Chapter 7.D.1 Parenting Possibilities

1. Parenting as an Emotional and Constitutional Subject.

For an examination on the constitutionality of regulating ART and possible regulatory schemes, see Radhika Rao, Equal Liberty: Assisted Reproductive Technology and Reproductive Equality, 76 Geo. Wash. L. Rev. 1457 (2008); Marsha Garrison, Regulating Reproduction, 76 Geo. Wash. L. Rev. 1623 (2008); June Carbone, If I Say “Yes” to Regulations Today, Will You Still Respect Me in the Morning?, 76 Geo. Wash. L. Rev. 1747 (2008); Debora Spar & Anna M. Harrington, Building A Better Baby Business, 10 Minn. J.L. Sci. & Tech. 41 (2009); and Catherine A. Clements, What About the Children? A Call for Regulation of Assisted Reproductive Technology, 84 Ind. L.J. 331 (2008).

As ART has developed and improved, couples have demonstrated willingness to travel, resulting in “reproductive tourism.” See I. Glenn Cohen, Medical Tourism: The View from Ten Thousand Feet, Hastings Cntr. Rep., March-April 2010, at 11; Lisa C. Ikemoto, Reproductive Tourism: Equality Concerns in the Global Market for Fertility Services, 27 Law & Ineq. J. 277 (2009).

2. Technology and Parenting Possibilities.

Access to reproductive technologies continues to be a concern for members of various groups. See North Coast Women's Care Medical Group, Inc. v. San Diego Superior Court, 44 Cal.4th 1145 (Cal. 2008)(exploring relationship between free exercise of religion and alleged discrimination based on sexual orientation or marital status). See also Susan B. Apel, Access to Assisted Reproductive Technologies, 12 Mich. St. U. J. Med. & L. 33 (2008); Bebe J. Anderson, Lesbians, Gays, and People Living With AIDS: Facing and Fighting Barriers to Assisted Reproduction, 15 Cardozo J.L. & Gender 451 (2009).

For recent ethical guidelines on the use of reproductive technologies see, The Ethics Committee of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine, Human Immunodeficiency Virus and Infertility Treatment, 94 Fertility and Sterility 11 (2010); The Ethics Committee of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine, Access to Fertility Treatment by Gays, Lesbians and Unmarried Persons, 92 Fertility and Sterility 1190 (2009).

3. Regulation.

The American Bar Association published the Model Act Governing Assisted Reproductive Technology on February 11, 2008. The Model Act was designed to be consistent with the Uniform Parentage Act (UPA) (2000, as revised in 2002) (excerpts from the 2002 UPA can be found in the remaining subparts of this section of the casebook). See Charles P. Kindregan Jr., Clarifying the Law of ART: The New American Bar Association Model Act Governing Assisted Reproductive Technology, 42 Fam. L.Q. 203 (2008).

4. International Developments.

Crystal Liu, Restricting Access to Infertility Services: What is a Justified Limitation on Reproductive Freedom?, 10 Minn. J.L. Sci. & Tech. 291 (2009)(discussing Australian proposals limiting access).

Notes: Genetics and Reproduction

1. Genetic Testing.

See Judith F. Daar, Embryonic Genetics, 2 St. Louis U. J. Health L. & Pol'y 81 (2008).

3. Genetic Engineering and Gene Therapy.

See Jonathan Kimmelman, The Ethics of Human Gene Transfer, 9 Nature Reviews Genetics 239 (2008); Dov Fox, Silver Spoons and Golden Genes: Genetic Engineering and the Egalitarian Ethos, 33 Am. J.L. & Med. 567 (2007); Ronald M. Green, Babies by Design: The Ethics of Genetic Choice (2007).

4. Genetic Enhancement.

See Dov Fox, Retracing Liberalism and Remaking Nature: Designer Children, Research Embryos, and Featherless Chickens, 24 Bioethics 170 (2010).