IssuesRead Next
Abortion Pill
Without Guardrails: An alarming 6,000 pharmacies (and likely more) distribute abortion pills
Carole Novielli
·Spotlight Articles
How Did We Get Here? A brief history of IVF and surrogacy in the United States
Fifty years after the first contracts and cases rocked the U.S., surrogacy and IVF remain in news headlines. From their inception, the surrogacy and IVF industries have turned children and the bodies of women into transactional commodities used to satisfy the desires of those willing and able to pay a hefty sum.
Surrogacy prior to IVF (traditional surrogacy) consists of introducing sperm to the womb of a surrogate who is also the child's biological mother.
One of the more well-known controversial cases of traditional surrogacy was that of "Baby M," in which the biological mother/surrogate was traumatized by having to give her baby up, and was eventually awarded custody despite a surrogacy agreement with the purchasing family.
The first surrogate-born baby by IVF, Jill Brand, was born in 1986 after her parents experienced a tragedy with a prior pregnancy which left her mother unable to carry a child.
Today, surrogate births — for all sorts of reasons — are estimated to be into the thousands per year.
Prior to the proliferation of IVF, traditional surrogacy involved using artificial insemination to introduce sperm into the womb of the surrogate (who was, therefore, also the child’s biological mother).
This was the case in 1976, when the first surrogate contract in the U.S. was written up by attorney Noel P. Keane in Dearborn, Michigan. In an 1983 interview with The New York Times, Keane claimed that there were “over 2,000 couples interested in surrogate parenthood.” At the time, Keane claimed he had “300 available surrogates” and that 35 babies had been born through his orchestrated contracts.
Traditional surrogacy differs from what is commonly referred to as using a “gestational carrier” where there is no biological relationship between the woman whose womb is used to carry the child.
One of these cases became known as “Baby M,” which was the topic of controversy spawning outrage nationwide in 1987. The case involved five individuals: a baby girl nicknamed Baby M, William Stern (the biological father of Baby M), and William's wife Elizabeth Stern.
The Sterns hired Mary Beth Whitehead (traditional surrogate and biological mother) who was married to Richard Whitehead. Mary Beth gave birth to a baby girl, who the Sterns named Melissa.
According to reports, Mr. and Mrs. Stern paid $10,000 to Mrs. Whitehead after Baby M was born, and another $7,500 to the Infertility Center of New York (ICNY). The Baby M case went to the courts and hit the news nationwide after Mrs. Whitehead became distressed at having to hand her biological daughter over to the Sterns in accordance with the contract.
Court records indicated that Mrs. Whitehead was so distressed at the separation from her daughter that the Sterns were concerned she might commit suicide. They agreed to surrender the child to her with the understanding that the separation would be for a week.
“Mrs. Whitehead became deeply disturbed, disconsolate, stricken with unbearable sadness. She had to have her child. She could not eat, sleep, or concentrate on anything other than her need for her baby,” court documents stated.
The Sterns handed Baby M to Mrs.Whitehead for the agreed-upon week, but this quickly turned into four months.
Mrs. Whitehead and her husband fled with Baby M to Florida, where Mrs. Whitehead's parents lived. Court documents state that the Whiteheads and Melissa [Baby M] spent several months moving between “... roughly twenty different hotels, motels, and homes in order to avoid apprehension.”
Originally, a lower court in New Jersey upheld the surrogacy contract and placed custody of Baby M with Mr. Stern.
However, the case was appealed; ultimately, the Supreme Court of New Jersey struck down the lower court's ruling in a vote of 7-0, ruling that the surrogacy contract was not enforceable, and although full custody was granted to the biological father, the NJ Supreme Court restored the natural parental rights of the biological mother/surrogate (Mrs. Whitehead).
“While we recognize the depth of the yearning of infertile couples to have their own children, we find the payment of money to a 'surrogate' mother illegal, perhaps criminal, and potentially degrading to women,” Judge Wilentz wrote, adding:
“Mr. Stern knew he was paying for the adoption of a child; Mrs. Whitehead knew she was accepting money so that a child might be adopted; the Infertility Center knew that it was being paid for assisting in the adoption of a child. The actions of all three worked to frustrate the goals of the statute.
It strains credulity to claim that these arrangements, touted by those in the surrogacy business as an attractive alternative to the usual route leading to an adoption, really amount to something other than a private placement adoption for money.”
Judge Wilentz further stated, “The evils inherent in baby-bartering are loathsome for a myriad of reasons. The child is sold without regard for whether the purchasers will be suitable parents.”
Media picked up the story from across the country and a few states began passing laws prohibiting or limiting surrogacy.
Michigan was the first state to criminalize surrogacy for profit with the Michigan Surrogate Parenting Act of 1988. That ban was lifted in April of 2025 after the passage of the Michigan Family Protection Act, allowing for the legal rental of a woman’s womb.
Despite the NJ Supreme Court ruling, surrogacy use only grew with the advancement of IVF, which allowed the shift from traditional surrogacy to gestational carrier surrogacy.
“Very quickly there was a switch to the non-genetic surrogacy where the effort was, well, let’s try to get around the opinion of the New Jersey Supreme Court,” Mrs. Whitehead's attorney Harold Cassidy stated in a recent interview with RetroReport.
In June of 2026, the first surrogate-born baby conceived through IVF in the U.S., Jill Brand, turned 40. After struggling with infertility, Brand’s parents, Elliot and Sandye Rudnitzky, turned to two pioneers of IVF, Dr. Patrick Steptoe and Robert Edwards. In 1982 the Rudnitzky traveled to England “determined to stay until they became pregnant.”
“Miraculously, our first attempt at IVF was successful. I was pregnant! We returned to New Jersey with a new sense of hope. As my pregnancy progressed, I reveled in my growing belly and in the flutters of movement I felt within,” Sandye wrote.
However in the seventh month of pregnancy, Sandye suffered from a ruptured uterus that led to an emergency c-section, a “devastating hysterectomy,” and the birth of Elliot and Sandye’s daughter, Heather. Tragically, after 13 days, Heather passed away.
A few months after the tragic loss of their daughter, Sandye stated that “Elliot had an epiphany: ‘What if we created an embryo with IVF and had a surrogate carry the baby?’” The Rudnitzkys went on a mission to find a doctor willing to take the unprecedented step of IVF, coupled with renting the womb of another woman not biologically related to the child.
At the time, Judge Marianne O. Battani ruled that the biological mother and father would be recognized as the legal parents, stating, ''We really have no definition of 'mother' in our lawbooks,'' the judge said in her order. '''Mother' was believed to have been so basic that no definition was deemed necessary,'' reported The New York Times.
Dr. Wulf H. Utian of Mount Sinai Hospital — who had previously spent time in his early career researching causes of death of women in South Africa (where he is from) after abortions — was willing to take that leap and became known as the pioneer or “father” of IVF gestational surrogacy. Jill Brand was born in 1986.
During a recent interview with CNN, Dr. Utian was asked about the Rudnitzky case.
“So you were operating in somewhat of an unknown with respect to the law?” the CNN interviewer asked.
Dr. Utain responded, “It was not somewhat of an unknown; it was totally unknown. It was never done. So we had to try and think of every aspect before we went ahead. Ultimately, I got the legal sign-off.”
Today, Jill Brand claims to be the “living embodiment” to the “importance” of surrogacy, stating, “That’s a couple that really wants a baby. That’s a child that is going to be really loved. Why take that away?”
In an interview with RetroReport, founder of Circle Surrogacy, John Weltman claimed “at least 99% is now gestational or egg donor surrogacy,” which allowed for the shift in public opinion to become more accepting of the practice.
Weltman estimates surrogate births in the U.S. are “several thousand a year.” RetroReport notes that a significant push for the decriminalization and acceptance of surrogacy is in part due to homosexual couples pushing for the practice.
Circle Surrogacy claims that it has received over 1,000 applications from women looking to become surrogates.
One surrogate, Jenni, noted that surrogates “have to be OK, recognizing this is not my baby, and yes, I’m offering my body."
The same-sex couple who used Jenni as a surrogate said, “She got to be a rock star for nine months to these two gay guys in New York.” The couple said they paid at least $120,000 to procure the children, which included the purchasing of the egg and the cost of the IVF process.
Jenni was compensated about $30,000 for the renting of her womb.
“We were not in need financially," Jenni stated. "That being said, I never like to downplay the fact that yes, I was compensated to carry these kids and it helped our family.”
Live Action News is pro-life news and commentary from a pro-life perspective.
Our work is possible because of our donors. Please consider giving to further our work of changing hearts and minds on issues of life and human dignity.
Contact editor@liveaction.org for questions, corrections, or if you are seeking permission to reprint any Live Action News content.
Guest Articles: To submit a guest article to Live Action News, email editor@liveaction.org with an attached Word document of 800-1000 words. Please also attach any photos relevant to your submission if applicable. If your submission is accepted for publication, you will be notified within three weeks. Guest articles are not compensated (see our Open License Agreement). Thank you for your interest in Live Action News!
Carole Novielli
·
Guest Column
Right to Life UK
·
Issues
Bridget Sielicki
·
Issues
Nancy Flanders
·
International
Bridget Sielicki
·
Issues
Cassy Cooke
·
Pop Culture
Sheena Rodriguez
·
Politics
Sheena Rodriguez
·
Investigative
Sheena Rodriguez
·
Issues
Sheena Rodriguez
·
Issues
Sheena Rodriguez
·How Did We Get Here? A brief history of IVF and surrogacy in the United States
Fifty years after the first contracts and cases rocked the U.S., surrogacy and IVF remain in news headlines. From their inception, the surrogacy and IVF industries have turned children and the bodies of women into transactional commodities used to satisfy the desires of those willing and able to pay a hefty sum.
Surrogacy prior to IVF (traditional surrogacy) consists of introducing sperm to the womb of a surrogate who is also the child's biological mother.
One of the more well-known controversial cases of traditional surrogacy was that of "Baby M," in which the biological mother/surrogate was traumatized by having to give her baby up, and was eventually awarded custody despite a surrogacy agreement with the purchasing family.
The first surrogate-born baby by IVF, Jill Brand, was born in 1986 after her parents experienced a tragedy with a prior pregnancy which left her mother unable to carry a child.
Today, surrogate births — for all sorts of reasons — are estimated to be into the thousands per year.
Prior to the proliferation of IVF, traditional surrogacy involved using artificial insemination to introduce sperm into the womb of the surrogate (who was, therefore, also the child’s biological mother).
This was the case in 1976, when the first surrogate contract in the U.S. was written up by attorney Noel P. Keane in Dearborn, Michigan. In an 1983 interview with The New York Times, Keane claimed that there were “over 2,000 couples interested in surrogate parenthood.” At the time, Keane claimed he had “300 available surrogates” and that 35 babies had been born through his orchestrated contracts.
Traditional surrogacy differs from what is commonly referred to as using a “gestational carrier” where there is no biological relationship between the woman whose womb is used to carry the child.
One of these cases became known as “Baby M,” which was the topic of controversy spawning outrage nationwide in 1987. The case involved five individuals: a baby girl nicknamed Baby M, William Stern (the biological father of Baby M), and William's wife Elizabeth Stern.
The Sterns hired Mary Beth Whitehead (traditional surrogate and biological mother) who was married to Richard Whitehead. Mary Beth gave birth to a baby girl, who the Sterns named Melissa.
According to reports, Mr. and Mrs. Stern paid $10,000 to Mrs. Whitehead after Baby M was born, and another $7,500 to the Infertility Center of New York (ICNY). The Baby M case went to the courts and hit the news nationwide after Mrs. Whitehead became distressed at having to hand her biological daughter over to the Sterns in accordance with the contract.
Court records indicated that Mrs. Whitehead was so distressed at the separation from her daughter that the Sterns were concerned she might commit suicide. They agreed to surrender the child to her with the understanding that the separation would be for a week.
“Mrs. Whitehead became deeply disturbed, disconsolate, stricken with unbearable sadness. She had to have her child. She could not eat, sleep, or concentrate on anything other than her need for her baby,” court documents stated.
The Sterns handed Baby M to Mrs.Whitehead for the agreed-upon week, but this quickly turned into four months.
Mrs. Whitehead and her husband fled with Baby M to Florida, where Mrs. Whitehead's parents lived. Court documents state that the Whiteheads and Melissa [Baby M] spent several months moving between “... roughly twenty different hotels, motels, and homes in order to avoid apprehension.”
Originally, a lower court in New Jersey upheld the surrogacy contract and placed custody of Baby M with Mr. Stern.
However, the case was appealed; ultimately, the Supreme Court of New Jersey struck down the lower court's ruling in a vote of 7-0, ruling that the surrogacy contract was not enforceable, and although full custody was granted to the biological father, the NJ Supreme Court restored the natural parental rights of the biological mother/surrogate (Mrs. Whitehead).
“While we recognize the depth of the yearning of infertile couples to have their own children, we find the payment of money to a 'surrogate' mother illegal, perhaps criminal, and potentially degrading to women,” Judge Wilentz wrote, adding:
“Mr. Stern knew he was paying for the adoption of a child; Mrs. Whitehead knew she was accepting money so that a child might be adopted; the Infertility Center knew that it was being paid for assisting in the adoption of a child. The actions of all three worked to frustrate the goals of the statute.
It strains credulity to claim that these arrangements, touted by those in the surrogacy business as an attractive alternative to the usual route leading to an adoption, really amount to something other than a private placement adoption for money.”
Judge Wilentz further stated, “The evils inherent in baby-bartering are loathsome for a myriad of reasons. The child is sold without regard for whether the purchasers will be suitable parents.”
Media picked up the story from across the country and a few states began passing laws prohibiting or limiting surrogacy.
Michigan was the first state to criminalize surrogacy for profit with the Michigan Surrogate Parenting Act of 1988. That ban was lifted in April of 2025 after the passage of the Michigan Family Protection Act, allowing for the legal rental of a woman’s womb.
Despite the NJ Supreme Court ruling, surrogacy use only grew with the advancement of IVF, which allowed the shift from traditional surrogacy to gestational carrier surrogacy.
“Very quickly there was a switch to the non-genetic surrogacy where the effort was, well, let’s try to get around the opinion of the New Jersey Supreme Court,” Mrs. Whitehead's attorney Harold Cassidy stated in a recent interview with RetroReport.
In June of 2026, the first surrogate-born baby conceived through IVF in the U.S., Jill Brand, turned 40. After struggling with infertility, Brand’s parents, Elliot and Sandye Rudnitzky, turned to two pioneers of IVF, Dr. Patrick Steptoe and Robert Edwards. In 1982 the Rudnitzky traveled to England “determined to stay until they became pregnant.”
“Miraculously, our first attempt at IVF was successful. I was pregnant! We returned to New Jersey with a new sense of hope. As my pregnancy progressed, I reveled in my growing belly and in the flutters of movement I felt within,” Sandye wrote.
However in the seventh month of pregnancy, Sandye suffered from a ruptured uterus that led to an emergency c-section, a “devastating hysterectomy,” and the birth of Elliot and Sandye’s daughter, Heather. Tragically, after 13 days, Heather passed away.
A few months after the tragic loss of their daughter, Sandye stated that “Elliot had an epiphany: ‘What if we created an embryo with IVF and had a surrogate carry the baby?’” The Rudnitzkys went on a mission to find a doctor willing to take the unprecedented step of IVF, coupled with renting the womb of another woman not biologically related to the child.
At the time, Judge Marianne O. Battani ruled that the biological mother and father would be recognized as the legal parents, stating, ''We really have no definition of 'mother' in our lawbooks,'' the judge said in her order. '''Mother' was believed to have been so basic that no definition was deemed necessary,'' reported The New York Times.
Dr. Wulf H. Utian of Mount Sinai Hospital — who had previously spent time in his early career researching causes of death of women in South Africa (where he is from) after abortions — was willing to take that leap and became known as the pioneer or “father” of IVF gestational surrogacy. Jill Brand was born in 1986.
During a recent interview with CNN, Dr. Utian was asked about the Rudnitzky case.
“So you were operating in somewhat of an unknown with respect to the law?” the CNN interviewer asked.
Dr. Utain responded, “It was not somewhat of an unknown; it was totally unknown. It was never done. So we had to try and think of every aspect before we went ahead. Ultimately, I got the legal sign-off.”
Today, Jill Brand claims to be the “living embodiment” to the “importance” of surrogacy, stating, “That’s a couple that really wants a baby. That’s a child that is going to be really loved. Why take that away?”
In an interview with RetroReport, founder of Circle Surrogacy, John Weltman claimed “at least 99% is now gestational or egg donor surrogacy,” which allowed for the shift in public opinion to become more accepting of the practice.
Weltman estimates surrogate births in the U.S. are “several thousand a year.” RetroReport notes that a significant push for the decriminalization and acceptance of surrogacy is in part due to homosexual couples pushing for the practice.
Circle Surrogacy claims that it has received over 1,000 applications from women looking to become surrogates.
One surrogate, Jenni, noted that surrogates “have to be OK, recognizing this is not my baby, and yes, I’m offering my body."
The same-sex couple who used Jenni as a surrogate said, “She got to be a rock star for nine months to these two gay guys in New York.” The couple said they paid at least $120,000 to procure the children, which included the purchasing of the egg and the cost of the IVF process.
Jenni was compensated about $30,000 for the renting of her womb.
“We were not in need financially," Jenni stated. "That being said, I never like to downplay the fact that yes, I was compensated to carry these kids and it helped our family.”
Live Action News is pro-life news and commentary from a pro-life perspective.
Our work is possible because of our donors. Please consider giving to further our work of changing hearts and minds on issues of life and human dignity.
Contact editor@liveaction.org for questions, corrections, or if you are seeking permission to reprint any Live Action News content.
Guest Articles: To submit a guest article to Live Action News, email editor@liveaction.org with an attached Word document of 800-1000 words. Please also attach any photos relevant to your submission if applicable. If your submission is accepted for publication, you will be notified within three weeks. Guest articles are not compensated (see our Open License Agreement). Thank you for your interest in Live Action News!
Carole Novielli
·Guest Column
Right to Life UK
·Issues
Bridget Sielicki
·Issues
Nancy Flanders
·International
Bridget Sielicki
·Issues
Cassy Cooke
·Pop Culture
Sheena Rodriguez
·Politics
Sheena Rodriguez
·Investigative
Sheena Rodriguez
·Issues
Sheena Rodriguez
·Issues
Sheena Rodriguez
·