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.

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.