Enforcing Intentional Motherhood: The Harrowing Consequences Arising from the Inconsistency of Statutes Regarding Surrogacy, and How the Enforcement of Surrogacy Contracts is the Answer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This Note discusses how the practice of commercial surrogacy is treated across the United States. Most notably, how the courts treat surrogacy contracts from state to state. A summary of how Canada views the practice of surrogacy will provide a general view into how the view of the practice is different across borders. It will be discovered that, while there is a federal law governing surrogacy in Canada, there is no federal law in either country that enforce surrogacy contracts or treat surrogacy contracts as valid contract between two adult parties. This is due to the preconceived notions of what constitutes a “mother” or a “parent” by statutes that are often as outdated as they are disregarding the will of two parties entering a mutual agreement in writing. It will be argued, throw a show of evidence, that federal enforcement of surrogacy contracts will ensure that these contracts are subject to legal scrutiny and care. As well, it will be shown that surrogacy contracts are not against public policy and are, in fact, economically beneficial. I will use British Columbia’s Family Law Act as an example of how surrogacy contracts should be involved in the surrogacy process. The Note concludes that an intent approach should be used when analyzing the rightful parents of a baby born via surrogacy and that surrogacy contracts should be enforced to protect both parties during the surrogacy process.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".