"Dan Abel" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> "Paul M. Cook" > wrote:
>
>> The weirdness was the embryo swapping. It was a completely unneccesary
>> indulgence for the sake of vanity.
>
> Perhaps you are operating under more information than the rest of us
> have here. I saw only a little information posted in this thread about
> the situation. Do you have cites or search criteria that would let us
> all base our comments on the same facts?

I assume what people said on message boards was true. Apparently each woman
bore a child through more or less normal means previously. I assume that
means insemination either by a live male or by a syringe.

>
>> Pinhead, I said there were equal protection issues here. That means the
>> ***
>> couple would be at a disadvantage and ESPECIALLY because in this case the
>> mothers are not only both surrogates they are both spouses.
>
> Are they legally married? If not, equal custody of the children is very
> difficult in "normal" cases.

Very few states have legalized *** marriages. So probably not. I think she
lives in Louisiana or some place on the Gulf coast.

>
>> about. And the 4th amendment is a valid point because all the laws on
>> the
>> books assume hetero marriages and have no provisions for embryo swapping
>> amongst ******* couples.
>
> Is this the 4th amendment in Texas or California? I fail to see how the
> 4th amendment to the US constitution applies:
>
> " * Fourth Amendment * Protection from unreasonable search and seizure.

Yikes, I meant 14th. Typo.

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject
to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the
State wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which
shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States;
nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property,
without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction
the equal protection of the laws

Paul