Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-gtxcr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-24T07:18:22.869Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Legal Change and Stigma in Surrogacy and Abortion

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2021

John A. Robertson
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The role of stigma in limiting reproductive rights has long hovered in the air. Paula Abrams has sorted through the concept and shown how it operates in two major areas of procreative liberty — having a child through surrogacy and avoiding childbirth by abortion. Her paper is especially useful for showing how legal change initially dilutes stigma but may reinstall it with post-legalization regulation.

Abrams argues that both abortion and surrogacy are stigmatized because they deviate from traditional gender roles and social expectations about pregnancy and maternity. Past restrictions have rested on a common legal and cultural paradigm of the good mother: a woman who conceives, carries her child to term, and then rears the child. Indeed, as she later argues, evidence of stigma surrounding a practice is “relevant to determining whether laws regulating abortion or surrogacy are based on impermissible stereotyping.”

Type
Symposium
Information
Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics , Volume 43 , Issue 2 , Summer 2015 , pp. 192 - 195
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of Law, Medicine and Ethics 2015

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Abrams, P., “The Bad Mother: Stigma, Abortion and Surrogacy,” Journal of Law, Medicine, & Ethics 43, no. 2 (2014): 179–191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Id.Google Scholar
Id.Google Scholar
Id.Google Scholar
In Genesis Abraham is the rearing father, and Sarah's maidservant Hagar is the genetic and gestational mother. If Sarah, Abraham's wife, rears Ishmael, then it is a case of traditional surrogacy. If Hagar rears him, it would not be a case of surrogacy at all.Google Scholar
See Abrams, , supra note 1.Google Scholar
381 U.S. 479 (1965).Google Scholar
410 U.S. 113 (1973).Google Scholar
505 U.S. 833 (1992).Google Scholar
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, “National ART Success Rates, 2011 National Summary,” available at <http://nccd.cdc.gov/DRH_ART/Apps/NationalSummaryReport.aspx> (last visited April 8, 2015.+(last+visited+April+8,+2015.>Google Scholar
Often without distinguishing between traditional and gestational surrogacy.Google Scholar
Robertson, J. A., “Egg Freezing and Egg Banking: Autonomy and Alienation in Assisted Reproduction,” Journal of Law and the Biosciences 1, no. 2 (2014): 113–136.Google Scholar
In re Baby M, 537 A.2d 1227 (N.J. 1988).Google Scholar
851 P.2d 776 (Cal. 1993).Google Scholar
Abrams cites Elizabeth Scott for the claim that 95% of surrogacy is gestational. See Abrams, , supra note 1. Assuming that Scott's claim is correct, I would expect that most gestational surrogacy would be carried out in circumstances where the agreement of the surrogate to relinquish the child upon birth would be upheld and commercial surrogacy is legal.Google Scholar
Smith, T. W. Son, J., NORC at the University of Chicago, Final Report: Trends in Public Attitudes toward Abortion (May, 2013).Google Scholar
A widely discussed article in the New York Times magazine shows how accepting the current cultural narrative is toward gestational surrogacy. Kuczynski, A., “Her Body, My Baby,” New York Times Magazine, November 30, 2008, at 1–14. Kuczynski was criticized for her extravagant life-style, which accompanying photographs vividly displayed. The gestational surrogate, motivated in large part by a desire to help another woman, came across as a much more appealing figure. Reports of less happy outcomes occasionally occur, but do not appear to be so widespread as to spur prohibition of the practice.Google Scholar
See Abrams, , supra note 1.Google Scholar
Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 160.754 (West 2014).Google Scholar
Mammography, oocyte donation, prostate screening, donor milk banks, and nonmedical use of ultrasound are other examples, as well as tobacco and alcohol warnings. Bernstein, E. B., “Disclosure Two Ways,” Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics 43, no. 2 (2014): 245–255.Google Scholar
Hurdle, J. et al., “Philadelphia Abortion Doctor Guilty of Murder in Late-Term Procedures,” New York Times, May 13, 2013, available at <http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/14/us/kermit-gosnell-abortion-doctor-found-guilty-of-murder.html> (last visited March 26, 2015).+(last+visited+March+26,+2015).>Google Scholar
Even if the restrictive law's bite is eventually removed, the long road to invalidation will send a stronger signal of social disapproval than if not passed at all.Google Scholar
Palmer v. Thompson, 403 U.S. 217 (1971); Brest, P., “Palmer v. Thompson: An Approach to the Problem of Unconstitutional Motivation,” Supreme Court Review (1971): 95–146.Google Scholar
The test states that “a provision of law is invalid if its purpose or effect is to place a substantial obstacle in the path of a woman seeking an abortion.” 505 U.S. 878 (1992).Google Scholar
The fact that a legislature might have thought that there is any health connection however weak is enough. Williamson v. Lee Optical Co., 348 U.S. 483 (1955).Google Scholar
Planned Parenthood of Greater Tx. Surgical Health Servs. v. Abbott, 748 F.3d 583 (5th Cir. 2014).Google Scholar
See Planned Parenthood Southeast v. Strange, 2014 LW 1320158 (2014) (importance of health benefit does not justify impact on women of hospital staff privilege requirement for abortion doctors); Planned Parenthood of Wisconsin v. Van Hallen, 738 F.3d 786 (7th Cir. 2013) (Judge Posner states in dicta that the state must show actual need not just rational basis for hospital staff privilege requirement for abortion providers).Google Scholar