According to a New York Times article, a homosexual couple from New York, Brad Hoylman and David Sigal, had a child via gestational surrogacy in California. The NYT article describes a gestational surrogate as a process “in which a woman is paid to go through the pregnancy and birth of a baby who is not genetically related to her and then promises to give it away.” The reason this couple had this process performed in another state is that New York State does not allow surrogacy contracts, in accordance with a 1992 law that equates such activities to the sale of children, a residual effect of the case "Baby M" in the New York Times. Sweater. The NYT article mentions that “Helene Weinstein, the Democratic congresswoman from Brooklyn who sponsored the resulting 1992 New York law, said it sent a message that children should not be “treated like commodities to be bought and sold.” . court decision that is still with us today. Baby M is the story of a married woman, Mary Beth Whitehead, who in 1985 agreed to have another man's baby for $10,000. When the time came to deliver the baby, Mrs. Whitehead reneged on the agreement, waived the fee, and took the baby to Florida. On appeal, the New Jersey Supreme Court restored Mrs. Whitehead's parental rights, while awarding custody to her biological father and his wife. The High Court's comment; “This is the sale of a child, or at the very least, the sale of a mother's right to her child, with the only mitigating circumstance being that one of the buyers is the father.” The differences in these two events are: 1) the gestational surrogate mother has no genetic attachment to the implanted egg, it comes from a donor. 2) Instead of bonding with the baby, “middle of paper gestational carrier, such as Connecticut, Maryland, Pennsylvania, Massachusetts, and California, allows the practice. The woman offers a service and must be rewarded, like any other service. This practice would not mark the end of compassionate surrogacy. This process would not eliminate state/agency adoption, but would potentially broaden the pool of those wishing to participate. Although the protagonists of the NYT article are gay, this is not a gay issue. There are many couples who for one reason or another cannot have children. If compensated surrogacy can give these couples the ability to acquire and care for a child, then do it. The government, both federal and state, should only ensure the health and viability of the donor, the egg and the parents. Baby M's story should be used as an example of how not to practice surrogacy, not as a straightjacket prohibiting compensated surrogacy.