The Baby M case triggered national debate over whether surrogacy represented reproductive opportunity or the commercialization of women and children. Competing perspectives from lawmakers, feminists, religious organizations, and surrogacy advocates reflected broader disagreements about how reproductive technology should be regulated in American society.​​​​​​​

"It is an exploitation of the woman and an exploitation of the child... it flies in the face of everything that we know about family laws and family dynamics."

- William Pierce, President of the National Committee for Adoption in Washington, 23 August 1986, The New York Times

Lawmakers, advocacy groups, and the public believed that surrogacy resembled ‘baby-selling’ and exploited or coerced women in financial need.

"Legislative consideration of surrogacy may also provide the opportunity to begin to focus on the overall implications on the new reproductive biotechnology.... The problem can be addressed only when society decides what its value and objectives are in this troubling, yet promising, area." 

- Karen H. Rothenberg, Author, 1 March 1988, Baby M, the Surrogacy Contract, and the Health Care Professional: Unanswered Questions

"Surrogacy contracts exploit women physically, emotionally, and economically. Overwhelmed by immediate or impending economic hardships, women are more likely to be induced into relinquishing their parental rights, not fully understanding the physical and emotional risks that the surrogate contract imposes on them. Attorneys, acting as commercial middlemen for clients, take advantage of these women and their dire circumstances, getting them to sign contracts to produce babies for others. Moreover, these economically disenfranchised women are generally unaware of their legal rights and are unable to afford attorneys. Once trapped, the women are unable to escape."

- Jeremy Rifkin, Co-chairperson of the National Coalition Against Surrogacy, 15 October 1987, Surrogacy Arrangements Act of 1987

Occurring during a broader conservative backlash against feminism in the 1980s, some feminists and religious organizations argued that paid surrogacy commodified both women’s bodies and children. Some feminists, however, believed surrogacy expanded reproductive freedom and provided opportunities for couples. Furthermore, child welfare groups warned that contractual parenthood threatened the best interests of the child.​​​​​​​

''The feelings ranged the gamut... We did feel that it should not be made illegal, because we don't want to turn women into criminals. But other than that, what you may feel about the Baby M case may not be what you feel about another.''

- Linda Bowker, Head of the National Organization for Women, 24 February 1987, Baby M Trial Splits Ranks of Feminists​​​​​​

In contrast, surrogacy advocates argued that contractual agreements expanded reproductive technologies and provided infertile couples with opportunities to have children, reflecting support for reproductive autonomy. These competing perspectives reflected not only ethical disagreement over paid surrogacy, but also whether access to surrogacy should exist within a regulated legal framework, fueling the need for clearer legal reform.​​​​​​​

Nationwide Reaction

'Baby M' pact ruled 'baby-selling', 4 February 1988, Star-Gazette

Baby M court: Surrogacy is baby-selling, 4 February 1988, Palm Beach Post

Surrogate baby foes take issue to prime time, 22 May 1988, Lansing State Journal

'Mess' is biggest M word in Baby M surrogacy case, 11 February 1988, West Central Tribune​​​​​​​

And Baby Makes...6?, 8 December 1990, Corpus Christi Caller-Times

The immediate reaction to the Baby M decision was defensive, as states rushed to restrict or eliminate access to surrogacy agreements in fear of legal dispute. By 1988, six states had passed laws banning the agreements or declaring them void. In the 1990s, many states outlawed all forms of surrogacy.​​​​​​​

"Again in 1988, surrogate parenting bills have been introduced in a number of state legislatures throughout the country. As of July 8, 16 states have introduced 22 bills to regulate surrogacy; 18 states have introduced, or carried forward from 1987, 30 bills to prohibit these contracts; and eight states would establish study committees."

- The Adoptions and Surrogate Parenthood Study Commission, 3 January 1989, North Carolina General Assembly