The 1985 case of Baby M was a contentious one that made surrogacy the center of many

issues; this included the legality of surrogate contracts, feminism, father’s rights, and
reproductive rights, to name a few.

Dr. Elizabeth & William Stern

It all began when William Stern and his wife Dr. Elizabeth Stern decided that they want to start a
family via surrogacy. Dr. Elizabeth Stern had been diagnosed with multiple sclerosis, so the
couple feared for the health of both Elizabeth and the baby in the event she chose to carry a
child.

The Sterns entered into a surrogacy contract with Mary Beth Whitehead, a married woman with
two children of her own. The contract outlined that Mary Beth would be both an egg donor and a
surrogate, artificially inseminated with William Stern’s sperm.

Mary Beth would then carry the pregnancy to term and wave all parental rights in exchange for
$10,000. Her only request was to be sent occasional photos and letters providing updates on
the baby.

With no issues throughout the pregnancy, Mary Beth gave birth to a baby girl who eventually
was named Melissa (now infamously known as Baby M). However, issues arose shortly after.
Upon seeing the baby, Mary Beth started having doubts about giving her away. With the Sterns
only having Baby M in their care for a few days, Mary Beth demanded the baby back and
wanted to renege on the contract.

Using our previous discussion on Assessing Evidence, answer the following questions:
1. Was Mr. and Mrs. Stern's contract with Mrs. Whitehead admissible?
To avoid disagreement, a contract must be meticulously written. In this case, I believe
their contract is insufficient. There are certain flaws in Stern's strategy that will put him at a
disadvantage. However, using the information provided. Mrs. Whitehead's parental rights to the
infant must be relinquished, and she will be given $10,000, according to the contract, which she
accepted. However, when she sensed uncertainty, she wanted a contract to renege, which was
rude to the Stern couple. Furthermore, Mrs. Whitehead clearly received the money, indicating
that their contract has already been fulfilled.
2. Was Mr. and Mrs. Stern's contract with Mrs. Whitehead relevant?
Yes, the contract is fruitful and crystal clear. The contract states that in exchange for
$10,000, Mary Beth would carry the pregnancy to term and relinquish all parental rights. Her
(Mrs. Stern) sole request was that she be provided images and letters with information on the
kid on a regular basis. Despite the possible loopholes of the contract, I still believe that the
Stern’s will gain custody of Baby M because First, to argue that Mr. Stern's constitutional right of
procreation grants him custody of Baby M would be to argue that the constitutional right of
procreation includes a constitutionally protected contractual right to destroy another's right of
reproduction. Second, because it contradicted state legislation and public policy, the surrogacy
contract was invalid. Nonetheless, simply for the sake of the child's best interests, custody was
awarded to the Sterns, with Mrs. Whitehead having visiting rights.
3. Regardless, of legalities (answer this question with ethics and morals in mind) should the
baby have gone to Mr. and Mrs. Stern, or Mrs. Whitehead?
I feel Baby M should have been given to the Sterns. They want to have a kid and figure
out a way to do it. Surrogacy is the solution. Mrs. Whitehead was given the items that a
maternity mother should have, which is another reason why the baby should be on the Sterns.
She will also be rewarded $10,000. Mrs. Whitehead would have to follow legal processes if she
wished to break the contract. The $10,000 will be returned to the Sterns, along with
reimbursement of all expenses incurred throughout Mrs. Whitehead's pregnancy. And I feel
Stern's family is capable of providing for the baby's requirements. Mrs. Whitehead, on the other
hand, is a mother of two children who is also married. It is the right thing to do, to let the Stern’s
live happily with their newborn baby.