I. INTRODUCTION

4.1 In the first half of this decade, increasing concern was felt in Australia and elsewhere about the social, ethical and of artificial conception. Several official bodies were asked to study the issues arising from artificial insemination, vitro fertilization, surrogate motherhood, embryo research, genome analysis and gene therapy. The Commission has examined the reports resulting from these official Inquiries. Not all of these reports have led to the changes in the law. Within Australia, legislation concerning surrogacy has been passed in Victoria and South Australia, and a Bill is now before the Queensland Parliament. There has also been legislative action in the United Kingdom, and in some states of the United States, while legislation concerning surrogacy has been proposed in other jurisdictions.

4.2 The reports and the legislation (enacted or proposed) cover a wide range of options. The view which predominates in the Australian Inquiries to date is that surrogacy agreements should be void and unenforceable, and that commercial surrogacy arrangements should be prohibited, as should advertising concerning surrogacy. Proposals currently before the Queensland Parliament would prohibit all forms of surrogacy, including altruistic surrogacy. That view has not found significant support in Inquiries conducted elsewhere. By contrast, the Ontario Law Reform Commission has recommended under a detailed system of regulation. This approach has found minority support in the United Kingdom, and forms the basis of bills now before some state legislatures in the United States.

4.3 This Chapter examines these official responses to the issues raised by surrogate motherhood. In the succeeding Chapter, the Commission reviews Australian public opinion on these issues.

II. AUSTRALIA

A. Victoria

4.4 In May 1982 the Victorian Committee to consider the social, arising from in vitro fertilization. Its report (in this paper called the Waller Report) was published in August 1984. While the terms of reference of the Committee were restricted to surrogacy in IVF, the Committee did consider surrogacy more broadly. Some members of the Committee considered that the criminal law should be amended to make it an offence to enter into, or contribute in any way to, a commercial surrogacy agreement.¹ The Committee itself decided that commercial surrogacy arrangements, where a fee is to be paid to the women who bears the child, are completely unacceptable as part of an IVF program in the Victorian community. The Committee believed that agreements to bear and convey a child for a fee amount to the buying and selling of a baby, something which has been condemned and proscribed for generations. It concluded that such a practice should not be allowed technological assistance should be allowed to reappear, and that no technological assistance should be afforded to any such arrangements.² The Committee recorded its concerns about the use of volunteer (that is, unpaid) surrogate mothers, and concluded that, at that time, surrogacy arrangements should in no circumstances be made as part of and IVF program in Victoria.³

4.5 Surrogate motherhood arrangements are now regulated to some extent by legislation in Victoria under the Infertility (Medical Procedures) Act 1984, Part V, which came into force on 10 August 1986. Surrogate motherhood arrangements involving payment are prohibited.⁴ If payment is involved, an offence could be committed by the commissioning parent, the surrogate mother or an intermediary. A woman who receives, or agrees to receive, a payment or reward for acting as a surrogate mother also commits an offence.⁵ The legislation also prohibits any advertising which seeks or suggests a surrogacy arrangement, even if not for reward,⁶ and specifically provides that surrogate motherhood contracts are void.⁷

B. South Australia

4.6 There have been two major inquiries in South Australia touching upon surrogacy. In October 1983 the Minister of Health established a Working Party on in vitro fertilization and artificial insemination by donor. Its report (in this paper called the SA Report (1984)) was published in January 1984. The Working Party took the view that a surrogacy contract would, under the existing law, be regarded as contrary to public policy and would not be enforceable. It was opposed to any change to the law to enable surrogacy to be practised in South Australia. Further, the Working Party recommended that the Government of that State should formally adopt a policy in relation to the relevant adoption legislation to prevent surrogacy being practised in South Australia.⁸

4.7 In October 1984, the Legislative Council of South Australia appointed a Select Committee on artificial insemination by donor, in vitro fertilization and embryo transfer procedures and related matters. Its report (in this paper called the SA Report (1987)) was published in April 1987. The Select Committee declared its opposition to surrogacy. It recommended that surrogacy arrangements should be unenforceable, that those who organise surrogacy arrangements for a fee should be guilty of an offence, and that any fee paid to the organiser should be recoverable.⁹

4.8 The recommendations of the Select Committee were implemented by the Family Relationships Act Amendment Act 1988 (SA) , which came into force on 7 April 1988. It inserts a new Part IIB into the Family Relationships Act 1975 (SA) . The new provisions relate to surrogacy contracts and to procuration contracts. Surrogacy contracts are defined to include not only those under which a person agrees to become pregnant or seeks to become pregnant, but to extend to those whereby a person who is already pregnant agrees to surrender custody of, or rights in relation to, a child born as a result of the pregnancy. A procuration contract means a contract under which a person agrees to arrange a surrogacy contract on behalf of another, or to introduce prospective parties to a surrogacy contract. Under the Act, both surrogacy contracts and procuration contracts are illegal and void. The Act does, however, allow a person who gives any valuable consideration under a procuration contract to recover the amount as a debt from the person to whom it was given.¹⁰

4.9 The new South Australian amendments create certain criminal offences punishable by fine or imprisonment. In particular, it is an offence to receive valuable consideration under a procuration contract, or to enter into such a contract in the expectation of receiving valuable consideration. It is also an offence under the Act to induce another person to enter into a surrogacy contract, having received or in the expectation of receiving valuable consideration from a third person who seeks the benefit of that contract.¹¹ The Act also prohibits certain advertisements relating to surrogacy arrangements.¹² Under its provisions, a surrogate mother would only commit a criminal offence if she advertised her willingness to enter into a surrogacy contract. The parties to a surrogacy contract would not commit any offence simply by entering that arrangement.

C. Queensland

4.10 The Special Committee appointed by the Queensland Government to inquire into the laws relating to artificial insemination, in vitro fertilization and other related matters, was established in February 1983. Its report (in this paper called the Demack Report) was published in March 1984.

4.11 The Special Committee considered that surrogacy contracts are void and legally unenforceable as being contrary to public policy. In addition, the Committee took the view that surrogacy arrangements are contrary to the policy of adoption legislation. The Committee concluded that the surrogate mother should not be bound by any decision made prior to the birth of the child which would oblige her to transfer it to another person.¹³

4.12 The Committee considered that it would not be desirable at that time to make surrogacy arrangements criminal offences, because it believed that their unenforceability would probably suffice to prevent the widespread encouragement of surrogate motherhood arrangements.¹⁴ The Committee recommended that it should be illegal to advertise to recruit women to undergo surrogate pregnancy, or to provide facilities for persons who wish to make use of the services of such women.¹⁵ Its members endorsed the view of the Queensland State Committee of the Royal Australian College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists that the ethical problems raised by surrogacy for the medical profession should be addressed in guidelines. The Queensland Committee considered that the important question of the right to custody of the child, and the status of the child, should not be the subject of special legislation directed to surrogacy arrangements, but should be settled in custody or other appropriate proceedings and by the application of the general law. The Committee did, however, recommend that legislation should create an irrebuttable presumption that the woman who gives birth to a child should be considered to be its mother.¹⁶

4.13 In March 1988 a Bill to proscribe surrogacy was introduced into the Queensland Parliament. The Surrogate Parenthood Bill would prohibit

• advertising concerning surrogacy;
• giving or receiving, or agreeing to give or receive, a payment or reward in relation to surrogacy; and
• entering into or offering to enter into a surrogacy contract covered by the bill.

The affected contracts would include agreements made formally or informally, whether or not for payment or reward. The Bill, if enacted, would put the commissioning parents and the surrogate mother at risk of a fine or imprisonment for three years, or both.¹⁷ The Bill seeks to prohibit these activities by a person ordinarily resident in Queensland, irrespective of where the act occurred.¹⁸ In addition, the Bill would make surrogacy contracts void and unenforceable.¹⁹ The Queensland Parliament is in recess at the time of writing, and the Bill will not receive a second reading before late August 1988.

D. Tasmania

4.14 The Committee to investigate artificial conception and related matters was established by the Tasmanian Government in July 1984. Its report (in this paper called the Chalmers Report) was published in June 1985. The Committee concluded that surrogate motherhood in general, and commercial surrogacy arrangements in particular, were unacceptable to the Tasmanian community at that time. It recommended that surrogate motherhood not be recognised as an acceptable procedure for the alleviation of infertility in Tasmania.²⁰ Nevertheless, the Committee thought that the possibility of introducing surrogate motherhood arrangements should be reviewed in 1989. It was of the opinion that surrogate motherhood might be considered acceptable in the future, and accordingly set out its views on the regulation of surrogacy. Criminal penalties might not be an effective or appropriate means of controlling surrogate motherhood. Rather, specific legislation should be considered, and the arrangements themselves ought to be implemented through existing state agencies, and not privately through lawyers, medical practitioners, or by the couples themselves. The view that the Department of Community Welfare should organise surrogacy arrangements, and that any privately negotiated surrogate motherhood arrangements should attract criminal penalties.²¹

E. Western Australia

4.15 The In Vitro Fertilization Ethics Committee of Western Australia was established in June 1983 by the Government of that State. The Committee issued its final report (in this paper called the WA Report) in October 1986.²² In its final report, the Committee recommended that, at that time, surrogacy should not be permitted or recognised as an acceptable procedure for the alleviation of infertility. The Committee expressed its view that, if surrogacy were ever to be permitted, then

• the interests of the unborn child should be of paramount importance;
• there should be established a clear definition in law of who the mother is; and
• there should be no form of advertising, or commercialism for any surrogacy arrangements.²³

F. Family Law Council

4.16 The Family Law Council established a Committee to consider the issues relating to artificial insemination by donor, in vitro fertilization, embryo transfer and related matters. The Committee was chaired by the Hon Mr Justice Asche, who was then a Senior Judge of the Family Court of Australia. Its report was presented in May 1985.²⁴

4.17 During their consideration of issues relating to surrogacy, the members of the Asche Committee had particular regard to the long-term effects on women of relinquishing a child for adoption. The report of the Committee acknowledged the assistance provided by the results of a national survey on relinquishing mothers conducted by Dr Robin Winkler and Ms Margaret van Keppel. The Asche Committee considered that this research provided useful insights into the implications of relinquishment for surrogate mothers.²⁵

4.18 The members of the Asche Committee recommended that there should be a prohibition on the exchange of money for surrogacy services, for arranging such services, and on advertisements for surrogacy services. They considered that the surrogate mother and a commissioning couple who entered into a private surrogacy arrangement for altruistic reasons should not be subject to any criminal penalty. However, they recommended that those who assisted in the act of arranging the surrogacy should be subject to the sanctions of the law.²⁶ The Committee also recommended the enactment of legislation to render surrogacy contracts null and void, and therefore unenforceable, because they are contrary to public policy.²⁷

4.19 In their deliberations, the Asche Committee considered but rejected the argument that women should be free to use their bodies as they wish, and to enter a surrogacy contract for payment or otherwise. The Committee said that such an argument failed to take account of the welfare and interests of the third party (the child). The Committee warned of the problems of exploitation, in particular for women entering such arrangements without an understanding of the dilemmas and long-term consequences of such a decision. The Asche Committee was influenced by what it saw to be the problems, vulnerability, coercion and pressures facing surrogate mothers, which were highlighted in the Winkler research findings on relinquishment, and evident in the experience of surrogacy arrangements in the United States.²⁸

4.20 The Asche Committee also recommended that there should be uniform laws among the states and territories in respect of surrogacy arrangements. If this were not the case, the Committee warned that couples might “shop around” from state to state.²⁹

III. NEW ZEALAND

4.21 The Law Reform Division of the Department of Justice released an Issues Paper on AID, IVF and Surrogate Motherhood in March 1985.³⁰ The Paper canvassed the arguments for and against surrogacy arrangements, and presented an overview of the issues involved. It did not, however, offer any tentative solutions.³¹ An Inter-Departmental Committee is now monitoring the subjects covered in the Paper. Its functions are to act as a repository of information, to monitor the issues associated with artificial birth technology, and to advise Ministers as required. The Commission understands that there are no proposals for legislation at this stage.

IV. UNITED KINGDOM

4.22 The Committee of Inquiry into Human Fertilization and Embryology was established in July 1982, and was chaired by Dame Mary Warnock DBE. Its report (in this paper called the Warnock Report) was published in 1984.

4.23 By majority, the Warnock Committee recommended that legislation be introduced to render criminal the creation or operation of agencies for surrogacy arrangements whether the agency was a profit or non-profit making organisation. The majority also recommended that the proposed legislation should make it a criminal assist knowingly in the establishment of a surrogate pregnancy. The majority also recommended that all surrogacy agreements should be unenforceable in the courts.³²

4.24 Two members of the Committee, Dr Wendy Greengross and Dr David Davies, attached an expression of dissent. These members considered that the licensing authority recommended by the Warnock Committee should include surrogacy within its remit. The authority would have the power to license an agency or agencies to make arrangements for surrogacy. Accordingly, Dr Greengross and Dr Davies took the view that it would be inappropriate to provide that all surrogacy arrangements should be illegal contracts. Rather, the courts should be free to consider individual cases on their merits. They concluded that it was then (1984) too soon to make a final decision on surrogacy.³³

4.25 Legislation concerning surrogacy arrangements was passed in the United Kingdom in 1985. The Surrogacy Arrangements Act 1985 prohibits any advertising concerning surrogate motherhood.³⁴ Apart from this similarity, the scheme of the legislation is quite different from that in force in Victoria. The United Kingdom legislation does not prohibit surrogate motherhood arrangements entirely. Instead, it prohibits a number of aspects of the negotiation of surrogate motherhood arrangements on a commercial basis.³⁵ Neither the prospective surrogate mother nor the prospective commissioning parents commit an offence by taking part in such negotiations.³⁶ it seems, then, that the United Kingdom legislation is directed at intermediaries making surrogacy arrangements on a commercial basis, that is, for the financial benefit of persons other than the surrogate mother. Payment to or for the benefit of the surrogate mother is excluded from the definition of “commercial basis”.³⁷ Accordingly, it would not be an offence under the United Kingdom legislation to make a surrogacy arrangement if the only payment is to or for the benefit of the surrogate mother. Further, neither the surrogate mother nor the commissioning parent would commit an offence by entering into the contract, even if the arrangement involved payment to someone other than the surrogate mother.

4.26 It will be recalled that the Victorian legislation provides specifically that surrogate motherhood contracts are void. The United Kingdom legislation is not so specific. Indeed, the Act seems to envisage that some surrogate motherhood arrangements might be lawful or enforceable or both. The Act is drafted to apply to “arrangements whether or not they are lawful and whether or not they are enforceable by or against any of the persons making them”.³⁸ it has been argued that it is possible to infer from this provision that some arrangements are enforceable, either in whole or in part.³⁹

4.27 In December 1986 the government released a Consultation Document to generate further comment on the issues raised by the Warnock Report. Views were sought on the enforceability on surrogacy arrangements, the operation of non-commercial agencies and the extent, if any, to which participation in a surrogacy arrangement should be subject to criminal penalties.⁴⁰ This, in turn, was followed by a White Paper in November 1987 which set out a framework for legislation.⁴¹ The White Paper concluded that legislation should not give any encouragement to the practice of surrogacy arranged privately or on a non-commercial basis. The proposed legislation would not provide for licensing non-commercial surrogacy services. Surrogacy contracts would be made legally unenforceable in all aspects. Nevertheless, the government indicated that it did not consider it appropriate (nor necessarily in the child’s best interests) to bring the practice of surrogacy within the scope of the criminal law. Accordingly, the proposed legislation would not add to the criminal sanctions contained in the Surrogacy Arrangements Act 1985. In order, however, to keep surrogacy under review, the proposed Statutory Licensing Authority would report to Ministers on requested.⁴²

V. COUNCIL OF EUROPE

4.28 The Ad Hoc Committee of Experts on Progress in the Biomedical Sciences (CAHBI) completed work on its Provisional Principles on Human Artificial Procreation in April 1987 but has not released its report yet. CAHBI’s aim is to produce model principles on surrogacy for its member nations at some time in the future.

VI. WEST GERMANY

4.29 The Working Group on In Vitro Fertilization, Genome Analysis and Gene Therapy was established in May 1984. Its report (in this paper called the West German Report) was published in 1985.

4.30 The members of the Working Group declared themselves to be opposed to any form of surrogacy as a matter of principle. They recommended that IVF not be available for surrogacy arrangements. Nevertheless, they did refer to the possibility of there being exceptional cases of a special nature which should be exempt. The Working Group left open the possibility that there be exempted from the prohibition cases in which an IVF surrogacy was undertaken to protect the life of the embryo, and cases when a woman declared herself willing to carry a pregnancy to term for a close relative who, for medical reasons, is not able to do so herself.⁴³

4.31 It has since been reported that, after a Michigan attorney (Mr N Keane) opened a surrogate mother recruitment agency in Frankfurt, the Minister of Justice in October 1987 recommended amendment of the adoption law to prohibit surrogate motherhood.⁴⁴

VII. FRANCE

4.32 The French government has filed a number of suits for the dissolution of surrogate motherhood associations. It has been reported that in each of the three decisions to date, the courts have held that the actions of such associations, even if not for profit, are contrary to the principle of the inalienability of the human body, and to the civil and criminal provisions of the law of France prohibiting incitement to abandonment of children.⁴⁵

A. Ontario

4 .33 The Ontario Law Reform Commission commenced its studies on Human Artificial Reproduction in November 1982. Its report (in this paper called the Ontario Report) was published in 1985. In this report, the Ontario Law Reform Commission made clear and wide-ranging recommendations for legislative action.

VIII. CANADA

4.34 The proposals of the Ontario Law Reform Commission differ very significantly from recommendations made in other jurisdictions. The Ontario Law Reform Commission would permit (and, indeed, enforce) surrogacy arrangements, provided that the contract conformed to the requirements of the legislation, and the contract itself and the suitability of the parties were approved before conception occurred. Both the commissioning couple and the surrogate mother would be required to satisfy the court of their suitability to participate in a surrogacy arrangement. The commissioning couple would be required to satisfy the court that the surrogacy arrangement is the only medical option available for them to have a child.⁴⁶ The court would have to be satisfied of the physical and mental health of the prospective surrogate mother, the consent of any spouse (or partner) and the possible adverse effects of their participation upon any of their children.⁴⁷

4.35 The recommendations of the Ontario Law Reform Commission envisage a role for the children’s aid societies. These societies would be able to intervene in the court hearings if they have adverse information concerning any of the applicants.⁴⁸ Similarly, once a surrogacy arrangement had been approved, the society should be able to apply to the court for a review of the arrangement if information came to hand suggesting the unsuitability of the commissioning couple. Custody of the child might then be sought by either party.⁴⁹

4.36 Upon the birth of the child pursuant to an approved surrogacy arrangement, the commissioning couple would be regarded for all legal purposes as the child’s parents, and this would be reflected in the child’s birth certificate.⁵⁰

IX. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

4.37 The attention that has been given to surrogate motherhood in recent years has led to a good deal of debate on this topic in the United States, and many bills have been introduced into various legislatures in that country.

A. Federal Measures

4.38 Two bills were introduced into Congress in 1987. One bill would prohibit surrogacy on a commercial basis, while the other was intended to prohibit the activities of intermediaries in surrogacy activities. At the time of writing, neither bill had been enacted.

4.39 The Surrogacy Arrangements Bill 1987 would render participation in the arrangement or implementation of a commercial surrogacy agreement criminal. The prohibition would extend to whoever knowingly makes, engages in or “brokers” a surrogacy arrangement, or attempts to do so, on a commercial basis. It appears that the prohibitions in the Bill would extend to any commercial agency, and to the surrogate mother.⁵¹ Breach of the prohibition would be punishable by a fine or imprisonment of up to two years, or both. The Bill would also prohibit advertising concerning surrogacy.⁵²

4.40 In September 1987, a further bill, the Anti-Surrogate-Mother Bill, was introduced into the House of Representatives. Under that Bill, it would be an offence to procure any woman to engage in surrogate motherhood, or to provide medical assistance in carrying out an agreement to engage motherhood. The Bill would also prohibit any concerning surrogate motherhood, and would render any contract for surrogate motherhood null and void. The Bill defines surrogate motherhood as any arrangement in which a woman agrees to carry in utero any child conceived other than through sexual intercourse with the father, if the woman is not married to the father.⁵³ It appears that the provisions in the Bill would not affect an arrangement concerning a naturally conceived child.

B. State Measures

4.41 The Joseph and Rose Kennedy Institute of Ethics at Georgetown University kindly supplied the Commission with information compiled by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists concerning proposals for legislation on surrogacy at state level. It appears that 64 bills on surrogacy were introduced from January to June 1987.⁵⁴ More bills were introduced into state legislatures in the second half of 1987. From a list of 65 state bills on surrogacy supplied by the Kennedy Institute of Ethics, the following summary has been prepared:

• Twenty three bills would allow surrogacy arrangements under a regulatory system;
• Twenty two bills would prohibit “most surrogacy arrangements” (twenty one by prohibiting the practice, and one by prohibiting payment); and
• Twenty bills would provide for an official study or inquiry into surrogacy.

4.43 The Office of Technology Assessment of the United States Congress has informed the Commission of recent amendments to Nevada law that exempt “lawful” surrogacy contracts from the provisions of Nevada’ s legislation prohibiting baby selling. The Office advised the Commission that, while the intent of the amendment clearly seems to be to exempt surrogacy from the prohibitions on baby selling, it is not at all clear whether the amendment is intended to render surrogacy agreements specifically enforceable.⁵⁶

C. National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws

4.44 The National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws had before them at their meetings in August 1987 and August 1988 proposals for draft legislation dealing with status issues regarding children conceived or carried to birth through procedures falling within the rubric of “the new biology”. The draft proposals were intended for discussion only. They have not been passed upon by the Commissioners on Uniform State Laws, nor do they necessarily reflect their views.⁵⁷

4.45 The draft proposals would allow the parties to prepare a surrogacy arrangement, which would have to conform to certain prerequisites and be approved by a court before conception occurs. Any agreement not approved by the court would be null and void and the intended parents would be treated as gamete donors, only.⁵⁸ The written agreement would have to be signed by the commissioning couple (called the "intended parents”), the surrogate mother and her husband if she is married.⁵⁹ Certain conditions would have to be met before the contract is approved by a court. They include the following:

• the “intended mother” would have to be unable to bear a child because of unreasonable risk to her physical or mental health;
• the intended parents would have to meet standards of fitness that would qualify them to become adoptive parents under the adoption law;
• the proposed surrogate mother would have to have had at least one uncomplicated pregnancy and delivery and the court would have to find that bearing another child would not pose an unreasonable risk to the physical and mental health of either the surrogate or child;
• all parties to the agreement would have to understand it fully and be found to have entered into it voluntarily;
• the court and the parties would have to have received the results of any medical, psychological or genetic screening agreed to by the parties or required by law; and
• there would have to be sufficient financial responsibility to cover medical and hospital costs incurred during or as a result of the procreative process.

4.46 Under these proposals, the surrogacy agreement would become effective upon conception of the child. The surrogate mother would, however, retain all legal rights to control her own health care, including that of the foetus.⁶¹ All parties would retain the right to terminate the agreement until the pregnancy occurs,⁶² but only the surrogate mother would have the right after that time.⁶³ This right of the surrogate mother to terminate after the agreement unilaterally would continue for six months after establishment of the pregnancy. From then on the court would have to give notice of termination.⁶⁴

4.47 Under the proposals parental rights are not to vest in the intended parents until the birth of the child.⁶⁵ They are to be granted subject to a court ordered home study of the intended parents to be conducted by a child welfare agency after the birth of the child.⁶⁶ Should the surrogate mother terminate the agreement unilaterally, the intended parents are to be given the right to apply for “limited parental rights” to the child,⁶⁷ but the surrogate mother is to have custody.⁶⁸

1. Waller Report at 51.

2. Id at 52-53.

3. Id at 54.

4. Infertility (Medical Procedures) Act 1984 (Vic) s30(2)(b).

5. Id s30(2)(c).

6. Id s30(2)(a).

7. Id s30(3).

8. SA Report (1984) at 29.

9. SA Report (1987) at 27.

10. Family Relationships Act 1975 (SA) ss10f, 10g(3).

11. Id s10h(a), (b).

12. Id s10h(c).

13. Demack Report at 115.

14. Id at 117.

15. Id at 118.

16. Ibid.

17. Surrogate Parenthood Bill 1988 (Qld) cl 2, 3.

18. Id cl 3(2).

19. Id cl 4.

20. Chalmers Report at 87.

21. Id at 87-89.

22. Its interim report, which was published in August 1984, made no recommendations concerning surrogacy arrangements.

23. WA Report at 37, 38.

24. Family Law Council Creating Children: A Uniform Approach to the Law and Practice of Technology in Australia (1985).

25. Id at para 6.6.4.Now published as Winkler and van Keppel Relinquishing Mothers in Adoption (1984).

26. Id at para 6.6.16.

27. Id at paras 6.6.15, 6.6.20.

28. Id at para 6.6.17

29. Id at paras 6.6.18, 6.6.20.

30. Law Reform Division, Department of Justice (NZ) New Birth Technologies: An Issues Paper on AID, IVF and Surrogate Motherhood (1985).

31. The Law Reform Division has analysed the responses to the Issues Paper. Law Reform Division, Department of Justice (NZ) New Birth Technologies: A Summary of Submissions Received on the Issues Paper (1986).

32. Warnock Report at 47.

33. Id at 88, 89.

34. Surrogacy Arrangements Act 1985 (UK) s3(1).

35. Id s2(1).

36. Id s2(2).

37. Id s2(3).

38. Id s1(9).

39. Susan Sloman “Surrogacy Arrangements Act 1985” (1985) 135 New Law Journal 978 at 980.

40. Department of Health and Social Security (UK) Legislation on Human Infertility Services and Embryo Research (Cm 46, HMSO, London, 1986) at paras 34 and 41-44.

41. Department of Health and Social Security (UK) Human Fertilization and Embryology: A Framework For Legislation (Cm 259, HMSO, London, 1987).

42. Id at paras 72-75.

43. West German Report at 48, 50, and 51.

44. Christian Byk Biomedical Ethics Newsletter (No 5, 3rd and 4th quarters of 1987), 8.

45. Id at 9.

46. Ontario Report Vol II at 237.

47. Id at 242.

48. Id at 247.

49. Id at 253.

50. Id at 260.

51. Surrogacy Arrangements Bill 1987 (USA), HR 2433, cl 2.

52. Id cl 3. The Bill was still with the Judiciary Committee on 1 June 1988.

53. Anti-Surrogate-Mother Bill 1987 (USA), HR 3264, cl 2. The Bill was still with the Technology Committee on 1 June 1988.

54. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists Surrogate Motherhood: State Legislative Update (July 15, 1987).

55. Louisiana Statute R.S. 9: 2713 (1987).

56. Office of Technology Assessment, Congress of the United States, Correspondence, 24 November 1987.

57. National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws, discussion draft, Status of Children of the New Biology, prepared for meeting to be held July 29 August 1988. The 1988 draft differs materially from that considered at the meeting held July 31 August 7, 1987.

58. Status of Children of the New Biology Bill, id cl 6(a)(1),(15).

59. Id cl 6(a)(1).

60. Id cl 6(a)(1).

61. Id cl 6(a)(4).

62. Id cl 6(a)(7).

63. Id cl 6 (a)(8).

64. Ibid.

65. Id, cl 6(a)(11).

66. Id cl 6(a)(12)(i).

67. Id cl 6(a)(9)

68. Ibid.