Table of Contents
Research by Christie Branson
Research by Susan Hutter
Legal Research by Rich Seifert on cloning and other assisted reproductive technologies.
Legal Research by Heather Burns on sperm and egg donors and host mothers.
by Christie Branson
Modern technology permits children to be born by involving more than two people. With these technologies there are several options:
The father can be (1) the supplier of the genetic material, (2) the husband of the supplier of the female genetic material, or (3) the husband of the woman who gestates the child. The mother could be (1) the supplier of the female genetic material, (2) the wife of the man who supplies the male genetic material, (3) the woman who gestates the child even though this woman did not supply any genetic material.
The parent-child relationship extends equally to every child and to every parent regardless of the marital status of the parent. Cal. Fam. Code §7602. Oddly enough this definition is only defining the relationship for support and visitation, not descent.
There is a presumption that a child of a wife co-habitating w/ the husband is the child of the husband .Cal. Fam. Code §7540. A presumption of paternity is given if the father receives the child into his home and openly holds out the child as his natural child. Cal Fam Code §7611
Blood tests may be ordered to determine paternity and over ride presumptions, except when the child was conceived by a surgical procedure (IVF) and the husband consented. Cal. Fam. Code §7541.
In re Marriage of Moschetta (1994, 4th Dist) 25 Cal App 4th 1218, 30 Cal Rptr 2d 893. This case found that in a traditional surrogacy, the husband and the biological mother (not the husband's wife) were the legal parents of the child. Under Fam. Code, § 7541(a) genetic parenthood established by blood tests overcomes a presumption Also, it was undisputed that the wife was sterile, and Fam. Code, § 7540, only applies where the other spouse is not sterile. Although under Fam. Code, § 7611(d), a person who receives a child into the home and openly holds out the child as natural is presumed to be the natural parent, the wife never held the child out as her natural child. Under the Uniform Parentage Act (of which Ca has adopted), parentage was easily resolved in favor of the biological mother, who did not consent to adoption pursuant to Fam. Code, § 8814.
Where a surrogate mother was carrying an embryo created by anonymous parents, and neither the couple contracting for the child nor the surrogate mother were genetically related to the child, the couple were deemed the child's parents. In re Marriage of Buzzanca (1998) 61 Cal. App. 4th 1410, 1421, 1428.
Is a surrogate contract valid?
In Johnson v. Calvert, the CA Supreme Court upheld the basic validity and enforceability of surrogacy contracts although many think these contracts violate public policy. Johnson v. Calvert (1993) 5 Cal. 4th 84, 95. The court refused to acknowledge two mothers and resulted in determining who the legal mother was from who intended to rear the child. In Re Baby M, 542 A2d 52 (N.J. Super. Ct. Ch. Div. 1988) had a different result, finding a surrogate agreement against public policy.
If a woman is artificially inseminated with the semen of a man who is not her husband, her husband is treated in law as the natural father of the child thereby conceived. Fam. Code § 7613(a). The artificial insemination must have been conducted under the supervision of a licensed physician and with the consent of the woman's husband. The donor of semen provided to a licensed physician for use in artificial insemination of a woman other than the donor's wife is treated as if he were not the natural father of the child. Fam. Code § 7613. The woman just needs to prove she gave birth to be the legal mother.
No California statute authorizes a general proceeding by which any non-parent can obtain parental rights, such as custody or visitation. Curiale v. Reagan (1990) 222 Cal. App. 3d 1597 (no procedure by which a lesbian partner of a biological mother can obtain custody of or visitation with a child). In loco parentis (in place of parent) is a common-law doctrine that has been historically applied in some contexts to impose certain parental obligations and confer certain parental benefits on persons other than parents. Nancy S. v. Michele G. (1991) 228 Cal. App. 3d 831. The term in loco parentis refers to any person who has put himself or herself in the situation of a lawful parent by assuming the obligations incident to the parental relationship without going through the formalities necessary to the establishment of a legal relationship of parent and child. It embodies the two ideas of assuming the parental status and discharging the parental duties.
Some cases have stated or implied that one standing in loco parentis is entitled to all the rights of a parent. Trudell v. Leatherby (1931) 212 Ca. 678. However, courts have not been willing to apply this doctrine because modern courts have generally been unwilling to broaden the meaning of "parent" in a statute unless clearly intended by the Legislature. In re Jodi B. (1991) 227 Cal. App. 3d 1322.
A de facto parent is a person who has assumed, for a substantial period and on a day-to-day basis, the role of parent, fulfilling both the child's physical and psychological needs. This is a foster parent; for example. In re B.G. (1974) 11 Cal. 3d 679. As with in loco parentis, there has been a judicial reluctance to extend de facto parentage into other areas. Nancy S. 228 Cal. App. 3d 831. There is no procedure by which one can be declared a de facto parent, thereby becoming entitled to all of the rights and obligations of the parent-child relationship.
California courts have rejected concepts of "equitable parentage" and "functional parenthood." Nancy S. 228 Cal. App. 3d 831.
While courts have been unwilling to expand the scope of parentage beyond what is contained in the statutes, the area of the law is exceedingly ripe for change, and practitioners should not assume that the current authorities will survive challenge in the future. Nontraditional situations, such as in vitro fertilization, surrogate parenting, artificial insemination, gay and lesbian adoptions, and successive relationships in which a stepparent is more a parent in fact than the biological parent, are becoming more prevalent and accepted. When coupled with the policy that the custody be viewed from the perspective of the child's best interests, it is exceedingly artificial not to recognize de facto parents.
Adoption is probably the best way to solve any of these problems arising because of presumptions, the only problem is getting consent from the biological parent(s).
A parent's interest in the custody of his or her children within the protection of the federal due-process and equal-protection clauses. This constitutional right underlies the parental preference doctrine, found in Family Code Section 3040(a)(1) which gives first preference to parents over non-parents in determining the custody of a child.
The right of custody has two components; legal custody and physical custody. Legal custody refers to the right and the responsibility to make the decisions relating to the health, education, and welfare of the child. Fam. Code §§ 3033, 3006. Physical custody refers to with whom the child actually resides. Fam. Code § 3007.
The court's permanent custody order is made according to the child's best interests despite a different temporary order or a stipulation of the parties. In re Marriage of Lewin (1986) 186 Cal. App. 3d 1482.
The CA probate code considers children born out of wedlock differently than those born in wedlock. Generally, they are still considered kids of the natural parents under Cal probate §6450(a). When these kids want to inherit from their nonmarital parents, if its mom they want to inherit from, they need to show she gave birth. If it's the dad they want to inherit from, they need the following:
1. Rebuttable presumption of paternity under family code.
2. Ct judgment of paternity during dad's lifetime AND
3. Paternity is established by clear and convincing evidence that dad has held kid out as his own.
When parents want to inherit from nonmarital kids it is generally not allowed unless a parent or relative of parent acknowledged child AND a parent or a relative of parent contributed to support or care of child. Cal. Probate §6452
A child whose paternity is determined by the 'married presumption' cannot inherit by intestacy from a man who (rather than the mother's husband) is alleged to be the actual biological father of the child. Estate of Cornelious (1984) 35 Cal. 3d 461, 464-467.
Congressional Testimony on Gene Therapy
5/24/00 Cong. Testimony (Pg. Unavail. Online), 2000 WL 19304373 Congressional Testimony by Federal Document Clearing House GENE THERAPY TEXT:
Testimony of Lisa Raines Senior Vice President, Genzyme Corporation Before the Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Subcommittee.
Several months ago, the press reported that NIH had determined that over 600 serious adverse events (SAEs) had occurred in gene therapy trials and that the vast majority of these were not reported to NIH in a timely fashion. That report led to serious concerns about investigator compliance with reporting requirements, as well as the underlying safety of adenoviral vectors. It led to requests for raw data, and the subsequent release by the NIH of raw, nanalyzed numbers - and of the report forms themselves. The end result was that the public was presented with a very different picture than the one described in subsequent communications with the National Bioethics; Advisory Commission (NBAC), the Recombinant DNA Advisory Committee (RAC), and this Committee.
For instance, while its early report of 600+ (and, later, 900+) SAEs made it sound like gene therapy was a dangerous enterprise, NIH ultimately concluded that 91 % of these adverse events were unrelated to treatment. Furthermore, NIH and FDA have also determined that every SAE that must be promptly reported to FDA was, indeed, so reported.
This information should serve to reassure the public about both the safety of gene therapy studies and the universal nature of compliance with FDA reporting requirements. Unfortunately, it has been months since NIH and FDA performed this analysis, and it has still not been published.
We therefore suggest that the HHS should immediately prepare a written report describing the number and nature of SAE reports that have been received by NIH and/or FDA. Specifically, this report should state how many NIH-reported -SAEs were expected to occur as a result of the progression of the patients illness and how many were unexpected. The report should further indicate how many of the unexpected and related SAEs - which the law requires to be promptly reported to the FDA - were indeed reported in accordance with this requirement. The report should provide an analysis of how many of these unexpected adverse events were possibly or probably caused by the use of a -gene therapy product, as well as the.-number of, such product-caused events that, resulted in death.
While it is certainly the prerogative of the Congress to legislate, gene therapy is an area of emerging science and is one that lends itself far more productively to vigorous and continuous oversight. The fact is, as you know far better than I, that legislation is difficult and time-consuming to change, and the process was designed that way for sound and appropriate reasons.Policies and procedures that affect an evolving technology such as gene therapy need to be flexible enough to evolve with the science.
7/22/97 Cong. Testimony (Pg. Unavail. Online), 1997 WL 11235151 Congressional Testimony by Federal Document Clearing House
TEXT: STATEMENT OF LESTER M. CRAWFORD, D. V.M., Ph.D.
HEARING ON HUMAN CLONING AND RELATED ISSUES, July 22, 1997
First, attempts to create a human child using the new cloning technology of somatic cell nuclear transfer should not be permitted by anyone in the public or private sector, either in the laboratory or in a clinical setting. This prohibition is recommended not only because the technique currently is medically unsafe to use in humans, but also because there are moral and ethical concerns about this prospect that will likely continue to be deliberated and reviewed well into the future.
Next, the use of somatic cell nuclear transfer in research on cloning animals should continue. This type of research is both acceptable and beneficial to the public. Existing animal welfare laws and regulations, including review by institution-based animal protection committees, are sufficient to address our concerns about animal
Likewise, additional limitations should not be placed upon the cloning of human cells and DNA sequences using somatic cell nuclear transfer. These research efforts do not raise the same scientific and ethical issues that surround the possible creation of an entire human being in the laboratory.
Great progress in medicine and biotechnology is possible using new genetic techniques without entering the realm of cloning human beings. Genetically engineered mice have already revolutionized our ability to study devastating diseases such as breast cancer and immune system deficiency. Even better animal models for human disease, aiding research into new or improved therapies, are an exciting prospect stemming from the latest cloning methods.
The most immediate benefit is likely to be the faster, more efficient production of therapeutic human proteins in the milk of transgenic farm animal species. These drug products of biotechnology have already aided persons with blood deficiencies and serious infections among other conditions. In the longer-term future, cloned animals might become a safe source of organs for transplantation in patients with heart, kidney or liver failure.
2/12/98 Cong. Testimony (Pg. Unavail. Online), 1998 WL 8992054 Congressional Testimony by Federal Document Clearing House CLONING
Cloning humans is
should be banned permanently, without loopholes, throughout the United
We can ban human cloning without undermining promising and ethical
us with too
many examples of unethical research on human beings, in the name of
progress. One need not dispute that benefits to some might result. But
worth the cost in terms of human life and human dignity? In the
cloning humans, the answer is no.
Indeed, every credible player in this debate claims to Oppose cloning humans. Then some of them add the word "but." For example, liberals like Senator Kennedy and President Clinton solemnly assure us they oppose "cloning a human child," but by this, they mean that they want to ban the implantation of a cloned human embryo into a woman's uterus--apparently a chimpanzee's uterus would be acceptable--and then only for the next ten years. After which, it's open season. So you can make as many clones as you like, as long as you kill them. Obviously, these people are not sincere. They want to allow human cloning without appearing to do so.
And then there are the biotech and pharmaceutical industries. They too say they do not want to use cloning to create human embryos, but they want to do "promising stem-cell research." To which I respond: Fine. But let us be clear. The intentional destruction of living human embryos is unethical and unacceptable. If an embryo is dividing and developing, it is a member of the human family and deserves our respect. And destroying it is repugnant to the American public. The real question before us, then, is: Is there a way to do stem-cell research without destroying human embryos? Pending the resolution of that question, I think we have no choice but to agree that human cloning should be banned, with no "buts."
International Environmental Law and Policy Winter 2001 Notes and
REGULATING HUMAN CLONING WITHIN AN ENVIRONMENTAL HUMAN RIGHTS FRAMEWORK
Wang. 12 Colo. J. Int'l Envtl. L. & Pol'y 165
NYU Journal of Legislation and Public Policy 2000-2001 Legislating Morality: The Debate Over Human Cloning TO CLONE OR NOT TO CLONE E. Donald Shapiro, Jennifer Long, Rebecca Gideon. 4 NYU J. Legis. & Pub. Pol'y 23
NYU Journal of Legislation and Public Policy 2000-2001 Legislating Morality: The Debate Over Human Cloning VIEWS OF CLONING FROM A PHYSICIAN'S PERSPECTIVE Charles N. Aswad, M.D. 8. 4 NYU J. Legis. & Pub. Pol'y 23
Pepperdine Law Review 1991 Comment BEYOND ABORTION: HUMAN GENETICS AND THE NEW EUGENICS John R. Harding, Jr. 1. 18 Pepp. L. Rev. 471
Cal. Health & Safety Code § 24185 (West 2000).
(a) No person shall clone a human being.
(b) No person shall purchase or sell an ovum, zygote, embryo, or fetus for the purpose of cloning a human being.
(c) For purposes of this section, "clone" means the practice of creating or attempting to create a human being by transferring the nucleus from a human cell from whatever source into a human egg cell from which the nucleus has been removed for the purpose of, or to implant, the resulting product to initiate a pregnancy that could result in the birth of a human being.
LEGAL RESEARCH—HUMAN REPRODUCTIVE TECHNOLOGY
The prospect of human cloning has proven to be one of the more controversial issues of our time. For many years cloning had been the subject of science fiction novels, though much doubt existed as its practicability. In 1997, however, Scottish nationals cloned Dolly the sheep, and instantly changed the world in which we live forever.
WHAT CLONING REALLY IS
Despite the potential breadth of the subject matter, cloning has been defined very narrowly for legal purposes. “Clone” refers to the practice of creating, or attempting to create a human being by a process known as Somatic Cell Nuclear Transfer (SCNT). In this process, the nucleus is removed from an egg cell, human or non-human, and replaced with the nucleus of a human cell taken from any source in the human body. The resulting product is used to initiate a pregnancy that could result in the birth of a human being. In short, cloning produces a cell or embryo genetically identical to its donor. Current legislation, both at the federal and state levels, has been broadly drafted to encompass not only the specific act of cloning but also any activity even remotely connected to the process.
General sentiment in regards to cloning differs depending on the enumerated purpose of the activity. Cloning for reproduction has met violent public outcry, whereas the use of cloning technology in order to clone organs or other human tissue (therapeutic cloning) is more tolerated. In either situation, few Americans are completely comfortable with the idea of cloning, and many vehemently oppose it for altogether, claiming among other things, that any cloning is “unethical.” Overwhelmingly, those who argue against cloning rely on religious arguments and personal concepts of “God” to justify their position. Consequently, this subject stirs up an emotional response rather than an intellectual debate, which will ostensibly affect the direction of future legislation.
Though the use of cloning to produce children is prohibited throughout the country and parts of the world, it is this potential uses that receives overwhelming attention. Other uses for the technology could potentially include cloning for bio-medical research, or to avoid passing on a genetically inherited disease. More controversial anticipated uses include providing alternative fertility treatment for couples, who are unable to have children naturally, or cloning of embryos for in-vitro fertilization (IVF) to require that fewer eggs be removed and an increased likelihood that a viable fetus will be brought to term.
The floodgates, for better or worse, have been opened and the legal system has been flooded with legislation in an effort to control the uncontrollable. The topic of cloning even made it into the President’s State of the Union Address earlier this year. Though certain trends in legislation have been observable thus far, it is crucial to recognize the underlying emotions that are the driving force for both sides of the debate. Understanding what compels the general populous and politicians alike to side a particular way will give us some direction as to how this technology will merge with our legal system in the future.
For most people fear is justifiably the overwhelming force in this debate. Not only does this technology potentially fly in the face of Christian beliefs, but it requires that we all ask of ourselves extremely difficult questions. Cloning has made us all pause to consider the point at which life actually begins, and whether it is nature or nurture that truly makes us who we are. The fact that we have no real answers to these questions leaves us facing the unknown; and it is human nature that tells us to fear and reject what we don’t understand. For humans over the centuries this behavior has been an effective defense mechanism, but looking to the future it may prove dangerous.
For others, the insatiable desire to understand and learn in the name science is a lifelong passion, and one which strongly influences their position in the debate. These individuals pursue science as a form of free speech, and see cloning as a fascinating prospect with tremendously positive potential. The fact remains that cloning is being explored by scientists (and Raelians) all over the world, despite the existence of laws; those who would like to see cloning be pursued prefer a world in which the technology is methodically studied in a controlled environment.
These conflicting drivers, fear and the quest for knowledge, are conspicuous themes in existing legislation. The American legal system at both federal and state levels has sought to prohibit cloning for the purpose of legislation, and strongly regulate it for therapeutic reasons. Additionally, the international community has responded to the prospect of cloning and has taken steps to regulate itself on a global scale.
Many countries worldwide, including Germany and the United Kingdom have taken measures to ban human cloning, and others have demonstrated a desire to prevent human cloning as well. At the G7 Summit of Economic Countries in June of 1997, the participants indicated widespread concern and apprehension regarding the consequences of cloning technology. In particular it appears there is a worldwide fear and concern over how to proceed on the issue, but there is a strong consensus that certain unified legislation of some type must be enacted.
The United States federal government has been extremely proactive in enacting legislation and exploring issues related to cloning. Nine days after the Dolly was cloned, President Clinton organized the National Bioethics Advisory Commission (NBAC) to examine the potential benefits, dangers, and ethical issues related to cloning, particularly human cloning. They were given ninety days to explore the controversy and reach a recommendation. The Commission concluded that as of 1997 human cloning was still unsafe and as such, should be prohibited. Consequently, the Cloning Prohibition Act of 1997 was enacted, a comprehensive prohibition on human cloning.
Current legislation is pending in both the House and the Senate which would ban cloning altogether (2003 Cong. U.S. H.R. 534, and 2003 Cong. U.S. S. 245, respectively). President Bush strongly supports such prohibition, as he is convinced that human cloning for any purpose is “wrong and unethical.” These two bills are essentially identical, and would prevent cloning of human embryos for any purpose. This legislation is specifically pursued in order to prevent all potential abuses of the technology. The consequences for violating this proposed law would include a fine of up to $1,000,000 and 10 years imprisonment.
Alternatively, Senator Feinstein has recently introduced The Prohibition on Cloning of Human Beings Act (2003 US S. 1611) that will ban human cloning for reproductive purposes, but would protect it for research purposes. Under Feinstein’s bill, human embryos could be legally created through the process of SCNT, and used for research purposes. This bill would take cloning further and allow research into infertility, genetic diseases, and treatments. Its main focus is to prohibit cloning and protect stem cell research. Clearly, this proposed legislation is inspired by science and the quest to discover the potential benefits of cloning, while averting undesirable uses for cloning, i.e. for reproductive purposes.
It is unclear which approach will prevail, but one can reasonably infer that in any case, cloning of human embryos for the express purpose of creating human children will be rejected. It is crucial in any case to recognize the strong distinction made by all of the proposed legislation; cloning of cells such as skin or other DNA, other than embryos for therapeutic purposes is explicitly permitted.
California has led the pack in enacting state legislation. It was the first state to enact a 5 yr-moratorium in 1997 to explore the issue in full. Subsequently, it became the first state to introduce legislation banning human cloning and related research (Cal. Bus & Prof. Code §2260.5, Cal. Health & Safety § 24185). Under current CA law, all human cloning is banned, and a civil penalty has been enacted as a penalty, not to exceed $25,000 for an individual and $1,000,000 for a corporation. Again, it is clear that the state legislation does NOT pertain to cloning of tissue or organs that would not result in cloning an entire human being. Many states have enacted some type of legislation banning cloning, though the penalties set by each state further demonstrate the variance of responses to the technology. In contrast to CA’s laws, New York not only imposes civil fines, but also evokes criminal penalties. It creates grounds for license revocation if public funds are used and makes human cloning, for reasons other than medical or scientific research, a class D felony (S.B. 6538, 223rd Annual Leg. Sess. (2000).
VEHICLES FOR REGULATION
In the future, there are particular vehicles for legislation that will likely be used. First of all, the government is permitted to regulate activities such as cloning in order to protect the health, safety and ethics of the American people. Additionally, it is permitted under the Constitution to promote human dignity. Opponents of cloning argue that human dignity is threatened by taking away someone’s individuality, which satisfies the criteria in this instance. Conversely, the first amendment is the strongest argument in favor of SCNT research. The first amendment of the Bill of Rights protects freedom of speech and expression. Scientists argue that prohibiting this research would be to prevent freedom of expression and speech. Whether science is speech is a current controversy underway. The government cannot prevent dissemination of ideas in society, and in the past, it has been highly deferential to science, based on this rationale.
RELEVANT LEGAL SOURCES
2003 CONG US S 245 108th CONGRESS, 1st Session. S. 245 (BROWNBACK-LANDRIEU BILL)
2001 US S.B. 1758 (SN) (FEINSTEIN-HATCH BILL)
2003 CONG US HR 534, 'Human Cloning Prohibition Act of 2003'. (WELDON-STUPAK BILL)
Law Review Articles:
as 2001 Duke L. & Tech. Rev. 0022
Garvish, John. “The Clone Wars: The Growing Debate Over Federal Cloning Legislation” 2001 Duke Law and Technology Review.
Hsu, Matthew B. “Banning Human Cloning: An Acceptable Limit on Scientific Inquiry or an Unconstitutional Restriction of Symbolic Speech?” July 1999 Georgetown Law Journal.
Lampert, Allison. “An Andy Warhol Society—First Coca-Cola, Now Humans: An examination of Whether a Ban on Human Cloning Violates Procreative Liberty.” Winter 2002 St. John's Journal of Legal Commentary.
Backgrounder: Human Cloning Legislation in Congress National Right To Life Committee, Inc. 10 Feb. 2003. <www.nrlc.org>.
Purdue, Joretta. “President lends support to anti-cloning legislation” United Methodist News Service, 11 Apr. 2002 <
LEGAL RESEARCH ON REPRODUCTIVE CLONING
I. On Feb. 27, 2003, the US House of Representatives voted 241 to 155 to ban all forms of human cloning per Human Cloning Prohibition Act of 2003. The bill now goes on to the Senate for a vote.
The Act bans all human cloning, including cloning to aid pregnancies or for medical research. It also criminalizes importing human cloned embryos or any part thereof with a fine of $1 million and 10 years in prison.
The bill is strongly supported by President Bush, who vows to veto any bill that doesn’t completely ban human cloning.
II. Alternative bill, HR 801 or Cloning Prohibition Act of 2003, proposed a more moderate ban of cloning for human embryos while allowing cloning technology for medical research. However, it has been voted down by the House of Representatives.
III. Presidential directive issued by President Clinton forbidding use of federal funds for human cloning in a memorandum to the heads of executive departments and agencies. (http://grants.nih.gov/grants/policy/cloning_directive.htm)
This was reflected in the 1997 Appropriations Act, Section 512 which banned funding of human embryo research.
IV. The FDA currently has jurisdiction over all clinical research using cloning technology. Existing statutory authorities are found to be sufficiently broad to encompass regulation of somatic cell and gene therapies and products. Gene therapy products are defined as products containing genetic material administered to modify or manipulate the expression of genetic material or to alter the biological properties of living cells.
I. British Parliament passed the 1990 Human Fertilization and Embryology Act to permit cloning to create embryos for stem cell research, which was approved in Jan. 2001. Under this act, scientists will be able to create cloned embryos for the purpose of extracting stem cells for medical research.
This Act was recently upheld against an attack by anti-abortion groups in the House of Lords.
II. Universal Declaration on the Human Genome and Human Rights, Article 11 is a ban on reproductive cloning of human embryos by the United Nation in 1997. (http://www.unesco.org/ibc/en/genome/projet/index.htm)
III. The European Union adopted the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Dignity of the Human Being with Regard to the Application of Biology and Medicine in 1997 which prohibited the creation of human embryos for research purposes.
A. Subsequently, an Additional Protocol on the Prohibition of Cloning Human Beings was added to the abovementioned Convention which banned creating “a human being genetically identical to another human being, whether living or dead”.
Law Review articles pertaining to the subject:
I. Stephen Marks, “Public Health and International Law: Tying Prometheus Down: the International Law of Human Genetic Manipulation”, 3 Chi. J. Int’l. L. 115 (2002).
II. Elizabeth P. Foley, “The Constitutional Implications of Human Cloning”, 42 Ariz. L. Rev. 647 (2000).
III. Mona Amer, “Breaking the Mold: Human Embryo Cloning and Its Implications for a Right to Individuality”, 43 UCLA L. Rev. 1659 (1996).
General information on cloning: http://www.msnbc.com/news/beyonddolly_front.asp
A very useful website to quickly find out the policies around the world regarding cloning; this is a database of global policies on human cloning and germ-line engineering: http://www.glphr.org/genetic/genetic.htm
Boutique lizards? Apparently, even the smallest of creatures has the desire and the ability to utilize sperm from different males to create the most promising offspring. She uses the sperm from the largest males to create sons, thus ensuring that they grow up big and strong.
In deciding how to determine the paternity of a child, the British court system has decided that a man mistakenly made a father via IVF to the wrong couple is deemed to be the legal and biological father of the child. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/2797369.stm