Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-7cvxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-22T19:32:06.550Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Reproductive Technologies and Surrogacy: Policy Concerns for Women1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 May 2016

Laura R. Woliver
Laura R. Woliver*
Affiliation:
Department of Government and International Studies, University of South Carolina, Columbia, South Carolina 29208
Get access

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Articles and Commentaries
Information
Politics and the Life Sciences , Volume 8 , Issue 2: Special Issue: The Politics of Surrogacy Contracts , February 1990 , pp. 185 - 194
Copyright
Copyright © Association for Politics and the Life Sciences 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

American Bar Association Journal. (1987). “Surrogate Parenthood.” 73 (June 1):38.Google Scholar
Andrews, L. B. (1988). Spring. “Surrogate Motherhood: The Challenge for Feminists.” Law, Medicine & Health Care 16(1-2):72–80.Google Scholar
Andrews, L. B. (1989). Between Strangers: Surrogate Mothers, Expectant Fathers, and Brave New Babies. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
Blank, R. H. (1981). The Political Implications of Human Genetic Technology. Boulder, Colo.: Westview Press.Google Scholar
Blank, R. H. (1984a). Redefining Human Life: Reproductive Technologies & Social Policy. Boulder, Colo.: Westview Press.Google Scholar
Blank, R. H. (1984b). “Judicial Decision Making and Biological Fact: Roe v. Wade and the Unresolved Question of Fetal Viability.” Western Political Quarterly 37:584–602.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blank, R. H. (1988). Rationing Medicine. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Bleier, R. (1984). Science and Gender: A Critique of Biology and Its Theories on Women. New York: Pergamon.Google Scholar
Bumiller, K. (1988). The Civil Rights Society: The Social Construction of Victims. Baltimore, Md.: The Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
Burfoot, A. (1988). “A Review of the Third Annual Meeting of the European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology.” Reproductive And Genetic Engineering: Journal of International Feminist Analysis. 1(1):107–111.Google Scholar
Coles, R. (1988). “So, You Fell in Love With Your Baby.” New York Times Book Review (June 26) 137, 47, 548:1, 34-35.Google Scholar
Corea, G. (1985). The Mother Machine: Reproductive Technologies from Artificial Insemination to Artificial Wombs. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
Corea, G., Hanmer, J., Klein, R. D., Raymond, J., and Rowland, R. (1987). “Prologue.” In Spallone, P. and Steinberg, D. L. (eds.), Made to Order: The Myth of Reproductive and Genetic Progress. New York: Pergamon Press, pp. 1–12.Google Scholar
Diamond, I. (1988). “Medical Science and the Transformation of Motherhood: The Promise of Reproductive Technologies.” In Boneparth, E. and Stoper, E. (eds.), Women, Power & Policy: Toward The Year 2000. New York: Pergamon Press, pp. 155–167.Google Scholar
Edelman, M. (1964). The Symbolic Uses of Politics. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.Google Scholar
Edelman, M. (1977). Political Language: Words that Succeed and Policies that Fail. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Edwards, M., and Waldorf, M. (1984). Reclaiming Birth: History and Heroines of American Childbirth Reform. Trumansburg, New York: The Crossing Press.Google Scholar
Ehrenreich, B., and English, D. (1973). Complaints and Disorders: The Sexual Politics of Sickness. New York: The Feminist Press.Google Scholar
Ehrenreich, B., and English, D. (1978). For Her Own Good: 150 Years of the Expert's Advice to Women. New York: Anchor Books.Google Scholar
Eisenstein, Z. R. (1988). The Female Body and the Law. Berkeley: The University of California Press.Google Scholar
Elder, C. D., and Cobb, R. W. (1983). The Political Uses of Symbols. New York: Longman.Google Scholar
Elshtain, J. B. (1989). “Technology as Destiny: The New Eugenics Challenges Feminism.” Progressive. 53(6):19–23.Google Scholar
Estrich, S. (1987). Real Rape. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Farrant, W. (1985). “Who's For Amniocentesis? The Politics of Prenatal Screening.” In Homans, H. (ed.), The Sexual Politics of Reproduction. Brookfield, Vermont: Gower Publishing Company, pp. 96–122.Google Scholar
Field, M. A. (1988). Surrogate Motherhood. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Fineman, M. L. (1988). “Dominant Discourse, Professional Language, and Legal Change in Child Custody Decisionmaking.” Harvard Law Review 101(February):727–774.Google Scholar
Finley, L. M. (1986). “Transcending Equality Theory: A Way Out of the Maternity and the Workplace Debate.” Columbia Law Review 86:1118–1182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fisher, S. (1986). In The Patient's Best Interest: Women and the Politics of Medical Decisions. New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press.Google Scholar
Galanter, M. (1974). “Why the ‘Haves’ Come Out Ahead: Speculations on the Limits of Legal Change.” Law and Society Review 9 (Fall):95–160.Google Scholar
Hanmer, J. (1981). “Sex Predetermination, Artificial Insemination and the Maintenance of Male-Dominated Culture.” In Roberts, H. (ed.), Women, Health and Reproduction. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, pp. 163–190.Google Scholar
Harrison, M. (1987). “Social Construction of Mary Beth Whitehead.” Gender & Society. 1(3):300–311.Google Scholar
Holmes, H. B., and Hoskins, B. B. (1987). “Prenatal and Preconception Sex Choice Technologies: A Path to Femicide?”In Corea, G. et al. (eds.), Man-Made Women: How the New Reproductive Technologies Affect Women, Bloomington: Indiana University Press, pp. 15–29.Google Scholar
Hoskins, B. B., and Holmes, H. B. (1984). “Technology and Prenatal Femicide.” In Arditti, R., Klein, R. D. and Minden, H. (eds.), Test-Tube Women: What Future for Motherhood? London: Pandora Press, pp. 237–255.Google Scholar
Hubbard, R. (1984). “Personal Courage is Not Enough: Some Hazards of Childbearing in the 1980s.” In Arditti, R., Klein, R. D. and Minden, S. (eds.), Test-Tube Women: What Future for Motherhood? London: Pandora Press, pp. 331–355.Google Scholar
Lasker, J., and Borg, S. (1987). In Search Of Parenthood: Coping with Infertility and High-Tech Conception. Boston: Beacon Press.Google Scholar
MacKinnon, C. A. (1987). Feminism Unmodified: Discourses on Life and Law. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
MacNeil-Lehrer News Hour (1989). Transcript Public Broadcasting Service. (July 3).Google Scholar
Maier, K. E. (1989). “Pregnant Women: Fetal Containers or People with Rights?” Affilia: Journal of Women & Social Work 4(2):8–20.Google Scholar
Martin, E. (1987). The Woman in the Body: A Cultural Analysis of Reproduction. Boston: Beacon Press.Google Scholar
Minow, M. (1987). “When Difference Has its Home: Group Homes for the Mentally Retarded, Equal Protection and the Legal Treatment of Difference.” Harvard Civil Rights - Civil Liberties Law Review 22 (Winter): 111–189.Google Scholar
Oakley, A. (1984). The Captured Womb: A History of the Medical Care of Pregnant Women. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
Parness, J. A. (1989). Testimony before the Select Committee on Children, Youth and Families of the United States House of Representatives during the April 27, 1989, hearing entitled, “Born Hooked: Confronting the Impact of Perinatal Substance Abuse.”Google Scholar
Pateman, C. (1988). The Sexual Contract. Stanford, California: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Petchesky, R. P. (1984). Abortion and Woman's Choice: The State, Sexuality, and Reproductive Freedom. New York: Longman.Google Scholar
Petchesky, R. P. (1987). “Foetal Images: The Power of Visual Culture in the Politics of Reproduction.” In Stanworth, M. (Ed). Reproductive Technologies: Gender, Motherhood, and Medicine. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, pp. 57–80.Google Scholar
Pollitt, K. (1987). “Contracts and Apple Pie: The Strange Case of Baby M.” Nation 244 (May 23):667,682–688.Google Scholar
Pollock, S. (1984). “Refusing to Take Women Seriously: ‘Side Effects’ and the Politics of Contraception.” In Arditti, R., Klein, R. D. & Minden, S. (eds.), Test-Tube Women: What Future For Motherhood? London: Pandora Press, pp. 138–152.Google Scholar
Radin, M.J.(1987).“Market-Inalienability.” Harvard Law Review 100(June):1849–1937.Google Scholar
Rich, A. (1976). Of Women Born: Motherhood as Experience and Institution. New York: W. W. Norton.Google Scholar
Richard, P. B. (1989). “Fetal Research Policy.” In Blank, R. H. (ed.), Biomedical Technology and Public Policy, Westport, Conn.: Greenwood Press.Google Scholar
Roiphe, A. (1989). “What's a Mother To Do?” MS. 17(10)26–27.Google Scholar
Rosser, S. ed. (1989). “Special Issue: Feminism and Science: In Memory of Ruth Bleier.” Women's Studies International Forum 12.Google Scholar
Rothman, B. K. (1982). In Labour: Women and Power in The Birthplace. New York & London: W. W. Norton.Google Scholar
Rothman, B. K. (1986). The Tentative Pregnancy: Prenatal Diagnosis and the Future of Motherhood. New York: Viking.Google Scholar
Rothman, B. K. (1989). Recreating Motherhood: Ideology and Technology in a Patriarchal Society. New York: W. W. Norton.Google Scholar
Rowland, R. (1987). “Technology and Motherhood: Reproductive Choice Reconsidered,” Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society 12(Spring):512–528.Google Scholar
St. Peter, C. (1989). “Feminist Discourse, Infertility, and Reproductive Technologies.” NWSA Journal 1(3):353–367.Google Scholar
Sherman, R. (1988a). “‘Fetal Rights’ Cases Draw Little Attention.” National Law Journal 11(4):25.Google Scholar
Sherman, R. (1988b). “Keeping Baby Safe From Mom,” National Law Journal 11(4):1, 24, 26.Google Scholar
Solomon, A. (1988). “Integrating Infertility Crisis Counseling into Feminist Practice.” Reproductive and Genetic Engineering: Journal of International Feminist Analysis 1(1):41–49.Google Scholar
Steinbacher, R. (1981). “Futuristic Implications of Sex Preselection.” In Holmes, H. B., Hoskins, B. B. and Gross, M. (eds.), The Custom-Made Child? Women-Centered Perspectives. New Jersey: The Humana Press, pp. 187–191.Google Scholar
Steinbacher, R., and Holmes, H. B. (1987). “Sex Choice: Survival and Sisterhood.” In Corea, G. et al. (eds.),Man-Made Women: How the New Reproductive Technologies Affect Women. Bloomington, Ind.: Indiana University Press, pp. 52–63.Google Scholar
Superior Court of New Jersey. “In the Matter of BABY M, A Pseudonym for an Actual Person.” 217 N.J. Super. 313, 525 A.2d 1128. (March 31, 1987).Google Scholar
Supreme Court of New Jersey. “In the Matter of BABY M, A Pseudonym for an Actual Person.” 109 N.J. 396,537 A.2d 1227 (February 3, 1988).Google Scholar
United States Supreme Court. Webster v. Reproductive Health Services. 57 L.W. 5023. (June 27, 1989).Google Scholar
Vetri, D. (1988). “Reproductive Technologies and United States Law.” International & Comparative Law Quarterly 37(3):505–534.Google Scholar
Warren, M. A. (1985). Gendercide: The Implications of Sex Selection. Totowa, New Jersey: Rowman & Allanheld.Google Scholar
Whitehead, M. B. (1989). A Mother's Story: The Truth About The Baby M Case. New York: St. Martin's Press.Google Scholar
Woliver, L. R. (1988). “Review Essay: The Equal Rights Amendment and the Limits of Liberal Legal Reform.” Polity 21(1):183–200.Google Scholar
Woliver, L. R.(1989). “The Deflective Power of Reproductive Technologies: The Impact on Women.” Women and Politics 9(3): 17–47Google Scholar