Reproductive Technologies and Surrogacy: a Feminist Perspective

1599

REPRODUCTIVE TECHNOLOGIES AND SURROGACY: A FEMINIST PERSPECTIVE

BARBARA KATz ROTHMANt

During the "Baby M" case, I found myself caught up in the media circus surrounding the case and spent an amazing amount of time in green rooms with Noel King, the man who had brokered the surrogacy contract between Mr. and Mrs. Stern and Mr. and Mrs. White- head. I think I spent more time putting on my makeup for that particular surrogate broker than I did with my husband that year. I found that one of the interesting things that happened was the way that the media used me for something it called balance. The media would have a carefully groomed "surrogate" and her broker on one side and then on the other side, it would usually have a rabbi or a priest or minister, and then me. The little tag that appeared in white letters on the television screen under me sometimes read "author" and sometimes read "sociologist," but usually it read "feminist," and so I was there to be the feminist balance. My family and friends time and again agreed with the viewpoint of the rabbi, the priest, or the minister. Today, I find myself in the same general mode of opposition to this arrangement we call surrogacy, proving the point that surrogacy does, indeed, in every possible way, make for very strange bedfellows. Although I and others who are critical of the development of surrogacy from a feminist perspective may be on the same side of this particular fence as the religious leaders, we are coming from a very different place, and we are going to a very different place. We just happen, for the moment, to be in agreement on a particular issue. I think it is important not to merely say, "Yes, I, too, oppose surrogacy because it demeans women," and let it go at that. I believe it is important to look at some of the underlying assumptions that make my opposition to surrogacy so different from the religious opposition. Each of the religious traditions that we have heard from today, which are related to our legal tradition, stemming as it does from some of that Judeo-Christian religious tradition, are based on a fundamental assumption of relationships between people that comes from an underlying ideology of patriarchy. The word "patriarchy" is often used as a synonym for sexism or men's rule or any system in which men rule. This common usage is inaccurate. "Patriarchy" has a specific

t Asst. Professor, Department of Sociology, Baruch College of the City Univer- sity of New York. A curriculum vitae of the author is included at the end of the essay. 1600 CREIGHTON LAW REVIEW [Vol. 25 technical meaning, and the technical meaning becomes important here. "Patriarchy" refers to a system in which men rule as fathers. A patriarchy is a rule of fathers. Men rule all over the world. In some places they rule as fathers and in some places they rule on other authority. The rule of fathers becomes significant when the subject is mothers and the rights, freedoms, privileges, and obligations that women have towards their bodies, towards their children, and towards their communities. What we mean by the rule of fathers, or patriarchy, meaning the rule of fathers, is that the relationship between a father and his son is the defining social relationship. It is the basis for the organization of the society. Leftover pieces of patriarchy exist in American contemporary society, which I will argue is a modified patriarchy. It manifests itself in the language when a Mrs. John Smith bears John Smith, Jr.-women bear the children of men. Pa- triarchy is also manifest in the Bible. Reading the "begets," each man is described as having begotten his first-born son and then sons and daughters in his likeness. Women are described as the daughters of men who bear them children. Children, much like the language of horsebreeding, are described as the children of men out of the bodies of women. This linguistic pattern demonstrates the idea that the fundamental social relationship exists in men's seeds and that men's children grow in women's bodies. In any society based on patriarchy, women are a vulnerability that men share. In order to get their children, men have to put their seed in the body of a woman and lose some kind of control over it for quite a long period of time. The only way to maintain control over the seed is to maintain control over the women. Therefore, issues of control become very important. Different societies have different notions of what constitutes incest. Surrogacy typically raises issues about the possibilities of incest if children of surrogates are unaware of their biological lineage. The notion of incest is a socially constructed notion. What makes two people siblings differs among various societies. The notion of a milk mother holds that the children who were suckled of the same breast are siblings to each other. This belief is related to an earlier matrilineal notion in which the fundamental human relationship is a shared uterus. Under this notion, if people grew out of the same uterus, then they were fundamentally closely related to each other. In certain matrilineal societies, it is not considered incest if two children with the same father were to marry and to have children. The idea is a little unpleasant in such societies, perhaps, a little distasteful. An analogy might be if a woman in our society had two "surrogate" pregnancies using children grown of gametes that were not her own and those two genetically unrelated children were to someday 1992] FEMINIST PERSPECTIVE 1601 chose to marry each other. Our society would find the whole thing incredibly distasteful. But there would be an argument among us that, because there is no genetic relationship, the children were not really related and, therefore, the marriage is acceptable. Our society says that the real relationship is the genetic relationship, not whose breast the children suckled at or whose womb they grew in. In other societies, the genetic relationship may be interesting, but it is not de- finitive. Just because two children have the same father, the children are not really related. As long as they have different mothers, they are not really siblings. This example illustrates that even the notion of incest is very different depending on how you define the relationships between generations-the parent/child relationship. In a patriarchal system, what is important is men's need to define the relationship between themselves and their children and what to do with the troublesome position of women in developing these definitions. Some of our fundamental assumptions become challenged if you switch from the perspective of men and try to look at it from the perspective of women. Starting with assumptions that women bear the children of men, the seed of Abraham covers the world, etc. Given this assumption, who the mother is, is not a terrifically important question. It almost does not matter. This is the real moral of the story of Abraham, Sa- rah, and Haagar. Sarah was Abraham's wife, and Haagar was the slave girl who bore Abraham a child. Nobody ever questioned that Haagar was the mother, but what earthly difference did it make who was the mother? Abraham was the father. The children, whether they came through Sarah, through Haagar, or from the sky, were Abraham's children and that is what counted; they were his seed. Mothers are pretty much dismissable. That is the fundamental message in the story of Haagar because mothers do not define the relationship. The father defines the relationship. We have this notion of legitimate and non-legitimate, as if children who do not have a legally identified father are not real, are not legitimate children. It is a fascinating concept to think of a child, a person standing before you, as not being legitimately present. What happens in this context, when these patriarchal notions form some of the underlying assumptions is that when we start developing new reproductive techno- logices, it gets interesting. For one thing, the reproductive technologists were forced to con- front the fact of women's seed. Women produce genetic material. Now what? We are left with the idea that the children are half his and half hers. The children might as well have grown in the back yard. The essential underlying concept of patriarchy, the seed, is 1602 CREIGHTON LAW REVIEW [Vol. 25

what really counts. If women have seed too, then to that extent we recognize that women have rights in their children. We extend to women some of the privileges of patriarchy. Women's rights to their children do not derive from having grown them in their bodies, with the blood of their bodies, passing them through their genitals, and suckling them at their breasts. These latter functions are interesting, but irrelevant. What makes the child a woman's is that it is "half" hers; it has her genetic material as well as the man's material. The primacy of the genetic material is still the defining social relationship. Our society is a modified patriarchy because of this fact. It works in a large degree like this: to the extent that women are like men, women can have equal say and equal rights. To the extent that women can function like men, they can be equal beings in the world. To the extent that women have seed like men, then they can be par- ents like men. Thus, some of the privileges of patriarchy are ex- tended to women. With the idea of women enjoying some of the privileges of patriarchy is the potential that women, too, may have the use of wives. What else could you call women having the use of the bodies of other women to bear children of their seed? This gives rise to class compli- cations. Who can afford to buy the privileges of patriarchy? Is it women of privilege who can buy the privileges for themselves? Or men of privilege who can buy the second body to use for their wives. It is important to remember that this does not work in the interest of women as whole. It serves some of the interests of some of the women some of the time. It most assuredly does not work in the interests of women to accord women patriarchal privileges only to the extent to which women are like men. I think it is also important to look at the way that modified patriarchy works in the legal history of the custody of the family. The case of Baby M is the pivotal case that got people thinking about these issues. A couple of great privileged who decided that the wife should not have a pregnancy, hired themselves a woman of consider- ably less privilege to bear their child for them. Had that man gone into a bar and picked up a devout seventeen-year-old Catholic girl who would not have an abortion, seduced her, sent her two maternity smocks, a layette, and a basket of flowers, he could then claim pater- nity and take the baby from her in a custody battle. He would have been exactly where he ended up-with custody of a child even though the mother is still legally the mother. That is something that I think a lot of us did not fully appreciate until that case broke upon US. We realized that even if you invalidate the surrogacy concept and 19921 FEMINIST PERSPECTIVE 1603 say that the woman is still the mother, this makes little difference. Women do not have particular rights to their children; they have half rights at best, just as many rights as the father has. Those half rights become weakened dramatically by the position women find themselves in within our society. We have this notion, a very recent his- toric notion, that women get custody of children. Women only came to routinely get custody of children in recent industrial times in which children were more of a liability than an asset. This developed at a time when a large number of men, once their marriages had ended, did not want the responsibilities or burdens of these children and could not afford huge household staffs of other women to raise those children. Consequently, the men wanted the women to take the children. Men would write minimal child support checks and did not want custody. Only then did a body of literature develop discuss- ing the rights of children and their needs for their mothers. But this literature developed after men decided they did not want these children. In modern times, when men of a certain class have decided that children are an asset, a status item, then men wanted to keep these babies. Babies became a status item of the 1980s as expensive ac- quirements that complimented things like the fancy stroller. When men wanted to keep these children, men kept these children. Men repeatedly win custody battles at much higher rates than women do. When men want custody, they get custody. Men often have acquired wives subsequent to divorce, so that they can offer a child a two-parent family. Women are less likely to be able to remarry and, therefore, cannot offer the child a two-parent family. Men usually have higher incomes and other assets that women do not have. Conse- quently, men win custody when they want custody. Reproductive technology has developed within this context. The fundamental ideas were that children were the children of men and that men have certain rights to "their" children. Noel King, who brokered the contract between the Sterns and Whiteheads in the "Baby M" case repeatedly asked how anyone could talk about Mr. Stern buying the child? King answered that the child was Mr. Stern's. Whitehead just gave the baby back to the father, Mr. Stern. Mr. King's viewpoint expresses the age-old idea that the man carries the seed, the homunculus, that the little person is curled up inside the sperm and women are, as Caroline Witpick puts it, just the flow- erpot in which men plant it. The daddy plants the seed in mommy, and mommy is simply dirt, in which one plants seeds. A lot of our religious tradition builds upon the idea of women as unclean, dirty houses for the pure seed. 1604 CREIGHTON LAW REVIEW [Vol. 25

When one analyzes the language used by members of a society, the assumptions of that society are often revealed. The language we use and the assumptions it embodies are the perspectives of men. One of the places the importance of language struck me was in the recent description of the woman in South Africa who served as a "surrogate" for her daughter. She explained that you do what you have to do for your children. Her daughter needed this, and she did it for her so that the daughter could have her children. That surrogate was described as the "mother-in-law" for her daughter and "son- in-law." The role of the son, the father of the child, is the perspective one takes, as demonstrated by the language chosen. The surrogate acted for her daughter; she did not say that you do what you have to do for your son-in-law, your son-in-law must have his children. The woman, who acted in a mother/daughter relationship at great personal sacrifice for her daughter, is described in terms of her relationship to the son-in-law, who is the parent of importance. It is important that he has his children. The religious focus does this also; it puts us in a man's perspective and then asks what motherhood means from the perspective of men. Surrogacy and reproductive technologies also cause us to think about inheritance. Inheritance has been entirely a male problem. Until very recently, religious traditions and our legal tradition did not recognize women's property rights, let alone the ability to pass property on. If you could not own property, then you could not pass it on. Property is not the only thing that is being passed on. The purity of a male line is also passed down, and most religious traditions are based on the purity of a male line in which property descend. The exclusivity of marriage is another area which is touched by changes in the way we reproduce. The exclusivity of marriage has traditionally meant men's exclusive rights to their women. The focus has not been on women's exclusive rights to their husbands or their husbands' resources. Exclusivity of marriage has meant men's exclusive rights to the resources of their women, which are women's bodies. Changes in human reproduction have also stirred fears for the sanctity of the family and natural order. Feminists are skeptical about exactly what the "natural" meaning of motherhood is, but it is probably far removed from anything existing in contemporary Amer- ican society. We do not know what "natural" is in this situation. We have enormous doubts about the meaning of the sanctity of the family. This phrase sounds nice enough, but it has been used to justify cutting back on daycare centers for working women so that their children have nowhere to go. It has been used to justify men's rights 19921 FEMINIST PERSPECTIVE 1605 to beat their wives and children in the privacy of their own home - short of to death in some religions at some times, and straight to death in other religions at other times. The sanctity of the family refers to the sanctity of a man's property rights over his wife and his children. Feminists are concerned with the sanctity of a variety of families, including the family of a woman and her child, including the families that various religious traditions do not recognize at all. The perspective that the religious traditions have adopted made them tend to reject many of the reproductive technologies, not just this particular use of women as "surrogates." If one examines the Catholic tradition, various aspects of the Protestant, and the Jewish traditions, or the Islamic tradition, there has been a real hesitation to make use of any kind of donor gamete, whether it is donor insemina- tion or the use of donor eggs. Religions have hesitated about any kind of "artificial" procreation at all. I think it is important to know that this hesitation comes from the leadership down. What does it mean, then, that devout religious women, believing religious women, women who follow their traditions, use this technology? Catholic women are over-represented among the users of in vitro fertilization. Women disobey the teachings of their religions because the real messages are the importance of having children and that women are not worthy unless they are the mothers of children. In many traditions, women are not worthy unless they are the mothers of sons. This explains why the need to use reproductive technologies is very powerful even among those who otherwise adhere to the teachings of their religious communities. From the perspective of religious leaders, however, it looks a little different. The leaders can ban all forms of surrogacy and reproductive technologies as defying the exclusivity of marriage or the sanctity of the family, raising concerns over adul- tery and bastardism. If one starts from a perspective which does not include as its fo- cal points the sanctity of the male-dominated family and the notion of illegitimacy, then some very different ideas become possible. I do not reject any and all treatments for infertility that make use of "high technology," though our high technology is pretty low when you are on the receiving end of it. Many of these technologies cause cancers in women. These technologies can be very dangerous to the women users, and that danger has barely been explored. I regard infertility as a disability and, like every other disability, people cope with it in different ways. Some people who learn they are going to go blind will sacrifice their home, their financial secur- ity, the whole family; they will move heaven and earth to retain their sight. Other people will learn braille and go on. People have differ- 1606 CREIGHTON LAW REVIEW [Vol. 25

ent ideas about what constitutes wholeness for themselves. There are deep psychological reasons for that, and I have to be supportive of people doing what they need to do to feel whole. But one's fears about going blind do not entitle one to purchase corneas from living donors who do not want to give them, or sign people to contracts and then hold them to it if they change their minds on the way to the operating room. But I can understand why one might be tempted to do it. Viewing infertility as a disability opens us up to thinking about mechanical, social, medical, and biological approaches to dealing with infertility. It becomes easier to understand that different approaches are going to be acceptable for different people. Some people accept the disability of infertility in different ways. It has a different meaning to each of them. Given the diversity of women's feelings on this subject, I think it is unfair for us to say that the uniform solution for every person unable to have children is to adopt. The most typical rationale for this "solution" is that we need to have more adoptions anyway because so many unwanted children exist today. The re- sponse to this "solution" is that blocked tubes do not make one mor- ally responsible for the unwanted children of the world. If there is some sort of moral obligation to adopt among those who can afford children and are at all good at parenting children, then that moral obligation does not depend upon the condition of your fallopian tubes or your sperm count. The solution is not to make all infertile per- sons adopt, solving two problems at once and getting us off the hook. Infertility demands more serious treatment than that. The bottom line is that from a woman's perspective, none of this discussion of surrogacy and reproductive technologies sounds the same. Civilization is not the same thing from a woman's perspective as it is from a man's perspective. Women do not have this constant production of gametes on a regular basis. Women produce gametes once a month and, in January, if a woman fails to conceive when she is trying to conceive, then she has lost September's baby. A woman does not have this random notion that no baby was there. Rather, she has the notion that a particular baby, what would have been her baby, with certain dominant characteristics already settled, her Sep- tember brown-eyed baby, is now gone. Women do not have this dis- continuous phenomena that men have. Women experience a continuous process from ovulation through to the birth and rearing of a child. There is a continuation for us, and we experience all of the steps. Women can conceive of themselves as having lost a baby. A woman who is trying very hard to conceive and gets her period can feel the 1992] FEMINIST PERSPECTIVE 1607 loss of the September baby in January, and the October baby in Feb- ruary, and so on throughout the year. She loses not some vague pos- sibility, but specific baby after specific baby. From the man's point of view, there is nobody there until the egg is fertilized. Then, the status of the egg shifts from being valueless to having all the value and worth of the woman herself in some of the religious traditions. In this view, the introduction of the sperm transforms the egg from dirt, uncleanliness, something that a woman has to wash away before a man can touch her as she loses her menstrual period, to a full human being worthy of the same consideration as a woman. All because now the egg is fertilized. From the perspective of the woman, the whole notion of fertilization and what procreation is supposed to be about is so very different. We live in very different bodies where this subject is concerned. From a woman's perspective, every woman has her own child. We do not bear the children of other people. We do not bear our husband's children. We do not bear a purchaser's children. We do not bear the children of the state. It is very dangerous to speak of the needs of society for fewer children or for more children, because this characterizes women's procreation as a societal resource. When society needs fewer children, the conclusion would be not to help women get pregnant; when society needs more children, the conclusion is to prevent them from avoiding pregnancy. This "societal viewpoint" leads to the control of women's bodies as if they were a kind of mech- anism that society owns to produce the number of children a society wants at a given moment. Pregnancy is an intimate social relationship. Our language dis- cards that. Our language says babies "enter the world." From where? We say babies "arrive." Women do not feel babies "arrive," they feel them "leave." Parenthood itself is an intimate social relationship wherever it develops and between whomever it develops. We need to find a perspective as a society that does not discard the intimacy, nurturing, and growth that grows between generations, but a perspective that supports, develops, and encourages that intimacy. We need to reject the very concept of surrogacy. We need to reject the notion that any woman is the mother of a child that is not her own, regardless of the source of the egg and or of the sperm. Maybe a woman will place that child for adoption, but it is her child to place. Her nurturing of that child with the blood and nutrients of her body establishes her parenthood of that child. Trying to find a moral stance that recognizes the viewpoint of women in these various patriarchal traditions is not an easy task. 1608 CREIGHTON LAW REVIEW [Vol. 25

CURRICULUM VITAE BARBARA KATZ ROTHMAN

EDUCATION Barbara Katz Rothman received a Ph.D from New York University, Department of Sociology, 1979. (Dissertation Title: "Two Models of Maternity Care: Defining and Negotiating Reality."); a M.A. from Brooklyn College, City University of New York, Department of Soci- ology, 1972. (Thesis title: "Woman's Place: A Study in Attitudes."); and a B.A. from Brooklyn College, City University of New York in Sociology and Psychology (Cum Laude). PUBLICATIONS BOOKS Centuries of Solace: Expressions of Maternal Griefin PopularLiter- ature, co-authored with Wendy Simonds, Temple University Press, (Forthcoming); Editor, The Encyclopedia of Childbearing,The Oryx Press, (Forthcoming); Recreating Motherhood: Ideology and Technol- ogy in a PatriarchalSociety, W.W. Norton & Company, Paperback edition, W.W. Norton & Company, forthcoming, Japanese edition, Keiso Shobo Ltd., forthcoming, (1989); The Tentative Pregnancy: Prenatal Diagnosis and the Future of Motherhood, Paperback edition, Penguin Books, British edition, Pandora Press, German edition, Metropolis Press, (1986); In Labor: Women and Power in the Birth- place, W.W. Norton & Company, Paperback edition, retitled: Giving Birth, Penguin Books, British edition, Junction Books, (1982). JOURNAL ARTICLES "Motherhood: Beyond Patriarchy, Nova Law Review, v.13, no.2, pp.4 8 1 -8 6 (1989); "Recreating Motherhood," New Perspectives Quar- terly, v.7, no.1, pp.5 3-5 7 (1989); "Women as Fathers: Motherhood and Child Care Under a Modified Patriarchy, Gender and Society, v.3, no.1, pp.89-104 (1989); "Cheap Labor: Sex, Class, Race - and 'Surro- gacy'," Society, v.25, no.3, pp.2 1-2 3 (1988); "Mitchell Lecture Sympo- sium," Buffalo Law Review, v.36, no.3, Spring, pp.203-55, Reprinted in Women and the Law, Mary Joe Frug, ed., Foundation Press, forthcoming (1988); "Reproductive Technology and the Commodification of Life," Women and Health, v.13, no.2, pp.95-100, reprinted in Em- bryos, Ethics and Women's Rights: Exploring the New Reproductive Technologies, Baruch, D'Amato and Seager, eds., Haworth Press, 1988, pp.9 5 -1 0 0 (1987); "Surrogacy: A Question of Values," Con- science, May, pp.1-4, reprinted in Beyond Baby M., Bartels, Priesher, Vawter, and Caplan, eds., Humana Press, 1990, pp.235-41, and in So- cial Ethics: Morality and Social Policy, (4th ed.), Thomas A. Mappes and Jane S. Zembaty, eds., McGraw Hill, 1992, pp.84 -8 7 (1987); "Re- 1992] FEMINIST PERSPECTIVE 1609 flections: On Hard Work," Qualitative Sociology, v.9, no.1, pp.4 8-5 3 (1986); "Commentary: When a Pregnant Woman Endangers Her Fe- tus," Hastings Center Report, v.16, no.i, pp.2 4 -2 5 (1986); "The Prod- ucts of Conception: The Social Context of Reproductive Choices," Journal of Medical Ethics, v.11, no.4, pp.1 8 8-9 3 (1985); "Beyond Risks and Rates: Issues of Autonomy in Prenatal Care," Birth, v.2, no.2, pp.9 1 -9 4 (1985); "Midwifery as (Almost) a Profession," Journal of Nurse-Midwifery, v.29, no.5, pp.3 0 0 -3 0 6 (1984); "The Library Re- search Module in Introductory Sociology," co-authored with Kristen McDonnough, Research Strategies, v.1, no.2, pp.1 0 9 -1 7 (1984); "Mid- wives in Transition: The Structures of a Clinical Revolution," Social Problems, v.30, no.3 pp.262-71, reprinted in Feminist Frontiers, 2nd ed. Richardson and Taylor, eds., Random House, 1989, pp.326-4; in Dominant Issues in Medical Sociology, 2nd ed., Schwartz, ed., Knopf, 1987, pp.326-34; and in Sociology of Health and Illness: Critical Per- spectives, Conrad and Kern eds., 2nd ed. St. Martin's Press, 1986, pp.345-53; 3rd ed. 1990, pp.3 3 9 -4 7 (1983); "Anatomy of a Compromise: Nurse-Midwifery and the Rise of the Free-Standing Birth Center," Journal of Nurse-Midwifery, v.28, no.4 pp.3 -7 (1983); "Childbirth as Negotiated Reality," Symbolic Interaction, v.1, no.2 pp.1 2 4 -2 7 (1978); "The Social Construction of Birth," Journal of Nurse-Midwifery, v.22, no.2, pp.9 -1 3 (1977). BOOK CHAPTERS "Fathering as a Relationship," In Men's Lives, Michael S. Kimmel and Michael A. Messner, eds. 2nd ed. Macmillan, (Forthcoming); "Prenatal Diagnosis," In Bioethics and the Fetus, Seried: Biomedical Ethics Reviews, James Humber and Robert Almeder, eds. Totowa, NJ: Humana Press, pp.1 7 1 -8 6 (1991); "Symbolic Interaction," In The Renascence of Sociological Theory: C7assic and Contemporary, Henry Etzkowitz and Robald M. Glassman, eds. F.E. Peacock Publishers, 151-66 (1991); "The Tentative Pregnancy: Author Meets Critics," In Strategies in Genetic Counseling: Political Influences from Society to the Workplace, LuAnn Weik, ed., National Society of Genetic Counselors Series, pp.35-42 (1990); "Recreating Motherhood: Ideol- ogy and Technology in American Society," In Beyond Baby M., Bar- tels, Priesher, Vawter, and Caplan, eds., Humana Press, pp.9-27 (1990); "On Surrogacy: Constructing Social Policy," In Gender in Transition: A New Frontier, Offerman-Zuckenberg, ed., New York: Plenum Medical, pp.2 2 7 -3 4 (1989); "Position Paper/Alternative Modes of Reproduction: Other Views and Questions," co-authored with Wendy Chavkin, in Reproductive Laws for the 1990's: A Brief- ing Handbook, Taub and Cohen, eds., Rutgers University School of 2 9 9 3 0 2 Law, pp. - (1989); "The Decision to Have - or not to Have - 1610 CREIGHTON LAW REVIEW [Vol. 25

Amniocentesis for Prenatal Diagnosis," In Childbirth in America: Anthropological Perspectives, Michaelson, ed., Bergin and Garvey, pp.90-102 (1988); "Reproduction," In Analyzing Gender: A Handbook of Social Science Research, Hess and Ferree, eds., Sage, pp.154-70, reprinted in The Sociology of Gender, Kramer, ed., St. Martin's press, 1991, pp.18 7 -2 84 (1987); "Women Talking to Women: Genetic Coun- selors and Abortion Counselors," co-authored with Malinda Detlefs, in The Worth of Women's Work: A Qualitative Synthesis, Statham, et al., eds., State University of New York Press, pp.151-66 (1987); "The Social Construction of Birth," In The American Way of Birth, Eakins, ed., Temple University Press, pp.104-18 (1986); "Childbirth Management and Medical Monopoly," In Women, Biology and Public Policy, Sapiro, ed., Sage, pp.117-36 (1985); "The Meaning of Choice in Reproductive Technology," in Test-Tube Women: What Future for Motherhood, Arditti, et al., eds., Pandora Press, pp.23-34, translated and reprinted in Retorten Mutter, Germany: Rowohlt, 1985, pp.1 9 -3 0 (1984); "Awake and Aware, or False Consciousness? The Cooptation of Childbirth Reform in the United States," in Childbirth: Alterna- tives to Medical Control, Romalis, ed., University of Texas Press, pp.1 50 -8 0 (1982); "Women, Health and Medicine," in Women: A Fem- inist Perspective, Freeman, ed. 2nd ed. Mayfield, pp.76-86 reprinted in 3rd ed., 1984, and 4th ed., 1989, (1979); "The Social Construction of Birth: A Symbolic Interactionist Analysis of In-Hospital 'Prepared' Childbirth," In Compulsory Hospitalization or Freedom of Choice, Stewart and Stewart, eds. v.1, chapter 24, NAPSAC Publications (1978). REVIEW ESSAYS "The Abortion Problem as Doctors See it," Hastings Center Report, v.17, no.1, pp.3 6 -3 7 (1987); "The New Orphans," Vogue, July, pp.1 1 2 (1987); "Sexuality and Abortion," Tikkun, July-August, pp.81-2 (1987). BOOK REVIEWS In: American Journal of Sociology, Contemporary Sociology, Jour- nal of Marriageand the Family, New England Journalof Medicine, Reproductive and Genetic Engineering: Journal of International Feminist Analysis, and Sex Roles. EDITORIAL, GRANT, AND PRE-PUBLICATION MANUSCRIPT REVIEWS For: Feminist Studies, Gender and Society, Hastings Center Report, Humboldt Journal of Social Relations, Journal of EthnographicRe- search, Millbank Memorial Fund Quarterly, Qualitative Sociology, Social Forces, and Social Problems, Women and Health; Allen and 1992] FEMINIST PERSPECTIVE 1611

Unwin, Beacon Press, Harper and Row, McGraw-Hill, Mayfield, Na- tional Endowment for the Humanities, National Science Foundation, Ohio State University Press, Oxford University Press, Rose Mono- graph Series of the ASA, Rutgers University Press, Sage Publica- tions, Temple University Press, University of California Press, Wesleyan University Press, Wiley and Sons, and Yale University Press. PROFESSIONAL ACTIVITIES AMERICAN SOCIOLOGICAL ASSOCIATION Recipient, Jesse Bernard Award, for Recreating Motherhood Ideol- ogy and Technology in a PatriarchalSociety, (1991); Panelist, "Au- thor Meets Critics: Alice S. Rossi and Peter H. Rossi," Annual Meeting, Cincinnati, (1991); Chair, Committee on Teaching Medical Sociology of the Medical Sociology Division, (1987-88); Organizer and Chair, "Teaching the 'Hot Topics' in Medical Sociology," Annual Meeting, Atlanta, (1988); Eastern District Representative, Committee on Committees, (1986-88); Medical Sociology Papers Organizer, (1987); Presenter, "Nurse-Midwifery: Career Motivations and Set- tings of Practice," Annual Meeting, San Francisco (1982); Presenter, "Midwives in Transition: Going Through Changes," Annual Meeting, Toronto, (1981); Presenter, "Genetic Screening," Annual Meeting, Boston, (1987); Presenter, "Prenatal Diagnosis: Issues in Sociological Research," Annual Meeting, Baltimore, (1983); Member, Nomina- tions Committee, (1982-83); Co-Chair, Committee on the Status of Women, (1980-82); Organizer and Chair, Session on "Sociologists En- gaged in Feminist Work," Annual Meeting, New York, (1981); Mem- ber, Papers Committee, (1980). SOCIETY FOR THE STUDY OF SOCIAL PROBLEMS Member, Board of Directors, (1990-Present); Chair, Program Com- mittee, Annual Meeting, Atlanta, (1988); Organizer and Presenter, Plenary Session, "Health as a Coercive Value," Annual Meeting, At- lanta, (1988); Discussant, "Women and Health," Annual Meeting, At- lanta, (1988); Discussant, "New Reproductive Technology," Annual Meeting, New York, (1986); Chair, Local Arrangements Committee, Annual Meeting, New York (1986); Presenter, "Gender Socialization in Utero," Annual Meeting, San Antonio, (1984); Co-Chair and Dis- cussant, panel on "Childbirth," Annual Meeting, San Antonio, (1983); Discussant, "Health Planning and Health Policy," Annual Meeting, San Francisco, (1982). SOCIOLOGISTS FOR WOMEN IN SOCIETY Recipient, Cheryl Miller Lectureship Award, (1988); Associate Edi- tor, Gender and Society, (1987-Present); Panelist, "New Reproductive 1612 CREIGHTON LAW REVIEW [Vol. 25

Technology," Annual Meeting, Washington, D.C., (1985); Co-Chair, Program Committee, Annual Meeting, New York, (1980); Member, Steering Committee, (1978-Present). AMERICAN JEWISH CONGRESS - Member, Bioethics Task Force, (1988-90); CENTER FOR THE ELIMINATION OF VIOLENCE IN THE FAMILY - Member, Board of Directors. The Center runs "Wo- men's Survival Space," a shelter for battered women and their children in Brooklyn, (1982); FEMINIST HEALTH WORKS AND CHELSEA HEALTH CENTER - Member, Internal Review Board, Study of Cervical Cap, (1981); METROPOLITAN NEW YORK CHILDBIRTH EDUCATION ASSOCIATION - Faculty Member, Teacher Training Seminar, (1983-Present); NURSE-MIDWIFERY EDUCATION PROGRAMS - Health Sciences Center of Brooklyn, S.U.N.Y., Guest Lecturer, (1987-Present); College of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey, Guest Lecturer in Community and Change Module, (1980-Present); OFFICE OF TECHNOLOGY ASSESS- MENT FOR THE U.S. CONGRESS - Member, Advisory Panel, Study on Infertility Prevention and Treatment, (1986-88); Consultant, "Feminist Issues in New Reproductive Technology," (1988). TEACHING EXPERIENCE Baruch College of the City University of New York, Department of Sociology, Assistant to Full Professor, (1978-Present); Graduate School and University Center of the City University of New York, Member of the Doctoral Faculty in Sociology and Women's Studies, (1982-Present); Adjunct Teaching experience in Departments of Soci- ology, Queens College, CUNY; Marymount Manhattan College; State University of New York at Purchase; College of Nursing, Downstate Medical Center; and Continuing Education, Long Island University, (1975-78); Brooklyn College, CUNY, Department of Sociology, Teach- ing Assistant and Lecturer, (1970-76). PAPERS AND PRESENTATIONS Speaker and Panelist, "Balancing the Scales of Justice," Washington University Law School, St. Louis, MO., (1991); "Recreating Mother- hood: Nursing Challenges in a New Era," Third Annual Perinatal Is- sues Conference, co-sponsored by St. Louis Children's Hospital, Barnes Hospital, Jewish Hospital of St. Louis, and Missouri Depart- ment of Health, St. Louis, MO., (1990); Speaker, "The Cesarean Cri- sis," Conference sponsored by Childbirth Education Services of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, (1990); "Ethics and Values: Beyond Part- nership," Keynote Address, Third Annual Partners in Care Confer- ence, sponsored by the Southern Ohio Chapter of American Colleges of Nurse-Midwives, Calgary, Alberta, (1990); "In Labor: Women and Power in the Birthplace," and "The Tentative Pregnancy," Keynote 1992] FEMINIST PERSPECTIVE 1613

Address, Midwifery and the Community Conference, Calgary, Al- berta, (1990); Panelist, Judicial Seminar, "The Drug-Exposed Fetus/ Infant: Responses of the Legal, Medical, and Child Protective Sys- tems," Rochester, New York, (1990); Closing Address, "Empowering Women," Conference on Gynecology: Issues in Well-Woman Care, sponsored by the New York State Fund for Midwifery, Inc., New York City, (1990); Participant, Symposium, "Screening in Prenatal Diagnosis," under the auspices of WHO/EURO, Leewenhorst Con- gress Center, Noordwijkerhout, the Netherlands, (1990); American Medical Student Association, Keynote Speaker, Region 10 Confer- ence, Denver, Colorado, (1989); "Bits and Pieces and Civil Liberties," Keynote Address, Conference on People as Products, sponsored by Public Responsibility in Medicine and Research, Boston, (1989); "Midwifery and the Emergence of Women." Keynote Address, Mid- wives Alliance of North America, Annual Conference, Boston, (1989); Nurturing the Mother," Conference sponsored by the New York State Fund for Midwifery, Columbia University New York, (1989); "Between Value and Science: The Cultural Shaping of Clinical Prac- tice in Ob/Gyn," Conference on Teaching Law and Ethics in Obstetri- cal Residency Programs, Sponsored by the University of Tennessee, Knoxville, (1989); "Recreating Motherhood: Technology in the Ser- vice of Ideology," Feminist Scholars Lecture Series, Penn State Uni- versity, University Park, (1989); Guest Lecture, Natalie Allon Scholarship Award Ceremony, Hofstra University, Hempstead, New York, (1989); "Recreating Motherhood," Distinguished Lecture, Na- tional Council of Family Relations, Annual Meeting, New Orleans, (1989); "Recreating Motherhood," Midwives Alliance of North America, Midwest Regional Conference, Holland, Michigan, (1989); "Women and Child Care," Conference on Women in Medicine, sponsored by Academisch Medisch Centrum, University of Amsterdam, the Netherlands, (1989); "The Tentative Pregnancy: Issues in Prena- tal Diagnosis," Presented to Medical School, University of Groningen, the Netherlands, (1989); "New Reproductive Technology," Confer- ence sponsored by Canadian Society of Law and Medicine, Toronto, (1988); "Childbearing After 40: The Dilemma of Prenatal Diagnosis," Women's Health Care Nurse-Practitioner Program, conference sponsored by the State University of New York Health Sciences Center and Planned Parenthood of New York, (1988); "The Tentative Preg- nancy," Plenary session and workshop, National Society of Genetic Counselors, Annual Meeting, New Orleans, (1988); "Midwifery as Feminist Praxis," Plenary session and workshops on Prenatal Diag- nosis, Cesarean Prevention Movement Conference, Minneapolis, Also presented to conference co-sponsored by Westchester Putnam CEA and YWCA of Westchester, New York City, (1988); "On Teaching 1614 CREIGHTON LAW REVIEW [Vol. 25

About Disability," Panel presentation, CUNY Conference on Race and Gender in the Curriculum, New York, (1988); "New Reproduc- tive Technology and Motherhood Under Capitalism," Alpha Kappa Delta Installation Ceremony, Montclair State College, Montclair, New Jersey, (1988); "In Labor: Women and Power in the Birth- place," Guest Lecture, and "Feminist Issues in Reproductive Tech- nology," Faculty Seminar, Bucknell University, Pennsylvania, (1988); "New Reproductive Technology: Reconstructing Motherhood," Guest Lecture, County College of Morris, Randolph, New Jersey, (1988); "Women as Fathers: Motherhood and Childcare Under a Modified Patriarchy," Cheryl Miller Lecture, Loyola University, Chicago; and Lafayette College, Easton, Pennsylvania, (1988); "Recreating Mother- hood," Beyond Baby M: Ethical Issues in New Reproductive Tech- nology Conference, sponsored by Center for Bioethics, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, (1988); "The Tentative Pregnancy," Iowa Methodist School of Nursing, Des Moines, (1988); Prenatal Diagnosis: Issues for Midwives," Nurse-Midwifery Program, Downstate Medical Center, Brooklyn, (1988); "Pregnancy as a Relationship," Conference on New Reproductive Technology, sponsored by Old Dominion Uni- versity, Norfolk, (1988); Panelist, "Women's Biological Clock: Old Choices and New Reproductive Technology, Rochester University Conference, "On Time," (1988); Midwives Alliance of North America, Guest Speaker, Annual Meeting, Denver, (1987); Association of Texas Midwives, Guest Speaker, Annual Meeting, San Antonio, (1987); In- ternational Childbirth Education Association, Keynote Speaker, Bi- annual Meeting, Chicago, (1986); Ohio Regional Midwives Alliance, Keynote Speaker, Annual Meeting, (1986); International Childbirth Education Association, Guest Speaker, Midwest Regional Meeting, Chicago, (1985); International Childbirth Education Association, Guest Speaker, Eastern Regional Meeting, Philadelphia, (1985); Mid- wives Alliance of North America, Keynote Speaker, Annual Meeting, Montpelier, Vermont, (1985); Midwives Alliance of North America, Guest Speaker, New England Regional Meeting, New Hampshire, (1985); "Termination of Pregnancy Following Prenatal Diagnosis," ESS Annual Meeting, Philadelphia, (1985); American College of Nurse-Midwives, Keynote Speaker, Annual Meeting, Philadelphia, (1984); International Childbirth Education Association, Keynote Speaker, Eastern Regional Meeting, New Haven, (1983); Interna- tional Childbirth Education Association, Keynote Speaker, Southern Regional Meeting, Knoxville, (1983); Midwives Alliance of North America, Keynote Speaker, Annual Meeting, Milwaukee, (1983); "The Social Construction of Childbirth: A Symbolic Interactionist Analysis of In-Hospital 'Prepared' Childbirth," Annual Meeting, Chi- cago, (1977). 1992] FEMINIST PERSPECTIVE 1615

MASS MEDIA PUBLICATIONS Contributions to popular magazines and periodicals including ASPO News, Healthright, Woman's Day, Ms. Magazine, Mothering Maga- zine, New Directions For Women, New Perspectives Quarterly, New Women, New York Newsday, On The Issues, Sef, SWS Network, and USA Today. Other citations, quotations, and book reviews have appeared in The New York Times, Newsday, U.S. News and World Report, Ladies' Home Journal,Lutheran Forum, New York Magazine, Boston Globe, Village Voice, American Baby, Washington Post Book World, Whole Earth Catalog,Jerusalem Post, and dietagaszeitung (Berlin). RADIO AND TELEVISION Radio and television appearances to discuss Recreating Motherhood, in Chicago, Hartford, Washington,' D.C., Boston, Minneapolis, and New York, (1988); Over 20 radio and television appearances to discuss The Tentative Pregnancy, in Boston, Washington, D.C., Philadelphia, Hartford, Chicago, and New York, (1986); Over '30 appearances to discuss In Labor, in Boston, Albany, Washington, D.C., San Francisco, Atlanta, and New York. Other radio and television appearances on NBC, ABC, PBS, CNN, Fox, Norwegian Radio, Australian Broadcasting Company, British Broadcasting Company, Canadian Broadcasting Company, including "The Today Show," "Good Morning America," "The Phil Donahue Show," "Body Watch," "Currents," and "The MacNeil-Lehrer News Hour." 1616

RICHARD A. MCCORMICK, S.J.