•  
  •  
 

Hastings Law Journal

Authors

Ruth Colker

Abstract

Professor Colker argues that courts need to be aware of the biological differences between women and men in evaluating cases involving alternative reproductive technologies. By imposing an overly formalistic notion of equality to these cases, courts have inappropriately tipped the balance in favor of men's reproductive claims. Two cases involving the disposition of frozen embryos following divorce-Davis v. Davis and Kass v. Kass-illuminate her argument.

Included in

Law Commons

Share

COinS