A Support to the Appellate Brief

Rose, Mrs. Keller agreed to perform much(prenominal) services. The Kellers agreed to deliver the baby to the Roses in exchange for a compensation of $10,000, $3,000 payable after the successful implantation of the glob and $7,000 after the expiration of the 72 hour period. At the cartridge clip the surrogate agreement was executed and for nearly nine months thereafter, the Kellers carried go forth the terms of the surrogate agreement. However, Mrs. Keller testified that during pregnancy she "felt myself growing nestled and closer to Leah" and grew progressively to a greater extent and more depressed at the thought of giving her up. She said that immediately after the pregnancy, "I was very upset about losing Leah." (Testimony of Patricia Keller, pp. 5-6 of the Record). Nine months after crook Leah over to the Roses, the Kellers initiated litigation to dedicate the surrogate agreement tell void and to obtain custody of the child.

The only issue presented is whether the appellate Court interpreted Illinois law and any applicable national law correctly

in finding the surrogate agreement unenforceable.

stock and Points and Authorities

The Appellate Court's decision that the surrogate agreement was unenforceable should be affirmed because: (I) it is not unconstitutional under the United States or Illinois Constitutions for the State of Illinois to regulate the terms of or to declare unenforceable private su

Those purposes were summarized pithily by the new Jersey Supreme Court in In re Baby M when it said at p. 1249 that "there are, in a civilized society, some things that money cannot buy." There is first gear the element of convenience. It was not established that Mrs. Rose could not have children nor even that medical opinion was against her attempting to do so, but merely that the Roses were concerned about the risks of pregnancy. The Warnock Commission in Great Britain which aware against enforcing assisted reproduction agreements said: "surrogacy for convenience alone . . . is entirely ethically unacceptable." It went on to add that "even in get medical circumstances the danger of exploitation of one merciful being by another appears to . . . outweigh the potential benefits . . .

that pot should treat others as a means to their own ends, heretofore desirable the consequences, must always be liable to chaste objection." (Judith Areen, Baby M Reconsidered, 76 GEORGETOWN L.J. 1751 (June 1988)).

UNIF. PARENTAGE ACT, sec. 3, 9B U.L.A. 298 (1973).

John Lawrence Hill, What Does It believe to Be a 'Parent,' The Claims of Biology as the Basis for agnatic Rights, 66 N.Y.U. L. REV. 353-420 (May 1991).

The reluctance to part child and birth father is amplely engrained in our society. In part, it is a recognition of the deep psychological and emotional bonds which develop between fetus and spawn during pregnancy and the birth process as well as the adverse effects, psychological and otherwise, that they accrue to both birth bewilder and offspring if they should be pried apart against their will. As Justice Kennard in his dissent at 797-798 expresses this deep human feeling, "a large(predicate) woman intending to bring a child into the world is more than a mere container or breeding animal; she is a conscious agent of creation no less than the genetic mother, and her humanity is implicated on a deep level." such(prenominal) mothers and their progeny are deserving of the protection of the
Ordercustompaper.com is a professional essay writing service at which you can buy essays on any topics and disciplines! All custom essays are written by professional writers!