home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- LAW, Page 77It's All in the (Parental) Genes
-
-
- A California court rules that bearing a child is not motherhood
-
-
- The challenge was familiar to King Solomon: how to choose
- between two women, each declaring herself to be the child's
- mother. This time, however, one claimed motherhood because she
- had donated her genes, the other because she had donated her
- womb. That was the issue last week before California Superior
- Court Judge Richard Parslow, who broke new legal ground by
- awarding a test-tube baby to the genetic parents rather than
- to the surrogate mother. The woman had contracted to carry it
- for $10,000 and then changed her mind, saying she had "bonded"
- with the infant. "A three-parent, two-natural-mom situation is
- ripe for crazy-making," said Parslow. "I decline to split this
- child emotionally between two mothers."
-
- The ruling meant that biological parents Crispina and Mark
- Calvert of Orange County, Calif., could finally fill out the
- birth certificate for their son Christopher Michael, which has
- remained blank since the boy's birth on Sept. 19. The surrogate
- mother, nurse Anna Johnson of Garden Grove, Calif., vowed to
- appeal all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court, if necessary, to
- gain custody. "I'm in a state of deep mourning for my son," she
- said.
-
- Parslow's ruling took the question of maternal rights one
- step beyond the celebrated Baby M. case in New Jersey in 1987.
- In that decision Mary Beth Whitehead was denied custody of the
- child she contracted to bear, but she was later granted
- visitation rights. Whitehead had been impregnated through
- artificial insemination by the husband of the couple who hired
- her and therefore was the infant's genetic mother.
-
- Johnson, however, is biologically unrelated to the Calverts'
- baby, who was conceived by joining Mark's sperm and Crispina's
- egg in a Petri dish. (Crispina was unable to carry a baby
- because of a partial hysterectomy.) The fertilized embryo was
- implanted in Johnson's uterus last January.
-
- Johnson engaged in "nurturing, feeding and protecting" the
- Calverts' child and in that way was much like a foster parent,
- said Judge Parslow. But, he continued, she was still a "genetic
- stranger" to the infant and therefore had no legal right to
- claim parenthood.
-
- The ruling applies only in California, but it should be
- received as welcome news by the nation's millions of infertile
- couples. Surrogates' rights advocates were outraged. "We are
- entering into very dangerous times if we allow this decision
- to stand," said Ramona Ripston, executive director of the
- American Civil Liberties Union of Southern California.
- Countered the Calverts' attorney, Christian Van Deusen: "Males
- can sell their semen. Why can't women as a matter of law become
- nine-month foster mothers by carrying another couple's child?"
-
- Johnson's appeal is expected to be heard no later than
- April. There is a good chance that Judge Parslow's decision
- will not stand. "After all, the state law in California says
- that the birth mother is the mother," points out Jeremy Rifkin,
- ecological gadfly and co-chairman of the National Coalition
- Against Surrogacy, a group that has successfully lobbied in
- most of the 13 states that have laws banning commercial
- surrogacy.
-
- Yet the use of surrogates with no biological link to the
- children they bear is almost sure to grow. In the past three
- years, about 80 infants have been born to so-called gestational
- surrogates, most of them in the U.S. And as biotechnology
- proceeds, courts are likely to see more cases reinterpreting
- the once simple legal concept of parenthood.
-
-
- By Susan Tifft. Reported by Sylvester Monroe/Los Angeles.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-