By Nofar Yakovi Gan-Or
As Israeli law has adapted to new reproductive realities, it has relied on more “traditional” familial cells, leaving out single men and male same-sex couples. As in many other legal contexts, it has been up to the courts to develop more egalitarian policies.
By Lucas Taylor
Surrogacy, the practice in which one party (the surrogate) gestates a fetus on behalf of another pair/person (the intended parent/s or IPs), has sparked academic debates regarding gender equality and bodily integrity in the face of both commercial and altruistic agreements. I re-engage with this topic by challenging how the capacity of the surrogate to choose may be restricted under English and Welsh law. This post does not seek to argue against the practice of altruistic surrogacy. Instead, it seeks to highlight, through the lens of Social Reproduction Theory, that central to the legal framework is a highly gendered devaluation of labor which undermines the potential for surrogates to fully exercise choice in relation to their gestational labor.
By Sheetal Soni
In this post, I will consider the position of assisted reproductive technologies (ARTs) under South African law, as well as the challenges posed by legislation and policy.
Broadly speaking, ARTs have made it possible for people to create and expand their families where this was previously not possible. Obstacles to reproducing include natural barriers such as infertility, or being single or in a same-sex relationship. Options such as gamete donation, surrogacy, intra-cytoplasmic sperm injection and other technologies have allowed infertile individuals to better the odds of reproducing. However, as beneficial as these ART options may be, there are other barriers to creating that family; in South Africa, these barriers include unequal access to treatment, as well as workplace laws and policies that dissuade and discourage people from seeking treatment.
By Giulia Cavaliere
Should U.K. employers be required to make reasonable adjustments for women who are struggling to conceive and who are going through fertility treatment?
This blog seeks to answer this question. Before getting to that, I will say a few words about my views concerning infertility and the public provision of fertility treatment.
By Karey Harwood
For as long as I have been thinking and writing about egg freezing, its characterization as “a technological solution to a social problem” has adumbrated a core criticism: egg freezing falls short because there is a deeper problem it doesn’t solve. Egg freezing may help the individual woman who can afford it, yes, but not much more. The deeper problem is generally assumed to be workplace norms molded around men’s life cycle. Pushing hard to advance one’s career during one’s 20s and 30s does not cost men the opportunity to father children, primarily because their fertility does not decline precipitously after age 35. In addition, stay-at-home wives have historically played a supportive role in freeing up men to focus on work. By contrast, women have a more limited window of fertility and are not as likely to have a stay-at-home partner who can take primary responsibility for childrearing.
By Dafni Lima
A series of legal rules are designed to ensure that, when welcoming a child, parents are given the protection and support they need in relation to work. The same cannot be said for those dealing with challenges unique to assisted reproduction. This post argues that the protective rationale of parental leave should be extended to address the needs for those undergoing fertility treatment in the form of a new “assisted reproduction leave.”
By Victoria Hooton and Elizabeth Chloe Romanis
Decisions about whether and how to reproduce are some of the most intimate and personal choices individuals and/or couples can make. For people struggling with involuntary childlessness, attempting to become a parent can involve some particularly complex decision making about technological assistance. Inevitably, these decisions touch upon all aspects of a person’s life. Their employment is no exception. People’s working status and working conditions, set against the broader context of their social circumstances, can have a huge influence on what decisions they feel able to make. This is particularly relevant for people who, for biological, social, or psychosocial reasons, need to use assisted reproductive technologies (ARTs) to reproduce.
By Chloe Reichel and Seema Mohapatra
Assisted reproductive technologies (ART) such as in-vitro fertilization (IVF) face an uncertain future as anti-abortion policymakers and advocates work to restrict access to reproductive care post-Dobbs.
Until last summer, modern ART had been performed in the United States with the Constitutional protection for abortion care in the background. After Dobbs, fertility doctors and patients have begun to realize that strict abortion laws and policies affect not only those who do not wish to continue a pregnancy, but also people who very much desire to have a child.