Grenander

Department of Special Collections and Archives, University at Albany, SUNY.

Reproduced by permission.

Comstock, Anthony. Photograph. Copyright © by Bettmann/CORBIS. Reproduced by

permission.

Dobbs, Alice, with Carrie baby Vivian. Photograph. Arthur Estabrook Papers, M.E.

Grenander Department of Special Collections and Archives, University at Albany,

SUNY. Reproduced by permission.

Douglas, William. Photograph of Justice William O. Douglas. Collection of the

Supreme Court of the United States. Reproduced by permission.

Ginsburg, Ruth Bader. Official Photograph of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Courtesy of

the Supreme Court of the United States. Reproduced by permission.

Glasbergen, Randy. Cartoon. Copyright © 1998 by Randy Glasbergen. Reproduced by

permission of Randy Glasbergen.

Griswold, Estelle and Cornelia Jahncke. Photograph. Copyright © by

Bettmann/CORBIS. Reproduced by permission.

Holmes, Oliver Wendell. Photograph of Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes. Collection of

the Supreme Court of the United States. Reproduced by permission.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

xxvii


John, Elton, David Furnish and their son Zachary. Cover photo by Greg Gorman, from

US Weekly, Jan. 18, 2011. Copyright © US Weekly LLC 2011. All Rights

Reserved. Reprinted by Permission.

Kass, Leon. Photograph. Reproduced by permission of the President’s Council on

Bioethics.

Kennedy, Anthony M. Official Photograph of Justice Anthony M. Kennedy. Courtesy

of the Supreme Court of the United States. Reproduced by permission.

Luckovich, Mike. Cartoon. Copyright © 1999 by Mike Luckovich. Reproduced by

permission of Mike Luckovich.

McReynolds, James. Official Portrait of Justice James C. McReynolds. Vic Boswell,

National Geographic Society, Courtesy of the Supreme Court of the United States.


Mendel, Gregor. Portrait of Austrian Botanist. Photograph circa 1880. Copyright © by


New Yorker, The. The New Yorker Magazine, Inc. Holds copyrights in the following

cartoons: (1) cartoon by Dana Fradon Copyright © 1995; (2) cartoon by J.B.

Handelsman Copyright © 1999; (3) cartoon by Donald Reilly Copyright © 1999;

(4) cartoon by David Sipress Copyright © 2001. These cartoons are reprinted by

permission of the Cartoon Bank, a division of The New Yorker Magazine

(cartoonbank.com). All rights reserved.

O’Connor, Sandra Day. Photograph of Justice Sandra Day O’Connor. Dane Penland,

Smithsonian Institute, Courtesy of the Supreme Court of the United States.


Reeve, Christopher, Dr. John Gearhart and Dr. James Thomson. Photograph by Christy

Bowe. Copyright © by Christy Bowe/CORBIS.Reproduced by permission.

Rehnquist, William. Official Photograph of Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist. Dane

Penland, Smithsonian Institute, Courtesy of the Supreme Court of the United

States. Reproduced by permission.

Steptoe, Patrick, and Robert Edwards. Photograph. Copyright © by Hulton-Deutsch

Collection/CORBIS. Reproduced by permission.

Thibodeau, Gary, Anatomy and Physiology, Figure of female reproductive tract on p.

758, 11th Edition. Copyright © 1983 by C.V. Mosby Company. Reprinted by

permission of Elsevier, Inc.

Van Leeuwenhoek, Antonie. Painting by Cornelis de Man. Copyright © by


Werlin, Lawrence. Preimplantation Genetic Diagnosis. Photograph by Dr. Lawrence

Werlin. Reproduced by permission of Dr. Lawrence Werlin.

, Zygote, Embryo, Blastocyst. Photographs by Dr. Lawrence Werlin. Repro-

duced by permission of Dr. Lawrence Werlin.

Wilmut, Ian with Dolly. Photograph by Najlah Feanny-Hicks. Copyright © by Najlah

Feanny/CORBIS SABA. Reproduced by permission.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

xxviii


reproductive technologies and the lawthe world of assisted reproductive technologies is a relative...

Documents