This article marks the 30th anniversary of the Supreme Court of New Jersey's Baby M decision by offering a critical analysis of surrogacy policy in the United States. Despite fundamental changes in both science and society since the case was decided, state courts and legislatures remain bitterly divided on the legality of surrogacy. In arguing for a more uniform, permissive legal posture toward surrogacy, the article addresses five central debates in the surrogacy literature.First, should the legal system accommodate those seeking conception through surrogacy, or should it prohibit such arrangements? Second, if surrogacy is permitted, what steps can be taken to minimize the potential exploitation of women who are willing to rent their wombs for income? Third, what criteria should govern the eligibility to serve as a surrogate mother and an intended parent? Fourth, what principle(s) should serve as the basis for determining the parentage of children born through surrogacy? Fifth, is regulatory uniformity in the surrogacy realm desirable? Is it achievable?The article concludes that courts and legislatures should accept the validity of surrogacy contracts, determine parentage according to intent, and identify transparent criteria for the eligibility of both surrogates and intended parents.

中文翻译：

---

Baby M 30 岁了：代孕的法律和政策

这篇文章标志着 30th通过对美国代孕政策的批判性分析，纪念新泽西州最高法院对 Baby M 的判决。尽管自案件判决以来科学和社会都发生了根本性变化，但州法院和立法机关在代孕的合法性问题上仍存在严重分歧。在主张对代孕采取更统一、更宽松的法律立场时，本文讨论了代孕文献中的五个核心争论。首先，法律制度应该适应那些通过代孕寻求受孕的人，还是应该禁止这种安排？其次，如果允许代孕，可以采取哪些措施来最大限度地减少对愿意出租子宫以获取收入的女性的潜在剥削？第三，作为代孕母亲和准父母的资格应遵循哪些标准？第四，应以哪些原则作为确定通过代孕出生的孩子的亲子关系的基础？第五，代孕领域的监管统一是否可取？是否可以实现？文章的结论是，法院和立法机构应接受代孕合同的有效性，根据意图确定亲子关系，并为代孕者和预期父母的资格确定透明的标准。