More sociological than legal in emphasis, this article discusses the comments of respondents to a qualitative study of lesbian parents in the United Kingdom. Respondents discuss routes to conception and involvement of fathers in children’s lives.

Anderson, the HIV project director at Lambda Legal Defense, provides an excellent account of the difficulties encountered by LGBT and HIV positive men and women who seek the use of assisted-reproductive technologies (“ART”). These barriers include restrictions on sperm donation by gay and HIV positive men, denial of insurance coverage for ART, and denial of ART based on the provider’s religious beliefs or biases. This article provides a summary of the various types of ART and defines the basic terminology involved. In addressing the barriers to ART, Anderson makes reference to federal disability law, federal constitutional rights, FDA regulations and nonbinding recommendations, state laws relating to disability and insurance policies, and federal and state caselaw. The last part of the article describes various legal strategies to challenge the barriers LGBT and HIV positive men and women face when attempting to use ART. In the discussion of legal strategies, Anderson gives an account of recent caselaw where Lamda Legal has represented litigants.

Since 1985, gay men have been prohibited from donating blood, as an effort to prevent the spread of HIV through transfusions. In June of 2010, a committee of the FDA recommended that the policy remain in force. For similar reasons, the FDA has identified "men who have sex with another man in the preceding 5 years" [MSMs] as the number one risk factor to be screened for communicable disease risk when seeking to donate sperm. While not functioning as an outright bar on donation, these risk factors could serve as a de facto bar and thus as a means of discrimination against gay men. Boso weighs the strengths and weaknesses for a variety of litigation strategies -- whether, for example, to sue the FDA, or the sperm bank in federal or state courts -- he hopes will "be effective in ending discrimination against gay and MSM potential sperm donors."

Artificial insemination [AI] poses a range of legal unknowns for lesbian couples. Attempts to clarify the relationship (or intended lack of one) between the semen donor and the recipient are not always enforced by courts. "Contracts for the donation of sperm may not be enforceable and the recipient of sperm may not be able to ensure that the donor will not seek custody at a later time. Similarly, the donor of sperm would be unable to terminate his parental rights or obligations through these contracts." The legal vehicle intended to resolve some of the issues, the Uniform Parentage Act, has been unevenly adopted by the states, leaving disputes arising from AI transactions difficult to resolve. The authors hope for clarifications to the UPA, as well as acceptance "of contracts between sperm donors and donees."

After a fertility doctor refused to perform an intrauterine insemination procedure due to his religious beliefs -- there was a disagreement whether he objected to the patient's status as a lesbian or as an unmarried woman -- the patient sued for a violation of California's Unruh Civil Rights Act. The California Supreme Court held, relying upon Employment Div. v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872 (1990), that there exists no First Amendment "exemption from a neutral and valid law of general applicability." Doctors are therefore not allowed to refuse to provide medical treatments due to their own religious beliefs, with two exceptions: The doctor can either cease to provide that service completely, or can refer the patient to another nonobjecting doctor within the same practice. The commentator views this as a realistic compromise. This ruling can be read in the context of moves by President Obama to overturn the Bush administration's hastily enacted "Provider Refusal Rule," which went into effect the day Obama took office, that has allowed doctors to claim such a religious exemption.

A clear overview of the science and ethical issues of embryonic technologies precedes an examination of case law and prediction of how the Court should rule on genetic modification of embryos predisposed to an undesirable sexual orientation. Paonessa articulately surmises that the state’s interest arises at viability, and prior intervention is insufficient to preclude the use of these technologies should they become available.

Advances in assisted reproductive technology (ART) have begun to diminish the “genetic link in defining parentage.” Increasingly, legislatures and courts are recognizing the importance of “social parents,” who act as parents to children although possessing no genetic link. The author defines lesbian legal theory and then uses this critical method to examine the link, or lack thereof, between genetics and parenthood. Finally, she examines how ART and morphing social patterns are affecting the evolution of American family law.

In this analysis of the California case of K.M v. E.G. [117 P.3d 673 (Cal. 2005)] the author argues that state legislatures should more clearly define parenthood in light of recent advances in reproductive technologies. She asserts that parents using in vitro fertilization, surrogacy, ova donation or sperm donation should have statutorily defined rights.