Widespread Scars Left By Baby M (Press, 22 April 1987)

In a groundbreaking case regarding surrogate motherhood, Mary Beth Whitehead and William Stern entered into a legal agreement in a lawyer’s office to have a baby together. This contract, consisting of 22 pages, stipulated that Mary Beth would carry and give birth to the child, who would be biologically related to William, and upon delivery, she would relinquish custody to him. In exchange, Mary Beth was promised $10,000 and coverage for her medical expenses. The arrangement was described as akin to renting Mary Beth's uterus. After the birth of a girl, later referred to in court as Baby M, Mary Beth found herself unable to uphold the contract's terms, leading her to contest custody in a New Jersey courtroom. Ultimately, in a landmark ruling, Judge Harvey Sorkow declared the contract enforceable and stripped Mary Beth of her parental rights, establishing a legal precedent for surrogate agreements in New Jersey and potentially influencing national laws. Throughout the trial, the judge expressed the need for regulations to manage surrogate motherhood, framing it as a societal phenomenon that requires a legal framework to protect children's rights and family integrity. This was a significant departure from previous rulings that relied on existing adoption laws, which traditionally prohibited child selling. William Stern, a biochemist, and his wife, Elizabeth, both in their 40s, were positioned as the more suitable parents compared to Mary Beth, who faced scrutiny over her tumultuous life, marked by early marriage, financial difficulties, and struggles with her husband’s alcoholism. The court appointed a legal guardian to represent Baby M, underscoring the child’s best interests throughout proceedings. Judge Sorkow’s ruling has been welcomed by surrogate agents across the country, as it legitimised surrogate motherhood and is expected to stimulate new agreements in a sector that had been stagnating due to uncertainty surrounding legal outcomes. The case revealed discrepancies in surrogacy arrangements, where financial disparities often dictated choices, and raised questions about the well-being of surrogate children and their siblings. While some surrogacy agents advocate for relationships between surrogates and intended parents to mitigate emotional challenges post-birth, others keep identities secret to prevent attachment issues. The complexities of surrogacy raise ethical concerns; experts warn of potential emotional consequences for children in surrogate families, including feelings of abandonment. The legality and morality of surrogacy agreements remain contentious. Critics argue that legalising such contracts resembles baby selling, particularly if the laws become overly permissive, opening the door to the exploitation of vulnerable women and children. As the landscape of surrogate motherhood evolves following the Whitehead case, important discussions around the ethical implications and regulatory measures continue to unfold.

The text on this page is created, in the most part, using Generative AI and so may contain errors or omissions. It is supplied to you without guarantee or warranty of correctness. If you find an error or would like to make a content suggestion please get in contact

The text on this page is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 New Zealand