DurlandU.SeethramK., “Fetal Abnormality and Gestational Surrogacy? Legal Construct or Ethical Dilemma?”Poster Presentation at the Canadian Society of Fertility and Andrology, email from Ursula Smith Durland, Certified Genetic Counselor at the Pacific Centre for Reproductive Medicine (November 10, 2010) (on file with author).
3.
See Blackwell, supra note 1.
4.
ChachkinC., “What Potent Blood: Non-Invasive Prenatal Genetic Diagnosis and the Transformation of Modern Prenatal Care,”American Journal of Law & Medicine33, no. 1 (2007): 9–53, at 51.
5.
Id.
6.
SuterS., “The Routinization of Prenatal Testing,”American Journal of Law & Medicine28, nos. 2–3 (2002): 233–270, at 235–236.
7.
See Chachkin, supra note 4, at 14.
8.
See Suter, supra note 5, at 256.
9.
AndrewsL., “Prenatal Screening and the Culture of Motherhood,”Hastings Law Journal47, no. 4 (1996): 967–1006 at 967, 985.
10.
Id.
11.
See Chachkin, supra note 4
12.
Suter, supra note 5.
13.
LippmanA., “Prenatal Genetic Testing and Screening,”American Journal of Law & Medicine17, nos. 1–2 (1991): 15–50, at 15, 28
14.
HannemanA., “A New Routine: Assisting Patients in Responding to Prenatal Diagnosis,”Marquette Law Review90, no. 2 (2006): 337–353 at 337, 341.
15.
See Suter, supra note 5, at 248.
16.
Id., at 255.
17.
See Chachkin, supra note 4, at 46.
18.
See DurlandSeethram, supra note 2.
19.
See Blackwell, supra note 1.
20.
See DurlandSeethram, supra note 2.
21.
See Chachkin, supra note 4, at 53
22.
BotkinJ., “Defining Health and the Goals of Medicine: Prenatal Diagnosis and the Selection of Children,”Florida State University Law Review30, no. 2 (2003): 265–293.
23.
See CallawayE., “Baby's Genome Hidden in Mother's Blood,”Nature News, December 8, 2010.
24.
RaeS., “Parental Rights and the Definition of Motherhood in Surrogate Motherhood,”Southern California Review of Law & Woman's Studies3, no. 2 (1994): 219–277 at 219, 238–241.
25.
Committee on Ethics, “Surrogate Motherhood,”American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists Committee Opinion, no. 397, February 2008.
Committee on Ethics, “Informed Consent,”American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists Committee Opinion, no. 439, August 2009.
31.
Id.
32.
Id., at 7.
33.
ZehrJ., “Using Gestational Surrogacy and Pre-Implatation Genetic Diagnosis: Are Intended Parents Now Manufacturing the Idyllic Infant?”Loyola Consumer Law Review20, no. 3 (2008): 294–324, at 294, 315
34.
ReillyD., “Surrogate Pregnancy: A Guide for Canadian Health Care Providers,”Canadian Medical Association Journal176, no. 4 (2007): 483–485.
35.
See GuichonJ., “The Body, Emotions and Intentions: Challenges of Preconception Arrangements for Health Care Providers,”Canadian Medical Association Journal176, no. 4 (2007): 479–483.
36.
AndrewsL., “Beyond Doctrinal Boundaries: A Legal Framework for Surrogate Motherhood,”Virginia Law Review Association81, no. 8 (1995): 2343–2375, at 2372–2373.
37.
See Blackwell, supra note 1.
38.
See ManusM., “The Proposed Model Surrogate Parenthood Act: A Legislative Response to the Challenges of Reproductive Technology,”University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform29, no. 3 (1996): 671–773, at 720–725.
39.
Fla. Stat. Ann. § 742.15 (2010).
40.
Nev. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 126.045 (2010)
41.
N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 168-B:19–25 (2010).
42.
State laws differ as to how parties would transfer their parental claim or whether parents may abdicate their claim to the developing fetus or child upon birth Some states such as California are based on the model of parentage on intention, and some states clarify that the parentage is defined by a post-birth adoption petition by the intended parents, such as in Arkansas.
