Archive for the ‘Thinking Out Loud’ Category
Sentencing of attorneys who plead guilty to baby selling. Is it Enough?
January 27, 2012 | By: Elizabeth
I have been following the cases against my former colleagues Theresa Erickson and Hilary Neiman for some time. I had known for awhile about the investigation but was still stunned when the plea agreements became available to the public and I began discussing the details with colleagues and officials in the Justice Department. I know stuff like this probably happens more often than any of us care to admit. It always has and it always will. What is that expression about there always being thieves and crooks among us??
But my blog today — which is very different than that which I typically post — has more to do with whether the penalty fit the crime than whether what transpired under the direction of TE and with the assistance of HN was right or wrong, or for that matter my level of shock and horror at all of it. I had at one point read something on the internet that suggested that HN had been sentenced, or was going to be sentenced to 13 years in prison. I remember discussing the article I read with the women in my office. I asked them whether they thought 13 years were too few or too many. It turns out there was no factual basis to the article I was reading, as HN will be serving less than a year in a federal penitentiary and additional time under house arrest. That is quite a difference from 13 years wouldn’t you say?
I had never made a decision myself about whether 13 years was “just” punishment for the crimes alleged and to which she plead guilty. Some part of me felt that it wasn’t enough time and some part of me felt it was too much time. So I let it go, as I was more intrigued by the fact that there were still matters under investigation.
But I have no doubt when I say that less than a year in “Club Fed” is not enough time. As the Judge Battaglia pointed out (for more see an article in the http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/former_lawyer_gets_1-year_sentence_in_international_baby_selling_scam/ ), HN doesn’t even appear to understand that what she has done was wrong. Under the circumstances, then doesn’t it make sense to give someone slightly harsher a penalty to help them internalize that which they have done? Club Fed is rumored not to be such a bad place. If I recall, Martha Stewart enjoyed learning how to knit while she served her time. Given that we are talking about the intentional creation and sale of human life, do we really want to send a message to society that less than a year in jail is sufficient punishment for such atrocious conduct? I recognize that Judge Battaglia was restricted by sentencing guidelines, but even so, he still had the ability to provide for a more severe consequence for this crime. House arrest is pretty much of a joke isn’t it? There are days that actually sounds like a pretty sweet deal if you ask me. I suppose taking the option out of it may make it different. It is one thing to imagine what its like and another thing to actually live with an ankle bracelet every day. Query, if you have a pool in your backyard, are you allowed to sunbathe next to it? Or is that a violation of house arrest? Let’s be clear, however, we can make brownies, watch TV, read books, surf Face Book, and shop on the internet while under house arrest, things we cannot do at Club Fed.
I am not sure, and will most certainly be giving this more thought, but my gut reaction is that I really think this punishment didn’t fit the crime. As we await the sentencing of the co-conspirators, I am really curious to see if this notion of minimum and maximum sentences, house arrest, and the reality that people like me (albeit me 11 years ago) — desperate to have a child, unknowing (even as an attorney) of the true bounds of the law with respect to things like surrogacy and egg donation — were intentionally preyed upon. Babies were intentionally created to be sold to people like me. It’s gross and inhuman. And I object to the fact that the people who perpetrated these acts get to make brownies in the comfort of their own home, surf Face Book, and shop on Amazon, and perhaps even luxuriate by the pool in their backyard (seriously, is that okay with the ankle bracelet? Martha was allowed to garden wasn’t she??). Isn’t house arrest pretty much the same thing as sending your child to their room for a “time out”?
So I am going to make a pledge to devote more of my time to educating people so they don’t fall prey to schemes like these. And while I do so, I hope that somewhere a fair justice system will prevail in what remains of these cases.
These are the personal thoughts and opinions of this author.
Filed under: I'm Just Another Angry Infertile Woman, In the News, infertility in the media, Infertility on Television, IVF, Parentage Orders, Personal Musings, The Journey to Parenthood, Thinking Out Loud, Uncategorized
Tags: baby selling, infertility, intent, IVF, surrogacy scandal
The Starbucks Sperm Donor
October 18, 2011 | By: Elizabeth
There have been a ton of interesting articles in magazines recently about third party assisted reproduction. One particular article caught my attention and both intrigued and kind of grossed me out.
The article was in the October 10th/17th edition of Newsweek, “You got your sperm where?” The discussion in the article focused on how people are finding sperm donors (SD for short) through the internet (the “virtual” donor). The article described one donor-recipient match and donation that was initiated through web contact and fulfilled via a donation made in a Starbucks bathroom in NYC. Major yuck factor to that one. Seriously, have you been in a Starbucks bathroom recently? The line outside the bathroom will give you an indication of how actively they are used (hopefully not all for sperm donation purposes), and thus how potentially grimy they are. I have a pretty high threshold for gross bathrooms and overall I think Starbucks does a good job keeping its bathrooms clean. However, with the high traffic many of these bathrooms experience, you have to assume that they are crawling with germs. And if you are trying to have a baby, at least to me, public bathrooms and sperm donation don’t make a great combination. But to each his or her own, I suppose.
The thing that really got me, aside from the fact that this was taking place in Starbucks, was the lack of thought people were giving to what they are doing. It’s one thing to go on a blind date with someone you met on an internet dating site. To conceive a child from an online site — one that is not run by a sperm bank — seems a wee bit more frightening than agreeing to meet your average Tom, Dick or Harry for dinner or drinks.
One of the reasons people seem to be turning to online sources is to avoid the anonymity of sperm banks. There is a sperm donor registry that is designed to help families created through anonymous donation, match the SD’s with the children conceived from the donations and to help children/adults conceived through sperm donation find their biological father. The appeal of finding a random guy from whom you will receive donated sperm, and with whom you can establish some kind of non-anonymous but also non-parent-child relationship, is appealing to many people. I get that. No problem there. Except, I don’t know, maybe some legal issues surrounding that lack of parent-child relationship. . . .
Known sperm donation agreements are some of the trickiest agreements a reproductive lawyer can draft. I am always extremely careful when I draft them. Why you ask? Because, even though the goal of the agreement may be to avoid having the SD be liable for child support or retain any parental rights to the child conceived through the donation . . . courts overturn them with surprising frequency. All it takes are a couple of birthday cards signed “love Dad” and a court may well determine that, notwithstanding my carefully drafted known sperm donation agreement, the SD does indeed have parental rights, is liable for child support, and the child may even be able to inherit through “donor dad’s” estate. Did any of us intend for that to happen when we sat down at the table to discuss what they wanted the agreement to accomplish? No. My clients usually want to have a friend donate sperm so that they can have a child (alone or with a partner), and have the comfort of knowing who the person is that is donating his genetic material. All those “what-if” and “what is he like” questions can be answered later by the existence of a specific known SD.
If the SD and the recipient mom don’t want to have a parental relationship — for example two women in a relationship who intend to parent a child together but don’t want to use an anonymous sperm donor, and would like a close friend of theirs to donate his sperm (think along the lines of a well-known singer and her partner and another very well known male singer) — the sperm donation agreement becomes a critical component for recognition of the intended family unit. The sperm donation agreement establishes what everyone intends to happen, and what everyone intends to be their respective rights and responsibilities in the future. These intentions are set forth in writing prior to the conception of a child. Most of the case law in the US that involves third-party assisted reproduction (including known sperm donation) looks to the parties’ intent at the time the child is conceived. Provided that everyone sticks to the terms of the agreement, usually a good sperm donation agreement will be upheld if ever there are arguments, disagreements, or when and if someone suddenly wants something that was NOT intended when the agreement was drafted. The thing is that just a few real-life events can cause that sperm donation agreement, and the parties’ intention, to come into question. A court could decide that while the parties may have written down and signed an agreement that said one thing, their actions reveal a contrary intent. Actions frequently speak louder than words when it comes to known sperm donation arrangements.
So let’s get back to the people who donated and received the sperm at Starbucks. Do you think they took the time to consult a reproductive lawyer? Did they consider what the consequences would be 10 years down the road if suddenly one person decided they wanted a different type of relationship or needed child support? It didn’t sound like it from the article in Newsweek. While their intent may have considered the prospective best interests of the child — having a person that the child could one day meet or speak to and thus avoid identity issues that plague many children conceived via anonymous sperm donation (thus giving rise to the donor registry I mentioned) — the reality of what they were doing and the lack of awareness of the long term ramifications are mind boggling.
According to the article, one man who is donating sperm through online forums, is asking the recipient to scream “make me pregnant!” or something like it during intercourse. Let’s agree to not discuss the fact that they weren’t using medical professionals or a home insemination kit. The statement the recipient is being asked to state in and of itself could be interpreted as an expression of their mutual agreement and intent to parent a child, TOGETHER. Did the recipient of this sperm intend for this man to be the FATHER of her child? I don’t believe she did. Or did she? Did the SD?
And hey, are we doing background medical checks of any kind? Does anyone know if the people donating or receiving the sperm are healthy or otherwise able to parent a child? What if the SD has an infectious disease? What if the recipient is an ax-murderer? Odds are they aren’t anything other than people with good and honorable intentions. But if the law comes down to intent, don’t we owe it to the child to express that intent?
The internet is a wonderful place and it is a frightening place. We all have heard horror stories stemming from internet match-making. Let’s not add conception of a human being to those horror stories. For anyone considering this type of sperm donation, and apparently there are plenty of people doing it, or even those seeking to enter into a known sperm donation with the assistance of medical professionals, do me a favor: Find a reproductive lawyer or a family lawyer and talk about how you want to protect your family!
Maybe I am over-thinking this. Maybe it’s not different than someone who goes to a bar knowing she is ovulating, with the intent to hook-up with some guy and hope she gets pregnant. At least the people going to Starbucks theoretically know each other’s real names and have some information about each other, and both know that a child is being conceived. Good intentions and lack of (legal) judgment aren’t a crime. Then again, apparently Law & Order made an episode about this subject (maybe not involving a Starbucks sperm donor) and I would love to watch it. I wonder what issues the writers of Law & Order found to address?
And really, I am just totally dumbfounded by this, someone donated his sperm in a Starbucks bathroom? Wow. What’s next? A mile-high club for sperm donors?
Filed under: anonymous sperm donation, Check This Out, Current Affairs, In the News, Infertility on Television, known sperm donation, Personal Musings, Sam Sex Parenting and Reproductive Law, Thinking Out Loud, Third-Party Assisted Reproduction
I got Baby Proofed!
September 23, 2011 | By: Elizabeth
Summer reading lists. What was on yours? I read several great books including one which much to my surprise dealt with infertility, adoption, egg donation, embryo donation, sperm donation, single parenthood, and child-free living AND didn’t offend me!! Not only did it manage to avoid offending me (a pretty hard thing to do when you are writing on topics so near and dear to my heart) but it dealt with these topics with such accuracy and such insight that I had to ask my colleagues what the deal was — had this author been infertile and I didn’t know about it??????
The book is “Baby Proof” by Emily Giffin (author of Something Borrowed, recently made into a movie with Kate Hudson).
Written in the first person, the author is struggling through marital problems and decisions about whether or not to have a child. As she is trying to sort out her own issues, her sister is going through treatment for infertility. Author Emily Giffin does an amazing job of both describing the issues a person faces when contemplating living a life without having children (and the condemnation that may come with that decision). And she does an even better job describing what her sister is going through and issues involved with egg donation and the dreaded NOvary, fears about birth mothers, open adoption — heck she even accurately addresses the differences between embryo donation and embryo adoption and the misuse of terminology . . . . Seriously, you cover that one accurately (as did Ms. Giffin) and I HAVE to put you on the Stork Lawyer’s recommended reading list!!
Baby Proof is a great read and one that very clearly articulates the very complex landscape of third party assisted reproduction and adoption. I tend to be really harsh and judgmental when it comes to reading other people’s — especially fertile people’s — interpretation of my world (both the part I live on a day-to-day basis and the part I work in) and my hat’s off to Ms. Giffin! Baby Proof is politically and legally correct down to its core and it is still a fascinating read.
Baby Proof gives us a multi-faceted view of the myriad of complicated emotional and legal issues faced by infertile couples and singles. If you are going through infertility don’t be afraid to read this book. It’s not preachy, critical, judgmental, hurtful, or voyeuristic. Baby Proof looks at the issues infertile women face every day and with the precision of a plastic surgeon and her scalpel, the author manages to peel apart the very delicate skin (issues) involved when you’re dealing with ovarian reserve issues, third-party assisted reproduction, adoption, as well as the concerns women face as their biological clock ticks away and they lack a partner to help make a baby.
It’s a fun read and manages to be educational at the same time. I totally was caught off guard. I thought this was going to be some light chic lit for summer vaca. Was I ever wrong! For the first time in a very long time, I wound up thinking and marveling at the ability of someone who doesn’t live my life to totally understand my life.
I may know that she interviewed a reproductive lawyer but I still have to believe that she knows more about this topic than what one can learn from spending an afternoon being educated by someone like me. I can’t help but think she must have more insight into infertility than just an interview would bring. I mean she really GETS IT. I tend to think that you can only understand this pain if you’ve lived it. Granted the character in the book is going through a life crisis and is incredibly intellectual and so these issues are discussed through a filter of self-analysis . . . but even that, the self-analysis part of it, leads me to wonder if there isn’t some personal connection to infertility that I am unaware of. Maybe I will re-read the acknowledgment section? Maybe I missed a thank you to someone who shared their heart. But if I didn’t miss it, then this is one book that understands the infertile woman (and maybe will help people find their way through their infertility to consider an option of family building that without this book they might not have understood or considered).
It’s been a long week and I am brain dead. I hope I made the point I wanted to . . . I don’t typically think that it’s possible to understand what we go through and I don’t typically find that people get the legal issues involved in what I do everyday. You know I analyze every movie and magazine article looking and hoping to find an accurate portrayal of the path to parenthood when you’re not a fertile person. Did I finally just find one??
I think so. Maybe I won’t just re-read the acknowledgments. Maybe I will re-read this book. This might be a first.
Thanks Emily. You done us proud.
Filed under: adoption, Age and Infertility, child free living, Egg Donation, infertility in the media, IVF, Personal Musings, Thinking Out Loud, Third-Party Assisted Reproduction, Thoughts on Choosing an Egg Donor
