Further, social stigma against surrogacy has eroded, so the time is ripe for codifying that which is already happening. If the goal of the state is to ensure the health, safety and welfare of its citizens, its protection should not be second-guessed in this arena. 


	Since it is the service of pregnancy that is being marketed, and not the baby which results, the claim of “baby-selling” is moot. So too is the claim of surrogacy as “reproductive prostitution.” The American Bar Association has authored and is currently lobbying model surrogacy legislation which includes the provisions put forth in the Illinois GCA, currently considered the gold standard for surrogacy legislation in America. 


	Further, the federal government should look into agency regulation of surrogacy and its practices. Couples and surrogates often cross state lines for more favorable jurisdictions. Keeping in mind that the service of the surrogate as gestational carrier is what is being bargained for and exchanged, and not the baby itself, it seems that there is an element of interstate commerce, and thus a federal interest. If Congress is disinterested in passing federal code which mirrors state laws like the Illinois GCA, it should consider giving oversight to the Department of Health and Human Services. A good start might be a task force to discover current practices and what is considered “the norm” within the realm of gestational surrogacy. 


	There is also an international component for the federal government to consider. Since it is proven that international couples can (and do) employ American surrogates, it seems that both the Immigration and Naturalization Service as well as the Department of Homeland Security should have some purview. 


	Finally, although positive legislation effectively equals state sanction, it does not specifically encourage the practice of gestational surrogacy. It merely sheds light on a very gray area, where medicine, morals and law intersect, and children are created.


The American family construct is ripe for redefinition. Legally, a family is the natural extension of a marriage, which was most eloquently defined by Justice William O. Douglas in Griswold v. Connecticut as “an association that promotes a way of life, not causes; a harmony in living, not political faiths; a bilateral loyalty, not commercial or social projects.” 


For the first time in our nation’s history, social attitudes and scientific technology offer a legitimate departure from the traditional definition of marriage, as well as the opportunity to expand rights and redefine family in a diverse and meaningful way. The proliferation of reproductive technologies such as in-vitro fertilization, artificial insemination and egg/sperm donation, as well as the increasing social acceptance of adoption and surrogate pregnancy, ensures that Justice Douglas’s own words in Skinner v. Oklahoma that “marriage and procreation are fundamental to the  . . . survival of the race” are no longer valid in our modern society. 


To fully grant every American citizen the right to unite, the right not to unite, and the right to divide with regard to personal relationships and marriage, there are three issues which must be closely examined and proposed in a way that is fair and satisfying both socially and legally. 