Feminist Tensions

Concepts of Motherhood and Reproductive Choice
  • Nadine Taub


Now well past the exuberance of early revelations and early victories, feminists in the United States today are again struggling with questions faced by earlier generations in the women’s movement. At times, these seemingly perennial questions have led to deep and debilitating divisions within the feminist community over particular issues. At other times, individuals experience the tensions in terms of personal ambivalence or inconsistency. One of the sharpest debates within the feminist legal community in recent years has concerned the significance to be accorded women’s unique role in reproduction. In the work context, the debate has focused on the desirability of laws that attempt to ensure greater job protection and benefits for pregnancy-related disabilities than for other types of temporary incapacities.1 In the reproductive technologies context, debates over the need to recognize women’s unique contribution are heard most sharply in discussions of the determinants of parenthood.


Embryo Transfer Batter Woman Sperm Donor Reproductive Choice Adoptive Mother 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Andrews, L. (1987). The aftermath of Baby M: Proposed state laws on surrogate motherhood. Hastings Center Report, 31 (October/November).Google Scholar
  2. Bartlett, K. (1988). Rights and responsibilities: From an exchange of views to an expressive view. Yale Law Journal, 98, 291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bartlett, K., and Stack, C. (1986). Joint custody, feminism and the dependency dilemma. Berkeley Women’s Law Journal, 2, 9.Google Scholar
  4. Center for Constitutional Rights. (1986). Brief Amici Curiae. In Thornburgh v. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, 476 U.S. 747, 106 S.Ct. 2169.Google Scholar
  5. Chavkin, W., Rapp, R., Rothman, B. K. (1989). Third party reproduction: Dissenting voices and questions. In S. Cohen and N. Taub (Eds.) Reproductive laws for the 1990s. Clifton, NJ: Humana. Clinic plans variation on fertility techniques. New York Times, July 19, 1987, Section E, p. 26.Google Scholar
  6. Corea, G. (1988). What the king cannot see. In E. Baruch, A. D’Adamo, Jr., and J. Seager (Eds.), Embryos, ethics and women’s rights.Google Scholar
  7. Gordon, L. (1987). Reproductive rights for today. The Nation, September 12.Google Scholar
  8. Hubbard, R. (1987). A birthmother is a birthmother is a…. Sojourner: The Woman’s Forum, September.Google Scholar
  9. Hunter, N. (1989). Time limits on abortion. In S. Cohen and N. Taub (Eds.) Reproductive laws for the 1990s. Clifton, NJ: Humana.Google Scholar
  10. New Jersey Coalition for Battered Women. (1982). Brief Amici Curiae. In Right to Choose v. Byrne, 91 N.J. 287. (Reprinted in Women’s Rights Law Reporter, 7, 285.)Google Scholar
  11. Polikoff, N. (1982). Why are mothers losing: A brief analysis of criteria used in child custody determinations. Women’s Rights Law Reporter, 7, 235.Google Scholar
  12. Rising use of donated eggs for pregnancy stirs concern. New York Times, January 18, 1988, Section A, p. 1.Google Scholar
  13. Rothman, B. K. (1982). How science is redefining parenthood. Ms. ( July/August).Google Scholar
  14. Rothman, B. K. (1987). Surrogacy: A question of values. Conscience (May/June), 8 (3).Google Scholar
  15. Sheppard, A. (1982). Unspoken premises in custody litigation. Women’s Rights Law Reporter, 7, 229.Google Scholar
  16. Stanworth, M. (1988). The deconstruction of motherhood. In M. Stanworth (Ed.), Reproductive technologies. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
  17. Taub, N. (1984–1985). From parental leave to nurturing leaves. New York University Review of Law and Social Change, 13, 13.Google Scholar
  18. Women’s Rights Litigation Clinic, Rutgers Law School (1988). Brief Amici Curiae. In the Matter of Baby M, 109 N.J. 396.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Nadine Taub 1989

Authors and Affiliations

  • Nadine Taub
    • 1
  1. 1.Women’s Rights Litigation ClinicRutgers University School of LawNewarkUSA

Personalised recommendations