Description
FIRST: ADD INTO paper attached by me not exampleaddress what impact this case has for you a Health administrator??? THEN create a power point with the paper provided two examples of power points will be attached
Unformatted Attachment Preview
HOW TO BRIEF A CASE USING THE “IRAC” METHOD
WHEN BRIEFING A CASE, YOUR GOAL IS TO REDUCE THE INFORMATION FROM THE CASE INTO A FORMAT
THAT WILL PROVIDE YOU WITH A HELPFUL REFERENCE IN CLASS AND FOR REVIEW . MOST IMPORTANTLY,
BY “BRIEFING” A CASE, YOU WILL GRASP THE PROBLEM THE COURT FACED (THE ISSUE); THE RELEVANT
LAW THE COURT USED TO SOLVE IT (THE RULE); HOW THE COURT APPLIED THE RULE TO THE FACTS (THE
APPLICATION OR “ANALYSIS”); AND THE OUTCOME (THE CONCLUSION). YOU WILL THEN BE READY TO
NOT ONLY DISCUSS THE CASE, BUT TO COMPARE AND CONTRAST IT TO OTHER CASES INVOLVING A SIMILAR
ISSUE.
BEFORE ATTEMPTING TO “BRIEF” A CASE, READ THE CASE AT LEAST ONCE.
FOLLOW THE “IRAC” METHOD IN BRIEFING CASES:
INTRODUCTION
FACTS*
WRITE A BRIEF SUMMARY OF THE FACTS AS THE COURT FOUND THEM TO BE. ELIMINATE FACTS THAT ARE
NOT RELEVANT TO THE COURT’S ANALYSIS. YOU CAN INCLUDE A PROCEDURAL HISTORY*
WHAT COURT AUTHORED THE OPINION: THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT? THE CALIFORNIA
COURT OF APPEAL? THE NINTH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS? (HINT: CHECK UNDER THE TITLE OF THE
CASE: THE COURT AND YEAR OF THE DECISION WILL BE GIVEN). IF A TRIAL COURT ISSUED THE
DECISION, IS IT BASED ON A TRIAL, OR MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, ETC.? IF APPELLATE
COURT ISSUED THE DECISION, HOW DID THE LOWER COURTS DECIDE THE CASE?
ISSUE:
WHAT IS THE QUESTION PRESENTED TO THE COURT? USUALLY, ONLY ONE ISSUE WILL BE DISCUSSED, BUT
SOMETIMES THERE WILL BE MORE. WHAT ARE THE PARTIES FIGHTING ABOUT, AND WHAT ARE THEY
ASKING THE COURT TO DECIDE? THE ANSWER TO THE QUESTION WILL HELP TO ULTIMATELY DETERMINE
WHETHER A HOSPITAL, HEALTHCARE, PROFESSIONAL, ET AL IS LIABLE FOR NEGLIGENTLY FAILING TO PROVIDE THE DEFENDANT
OWED PLAINTIFF A DUTY OF CARE, AND WHAT THAT DUTY OF CARE IS, ARE KEY ISSUES IN NEGLIGENCE CLAIMS.
RULE(S):
DETERMINE WHAT THE RELEVANT RULES OF LAW ARE THAT THE COURT USES TO MAKE ITS DECISION.
THESE RULES WILL BE IDENTIFIED AND DISCUSSED BY THE COURT. FOR EXAMPLE, IN THE CASE OF THE
ASSAULTED CUSTOMER, THE RELEVANT RULE OF LAW IS THAT A PROPERTY OWNER’S DUTY TO PREVENT
HARM TO INVITEES IS DETERMINED BY BALANCING THE FORESEEABILITY OF THE HARM AGAINST THE
BURDEN OF PREVENTIVE MEASURES. THERE MAY BE MORE THAN ONE RELEVANT RULE OF LAW TO A
CASE: FOR EXAMPLE, IN A NEGLIGENCE CASE IN WHICH THE DEFENDANT ARGUES THAT THE PLAINTIFF
ASSUMED THE RISK OF HARM, THE RELEVANT RULES OF LAW COULD BE THE ELEMENTS OF NEGLIGENCE,
AND THE DEFINITION OF “ASSUMPTION OF RISK” AS A DEFENSE. DON’T JUST SIMPLY LIST THE CAUSE OF
ACTION, SUCH AS “NEGLIGENCE” AS A RULE OF LAW: WHAT RULE MUST THE COURT APPLY TO THE FACTS
TO DETERMINE THE OUTCOME?
APPLICATION/ANALYSIS:
THIS MAY BE THE MOST IMPORTANT PORTION OF THE BRIEF. THE COURT WILL HAVE EXAMINED THE
FACTS IN LIGHT OF THE RULE, AND PROBABLY CONSIDERED ALL “SIDES” AND ARGUMENTS PRESENTED TO
IT. HOW COURTS APPLY THE RULE TO THE FACTS AND ANALYZE THE CASE MUST BE UNDERSTOOD IN ORDER
TO PROPERLY PREDICT OUTCOMES IN FUTURE CASES INVOLVING THE SAME ISSUE. WHAT DOES THE
COURT CONSIDER TO BE A RELEVANT FACT GIVEN THE RULE OF LAW? HOW DOES THE COURT INTERPRET THE RULE: FOR
EXAMPLE, DOES THE COURT CONSIDER MONETARY COSTS OF PROVIDING SECURITY PATROLS IN WEIGHING THE BURDEN OF
PREVENTIVE MEASURES? RESIST THE TEMPTATION TO MERELY REPEAT WHAT THE COURT SAID IN ANALYZING THE FACTS :
WHAT DOES IT MEAN TO YOU? SUMMARIZE THE COURT’S RATIONALE IN YOUR OWN WORDS. IF YOU ENCOUNTER A WORD THAT
YOU DO NOT KNOW, USE A DICTIONARY TO FIND ITS MEANING.
CONCLUSION:
WHAT WAS THE FINAL OUTCOME OF THE CASE? IN ONE OR TWO SENTENCES, STATE THE COURT’S
ULTIMATE FINDING AND ANSWER THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS:
▪ DO YOU AGREE WITH THE LEGAL FINDINGS?
▪ WHAT IMPACT DOES THIS LAW HAVE FOR THE :
•
THE HEALTHCARE DELIVERY SYSTEM
•
THE ORGANIZATIONS AND
•
YOU AS AN ADMINISTRATOR
Running head: ROE V. WADE
1
Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973)
[410 U.S. 113 (more) 93 S. Ct. 705; 35 L. Ed. 2d 147; 1973 U.S. LEXIS 159]
Student A
California State University, Northridge
HSCI 414 – Health Law
Professor Oppenberg
November 14, 2019
ROE V. WADE, 410 U.S. 113 (1973)
2
Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973)
Introduction: There was always a strong divide in the United States about the topic about
abortion, which divides the nation as a whole, with pro-life and pro-choice groups. Many states
in the United States made abortion illegal, which led to many women lying about being sexually
assaulted or raped so they could legally obtain an abortion. The right to abortion was further
highlighted by the Roe v. Wade case which began with a woman named Norma McCorvey (who
went with the pseudonym, Jane Roe). In fact, her case was such an issue, that this case went to
the Supreme Court, where in 1973, they issued a ruling that in Chapter sixteen of the Legal
Aspects “held the Texas penal abortion law unconstitutional and state criminal abortion
statutes…are violating the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment” which was stated
in Chapter 16 of the Legal Aspects of Healthcare Administration textbook (Pozgar, 2019, p.440).
In a nutshell, Jane Roe sued on behalf of all women because she wanted to make a change in the
laws, much like the Texas law, that prohibited women from getting an abortion. The
criminalization of abortion and only being able to obtain it if it saves the mother’s life, put many
women through hardships, pain, and suffering.
Case Facts: In June 1969, twenty-one-year-old, Norma McCorvey discovered she was pregnant
with her third child. When she returned to Texas, McCorvey wanted to get an abortion; however,
the Texas Law statutes “prohibit abortions to be conducted unless it saves the mother’s life”
(“Roe v. Wade,” 2019). Her friends stated that she should lie to law enforcement and claim that
she had gotten raped by a group of African American men, however, one cannot obtain an
abortion if they had gotten raped or if it was incest in Texas, and in many other places in the
United States, unless if it saves the mother’s life. Norma attempted to get an illegal abortion –
ROE V. WADE, 410 U.S. 113 (1973)
3
unfortunately, the place had been shut down by the police. As time passed, she eventually gave
birth and gave the child up for adoption.
Procedural History: Norma McCorvey was referred to the attorneys, Linda Coffee and Sarah
Weddington – it was then where she went under the pseudonym, Jane Roe. These two attorneys
were looking for pregnant women that wanted to obtain an abortion. Not wanting any other
mother to go through the hardship she went through, Roe filed a lawsuit against Henry Wade,
who was the Dallas County District Attorney to the U.S. Federal Court, where she stated that
Texas’ abortion laws are unconstitutional. After “Roe” filed the lawsuit, the case expanded, and
included several other Plaintiffs. The Federal District Court issued Declaratory relief and held
that the Texas statute was vague and overbroad. There was a three-judge panel in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Texas who ruled in Roe’s favor and then appealed to
the U.S. Supreme Court. The U.S. District Court issued declaratory relief and Roe was not given
injunctive relief, which is then why Roe appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. In addition, both
“Jane Roe” and Henry Wade appealed to the Supreme Court and after the oral arguments, Chief
Justice Warren Burger assigned the opinion of the court to Justice Harry Blackmun, who wrote
“an opinion that would strike down the Texas law as unconstitutionally vague” (Campo, 2005).
Issue: There were several issues that were underlined within this case. The main issue that was
discussed within this case would be, “is a woman’s right to have an abortion protected under the
constitutional right to privacy?” (Content Team, 2017). More specifically, do the Texas statutes
improperly invade the person’s right of personal liberty if they wanted to obtain an abortion,
which is stated in the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause, and is discussed in the
Ninth Amendment, which talks about personal, marital, and sexual privacy. Roe believes that the
Texas statutes are an invasion to her privacy and that a woman should be in control of what they
ROE V. WADE, 410 U.S. 113 (1973)
4
do with their body and whether they want to terminate their pregnancy – it should not be up to
the State’s laws.
Ruling/Rule: In January 1973, the Supreme Court had a 7-2 ruling the Fourteenth Amendment’s
Due Process Clause from the U.S. Constitution does allow for a person’s right to privacy (Lewin,
1988). This means that the woman can choose and has right to terminate their pregnancy or not.
In addition to this ruling, the Court added that during the first trimester of a woman’s pregnancy,
the government cannot prohibit abortions under any circumstances. They declared that the
Article 1196 Texas Penal Code was unconstitutionally vague and that it restricted a woman’s
rights to choose to obtain an abortion. For the second trimester, the state can regulate abortion
procedure’s in order to protect maternal health. Furthermore, for the third trimester, abortions
should be prohibited unless it saves the mother’s life.
Analysis: The Supreme Court came to its decision based on numerous factors. The case utilized
the First, Fourth, Fifth, and Ninth Amendment when the topic on privacy was brought to
attention to the Supreme Court in the U.S. Constitution; furthermore, the Fourteenth Amendment
also ensures a person’s personal liberty in the Due Process Clause, which is how the Roe v.
Wade decision was made. When the Supreme Court made the decision to allow a woman the
right to abort their pregnancy, this was guaranteed within those Amendments that were brought
to attention. In addition, “The Court articulated two important state interests-the preservation of
maternal health and the protection of fetal life-noting that each interest becomes “compelling” at
different points of the pregnancy” (Snedaker, 1987). This meant that the Supreme Court tied
state-regulations of abortions towards the three trimesters of the pregnancy which set standards
of regulations as well as the protection of the mother’s health. The court also stated that “the
original intent of the Constitution up to the enactment of the Fourteenth Amendment in 1868 did
ROE V. WADE, 410 U.S. 113 (1973)
5
not include the unborn. Justice Blackmun states that the Constitution does not include the
prenatal being in its definition of a “person”’(Campo, 2005). A woman’s right to privacy, as the
Court stated would allow them to not have unwanted children (which in the future would give
severe psychological harm), the child could be depressed and distressed if they find out in the
future that they were unwanted, and the Court also noted that having an unwanted child would
put physical and mental stress on the mother. Maternal health was one of they key factors
towards the Court’s ruling. Today, this case is a “settled law” which means that the thing is
decided (Stare Decisis), and Courts today abide by this principle. This case determined the ruling
for the Doe v. Bolton case which overturned Georgia’s abortion law.
Conclusion: Roe v. Wade decided that a woman has a right to abortion, which also highlighted
what can and cannot be done for each of the three trimesters. The topic of abortion is still a
fervent issue (even though “church and state should be considered separate). Republicans and
Democrats, as well as other political parties, frequently disagree about the topic on whether
abortion is a right to privacy and if a woman has the right to abort their pregnancy. I agree with
the legal findings that abortion is a woman’s right and that it should be determined by their right
to privacy that is stated in the Constitution. I do not agree with some of the ethical findings, such
as, “Roe” later in life actually opposed abortion and became pro-life and even wanted the Roe v.
Wade case overturned. She also claimed to be Lesbian, but then later on became a Christian and
was “straight” again. “Roe” seems to be unstable with her decisions in life. This case affects
healthcare organizations, the delivery system and health administrators because they have to
decide what kind of healthcare organization they are – if they are religiously based and do not
agree with abortion, or if they are not religious. This case affects what type of procedures and
ROE V. WADE, 410 U.S. 113 (1973)
resources the hospital, as well as clinics offer, and healthcare administrators need to make
decisions that they believe will abide by the healthcare organization’s culture and values.
Question:
What Penal Code Article affected the right to abortion for “Roe?”
a. Article 1196 Texas Penal Code
b. Article 3000 Texas Penal Code
c. Article 1196 Kentucky Penal Code
d. Article 2000 Louisiana Penal Code
6
ROE V. WADE, 410 U.S. 113 (1973)
7
References
Campo, A. (2005). PIECE OF CAKE; Chief Justice-to-be unclear on stand on Roe v.
Wade. Filipino Reporter, p. 35.
Snedaker, Kathryn H. (1987). Reconsidering Roe v. Wade: Equal Protection Analysis as an
Alternative Approach. New Mexico Law Review, 17(1), New Mexico Law Review, 1987,
Vol.17(1).
Lewin, T. (1988). Legal abortion under fierce attack 15 years after Roe v. Wade ruling. The New
York times on the Web, A20.
Pozgar, G. D. (2019). Legal aspects of health care administration (13th ed.). Burlington, MA:
Jones & Bartlett Learning.
Roe v. Wade. (n.d.). Retrieved November 4, 2019, from
https://www.casebriefs.com/blog/law/family-law/family-law-keyed-to-weisberg/private-familychoices-constitutional-protection-for-the-family-and-its-members/roe-v-wade/.
Team, C. (2017, March 11). Roe v. Wade – Case Summary and Case Brief. Retrieved from
https://legaldictionary.net/roe-v-wade/.
Roe v. Wade
410 U.S. 113 (1973)
[410 U.S. 113 (more) 93 S. Ct. 705; 35 L. Ed. 2d 147; 1973 U.S. LEXIS
159]
Student A
Professor Oppenberg
HSCI 414
Introduction…
● Roe v. Wade is a Supreme Court Case (1973), where the Court ruled that women have
the liberty to choose to get an abortion in the United States.
● Petitioner, Jane Roe, sued on behalf of all women because she wanted to make a change
in the laws, much like the Texas law, that prohibited women from getting an abortion.
Continued…
● Roe sued because she believed that, “the Texas penal abortion law was
unconstitutional and state criminal abortion statutes…are violating the Due Process
Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment” which was stated in Chapter 16 of the Legal
Aspects of Healthcare Administration textbook (Pozgar, 2019, p.440).
Case Facts…
●
In June 1969, twenty-one-year-old, Norma McCorvey discovered she was pregnant
with her third child.
● McCorvey wanted to get an abortion, but Article 1196 Texas Penal Code “prohibit
abortions to be conducted unless it saves the mother’s life” (“Roe v. Wade,” 2019).
● Her friends told her to contact the Police that she was raped by African American
men, but she did not do it (because this was untrue).
● Texas Penal Code still would not allow abortion (even if it’s incest or rape).
Continued…
● Norma attempted to get an illegal abortion – unfortunately, the place had been shut
down by the police.
● As time passed, she eventually gave birth and gave the child up for adoption.
Issue…
● The main issue that was discussed within this case would be, “is a woman’s right to have an
abortion protected under the constitutional right to privacy?” (Content Team, 2017).
● More specifically, do the Texas statutes improperly invade the person’s right of personal
liberty if they wanted to obtain an abortion?
➔ That is stated in the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause, and is discussed in the
Ninth Amendment, which talks about personal, marital, and sexual privacy
Procedural History…
● Norma McCorvey was referred to the attorneys, Linda Coffee and Sarah Weddington – it
was then where she went under the pseudonym, Jane Roe.
● Roe filed a lawsuit against Henry Wade, who was the Dallas County District Attorney to
the U.S. Federal Court.
● After “Roe” filed the lawsuit, the case expanded, and included several other Plaintiffs.
Continued…
● There was a three-judge panel in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Texas who ruled in Roe’s favor and then appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.
● Chief Justice Warren Burger assigned the opinion of the court to Justice Harry
Blackmun, who wrote “an opinion that would strike down the Texas law as
unconstitutionally vague” (Campo, 2005).
Multiple Choice Question…
What Penal Code Article affected the right to abortion for “Roe?”
a.
Article 1196 Texas Penal Code
b.
Article 3000 Texas Penal Code
c.
Article 1196 Kentucky Penal Code
d.
Article 2000 Louisiana Penal Code
Answer…
a.
Article 1196 Texas Penal Code
Ruling/Rule…
● In January 1973, the Supreme Court had a 7-2 ruling the Fourteenth Amendment’s
Due Process Clause from the U.S. Constitution does allow for a person’s right to
privacy (Lewin, 1988).
● Women had a right to an abortion in the U.S.
● In addition to this ruling, the Court added that during the first trimester of a woman’s
pregnancy, the government cannot prohibit abortions under any circumstances.
Continued…
● For the second trimester, the state can regulate abortion procedures in order
to protect maternal health.
● Furthermore, for the third trimester, abortions should be prohibited unless it
saves the mother’s life.
Analysis…
● The case utilized the First, Fourth, Fifth, and Ninth Amendment when the topic on
privacy was brought to attention to the Supreme Court in the U.S. Constitution.
● Furthermore, the Fourteenth Amendment was also used since it ensures a person’s
personal liberty in the Due Process Clause.
Continued…
● “The Court articulated two important state interests-the preservation of maternal health and
the protection of fetal life-noting that each interest becomes “compelling” at different points
of the pregnancy” (Snedaker, 1987).
● Maternal health was one of the key factors towards the Court’s ruling.
● Today, this case is a “settled law” which means that the thing is decided (Stare Decisis),
and Courts today abide by this principle.
● This case determined the ruling for the Doe v. Bolton case which overturned Georgia’s
abortion law.
Continued…
● Reasons why Court made its ruling:
➔ A woman’s right to privacy, as the Court stated would allow them to not have
unwanted children (which in the future would give severe psychological harm)
➔ The child could be depressed if they find out in the future that they were
unwanted
➔ Having an unwanted child would put physical and mental stress on the mother
Conclusion…
● Roe v. Wade decided that a woman has a right to abortion, which also highlighted what can
and cannot be done for each of the three trimesters.
●
I agree with the legal findings that abortion is a woman’s right and that it should be
determined by their right to privacy that is stated in the Constitution.
Continued…
❖ Impact that Roe v. Wade has on Healthcare Organizations/Delivery System/Health
Administrator:
➔ They have to decide what kind of healthcare organization they are – if they are religiously
based and do not agree with abortion, or if they are not religious.
➔ This case affects what type of procedures and resources the hospital, as well as clinics offer
➔ Health Administrators need to make decisions that they believe will abide by the healthcare
organization’s culture and values.
References…
Campo, A. (2005). PIECE OF CAKE; Chief Justice-to-be unclear on stand on Roe v.Wade. Filipino Reporter, p. 35.
Snedaker, Kathryn H. (1987). Reconsidering Roe v. Wade: Equal Protection Analysis as an
Alternative Approach. New Mexico Law Review, 17(1), New Mexico Law Review, 1987,
Vol.17(1).
Lewin, T. (1988). Legal abortion under fierce attack 15 years after Roe v. Wade ruling. The New
York times on the Web, A20.
References… (cont.)
Pozgar, G. D. (2019). Legal aspects of health care administration (13th ed.). Burlington, MA:
Jones & Bartlett Learning.
Roe v. Wade. (n.d.). Retrieved November 4, 2019, from https://www.casebriefs.com/blog/law/family-law/family-law-keyed-toweisberg/private-family-choices-constitutional-protection-for-the-family-and-its-members/roe-v-wade/.
Team, C. (2017, March 11). Roe v. Wade – Case Summary and Case Brief. Retrieved from https://legaldictionary.net/roe-v-wade/.
Running Head: Baby M, 537 A.2d 1227, 109 N.J. 396 (N.J. 1988)
Case Brief Analysis
Baby M, 537 A.2d 1227, 109 N.J. 396 (N.J. 1988)
Amanda Scott
CSUN
Health Ethics and Law
2/21/2024
1
Baby M, 537 A.2d 1227, 109 N.J. 396 (N.J. 1988)
2
Baby M, 537 A.2d 1227, 109 N.J. 396 (N.J. 1988)
Introduction
In the Baby M custody case, the American court system ruled the first incident on the
validity of surrogacy. In this instance, heard by the New Jersey Supreme Court in the US, the
nation witnessed as the judicial system addressed the legal and ethical dimensions surrounding
surrogate motherhood, with implications for child welfare and contractual obligations. This
landmark case gained increasing attention from community members from different areas for its
exploration of the relationships between biological and motherhood based on surrogacy
(Kalantry, 2022). With minimal attention shown towards surrogacy and related technology, this
case has offered a foundation for improved attention to the change in the definition of
parenthood. Surrogacy, as one of the reproductive innovations introduced, raised legal questions
concerning the definition of parenthood and the rights of the involved parties, challenging
conventional notions.
Facts
Baby M was conceived through technology, where genetic material from William Stern
and Mary Beth Whitehead was combined to form a newborn (Pohoryelova et al., 2023). In this
artificial insemination procedure, Whitehead was the surrogate mother for the baby. The
arrangement was formalized by a formal contract outlining Mary’s role and her consent to
relinquish her parental rights after the baby was born (Kashyap et al., 2022). However, upon
birth, the surrogate mother challenged the initial arrangement, asserting her will to retain Baby
M’s custody. This action translated into a legal conflict between the involved parties. It gained
Baby M, 537 A.2d 1227, 109 N.J. 396 (N.J. 1988)
3
support and widespread media attention and raised a public debate over the ethical effects of
related agreements.
Issue
The key issue that the court faced in addressing this case was the enforceability of the
surrogacy contract. Additionally, this court system faced determining the most appropriate
custodial arrangement based on the compelling claims of the intended and biological parenthood
(In re Baby M, 1988). The New Jersey Supreme Court struggled to reconcile contractual
obligations outlined in the agreement with the important considerations of the child’s welfare
(Kashyap et al., 2022). The primary concern for the case was to determine whether contractual
agreements could be viewed as superior compared to the best interests of the child and the role of
the law in addressing the biological and legal responsibilities of the parents in the context
(Kalantry, 2022).
Rule
The judgment, in any case, should maintain fairness for the involved parties and address
any challenges affecting the contesting stakeholders. The outcomes of this case primarily
involved the interpretation and application of legal doctrines that concerned parental rights,
contractual obligations, and the considerations of the baby’s interests (Armstrong, 2021). The
Supreme Court examined the set principles of contract law to determine the enforceability of an
agreement and the level to which the contractual terms could govern custody arrangements (In re
Baby M, 1988). Additionally, the New Jersey Court considered the surrogacy setting,
acknowledging the need to adapt the ideal legal framework for addressing the emerging issues
and societal concerns that surrounded assisted reproduction. In assessing the competing interests,
Baby M, 537 A.2d 1227, 109 N.J. 396 (N.J. 1988)
4
the judges sought to attain an equitable and fair resolution that prioritized the child’s wellbeing
while safeguarding the safety of all parties. In this analysis, complex, ethical, social, and legal
dimensions were all evaluated, with the main goal of ensuring that the court outcome aligned
with principles of fairness and justice while offering protection to vulnerable populations. Since
the children born through surrogacy are relatively vulnerable compared to the others, offering
protection was an essential consideration.
Application
For the court to make the right judgment concerning this case, the core stakeholders
examined the allocations stated in the surrogacy contract, examining the legal enforceability of
the agreements. Additionally, they evaluated the subjective intentions of the involved parties to
discern the motivations and expectations of both parties in the arrangement. Key to the court’s
decision was the emotional and psychological relationship between the surrogate mother and her
baby, compared to the biological relationship between William Stern and the unborn child
(Armstrong, 2021). The case was sensitive to the involved stakeholders, which challenged the
court in defining the ideal decision when dealing with the complexities of understanding the best
balance between competing interests and acknowledging the issues surrounding family
relationships and emotional connections. Moreover, the court arrived at an equitable resolution
for the case. It made a decision that safeguarded the baby’s interests while promoting justice,
fairness, and the rule of law (Misinova, 2022).
The Baby M case has a lasting effect on family law as it shapes the structure of surrogacy
agreements. It serves as a reminder of the legal, ethical, and emotional considerations
surrounding reproduction. Furthermore, this case would create a global debate and raise
awareness for the surrogate mother’s rights, the best interests of the children born through this
Baby M, 537 A.2d 1227, 109 N.J. 396 (N.J. 1988)
5
arrangement, and the interned parents’ desires. The case highlighted the need to implement legal
frameworks that govern surrogacy agreements, making sure that protection for parties is
accorded.
Conclusion
The outcome of the case was the termination of the surrogacy contract that was binding
the two parties and awarding William Stern the custody of the baby. Although the decision
aimed at prioritizing the child’s best interests, there are several ways that opinions on legal
findings may vary based on individual views and ethical concerns. This law has a significant
effect on organizations, administrators, and healthcare delivery systems. This law underscores
the need to embrace a clear legal framework and ethical guidelines for effective arrangements,
ensuring that all parties involved are protected. The law highlights the need for healthcare
providers and organizations to have comprehensive support services and counselling for the
people who may consider surrogacy and the need to follow legal and ethical standards when
using modern technology in reproductive health.
The Baby M case has a lasting effect on family law as it shapes the structure of surrogacy
agreements. The case serves as a reminder of the legal, ethical, and emotional considerations
surrounding reproduction. Furthermore, this case would spark a global debate and raise
awareness for the surrogate mother’s rights, the best interests of the children born through this
approach, and the interned parents’ interests. The case highlighted the need to implement legal
frameworks that govern surrogacy agreements, making sure that protection for all parties is
accorded. The case had key effects on the healthcare system, particularly in reproductive
medicine and surrogacy. The rulings in this case led to the regulation of surrogacy arrangements
in many areas. Additionally, the Baby M case increased discussions about the rights of both
Baby M, 537 A.2d 1227, 109 N.J. 396 (N.J. 1988)
6
mothers and children born through the surrogate process, influencing healthcare policies that
relate to this topic.
The organizations in reproductive medicine experienced effects as a result of this case.
Fertility clinics faced legal liability and ethical accountability in supporting these arrangements.
Moreover, there was an increased demand for expertise in assisted production and surrogacy.
Legal firms and advocacy groups that handle the interests of surrogate mothers and children were
more vocal in advocating for safeguards to protect the rights of all the involved parties. An
administrator may implement strict protocols for evaluating surrogate candidates and addressing
all the agreements to ensure compliance with set guidelines and prevent legal risks. Additionally,
an administrator may need to create awareness initiatives to raise awareness among the
professions concerning surrogacy’s ethical and legal implications. As an administrator, this law
emphasizes the need to stay informed about the ever-changing legal and ethical issues in
reproductive technologies and family law to guide involved patients and staff.
Baby M, 537 A.2d 1227, 109 N.J. 396 (N.J. 1988)
7
References
Armstrong, S. (2021). Surrogacy: time we recognized it as a job? Journal of Gender
Studies, 30(7), 864-867.
In re Baby M, 537 A.2d 1227 (N.J. 1988).
Kalantry, S. (2022). Surrogacy in the United States: From Prohibition to Permission. Available at
SSRN.
Kashyap, S., & Tripathi, P. (2022). Surrogacy or sale: Reflecting upon reproductive justice
through The House for Hidden Mothers and A House of Happy Mothers. In The Palgrave
Handbook of Reproductive Justice and Literature (pp. 423-444). Cham: Springer
International Publishing.
Mišinova, M. (2022). Surrogacy and its legal regulation in selected countries. Projustice.
Pohoryelova, Z., Popovych, T., Zaborovskyy, V., & Baryska, Y. (2023). The nature and features
of surrogacy as an assisted reproductive technology.
Davis v. Davis (1993)
Davis v. Davis , 842 S.W.2d 588 (1993)
By: Alexandra Serrano
Dr.Oppenberg
HSCI 521 – Ethics & Law
Introduction
–
Davis v. Davis is a Supreme Court Case (1993), where Mary Sue and Junior Davis
were going thru IVF Treatment, and mid way divorced. Both parties were fighting for
the remaining embryos.
First Embryo Disposition Case – Davis v. Davis, 842 S.W.2d 588,597
(Tenn.1993)
–
Mary Sue was fighting for the right to bring these embryos to term, well Junior
needed time to think what would be the next step.
–
Constant fighting back and forth whether who would have custody under what
circumstances.
–
In Chapter 4 of the book Health Care Ethics and The Law it is stated “All patients
also have the right to participate in decisions about their health care with the right to
every consideration of privacy concerning their own care.”
Regardless of the decision made, either party would be affected .
Case Facts
–
Mary Sue and Junior Davis married in April 1980
–
Within 6 months she became pregnant and suffered her first
ectopic pregnancy
–
6 ectopic pregnancies followed, which led to her
fallopian tubes to be removed / sealed
–
The couple decided to move forward with alternative
pregnancy through IVF Treatment
–
After a failed attempt within the first round, they attempted a
second round
–
Junior Davis filed for divorce, leaving 6 remaining embryos.
Issue
–
No agreement was made during the IVF treatment, to what would
happen if one party died, divorced, remarried, etc
–
Are the embryos considered “people”?
–
Mary sue was awarded custody of the embryos in 1989
–
Junior appealed the decision, due to the violation of federal and
state laws
–
Not having the right whether he wanted to become a father
Procedural History
–
The court of appeals reversed the decision and made it clear
that both parties had to come to an agreement
–
–
Embryos were being treated as “property”
Mary Sue appealed that decision but by the time the case
made it to Supreme Court, both parties had now remarried
with new intentions
–
Mary Sue wanted to donate the embryos to a
“childless couple”
–
Junior wanted to destroy the embryos
Ruling
–
In June of 1993 the Supreme Court of Tennessee
took into consideration all aspects
– State of Tennessee declared that the
embryos were not seen as “people”
–
“Juniors burden of enduring unwanted parenthood
outweighed Mary Sue’s burden of being unable to
donate the pre embryos to another couple”(Zhang
2013)
–
Now courts had a case to go based off of when
dealing with future cases
–
Mary Sue filed for request of review and it was
denied by the Supreme Court in February of 1993
Analysis
–
Mary Sue and Junior were both on the
same page when they both agreed to IVF
treatment as an alternative
