A Pennsylvania ruling on a case dealing with surrogacy has a line that I find a bit disturbing:

The judge also invalidated the surrogacy contract because it named no legal mother for the babies.

Wait, hold on a second. The contract existed between a man who was engaged, and the surrogate mother a woman who is already married with three children who would be nothing more than a womb for the purposes of the contract. A judge considered it null because it named no legal mother for the child(ren).

So children have to have a legal mother? So, gay couples couldn't adopt? Couldn't have a child with a surrogate? This creates a huge legal grey area. What if, for instance, gay marraige was completely legalized, and two men were married, one of which was in a previous marriage with a woman, and had children. That woman dies, and the man gains custody. Upon his death, would his husband not be able to gain custody, because there is no legal mother?

Could a heterosexual man have his child taken from him if his wife dies in labor?

Now, the circumstances of the case were such that the surrogate mother took the children home because the father didn't take them as per the contract. The contract could easily have been nullified on this matter. Why the judge chose strange legal wording is beyond me, but it's sure to become a huge problem to someone down the line.

Here's the original article.

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/04105/300581.stm

Here's another disturbing case against a midwife for an Amish couple who is on trial for manslaughter because the baby died. (strangely enough, also from Western PA)

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5136777/

-pb