WILLIAM DONALD SCHAEFER, Governor                        S.B. 171

(18)   St. Mary's..................................................................................................  2

(19)   Somerset...................................................................................................  1

(20)   Talbot........................................................................................................  1

(21)   Washington...............................................................................................  4

(22)   Wicomico..................................................................................................  3

(23)   Worcester..................................................................................................  2

1-603.

(b) In each of the districts provided for in § 1-602 of this subtitle, there shall be
the following number of associate judges of the District Court:

(6) District 6 — [11] 12

1-604.

[Two] THREE of the judges in District 6 shall have as their primary duty and, if
made necessary by the case load their exclusive duty, the handling of juvenile causes.

SECTION 2. AND BE IT FURTHER ENACTED, That this Act shall take effect
July 1, 1994 February 1, 1995.

May 26, 1994

The Honorable Thomas V. Mike Miller, Jr.

President of the Senate

State House

Annapolis, Maryland 21401

Dear President Miller:

In accordance with Article II, Section 17 of the Maryland Constitution, I have today
vetoed Senate Bill 171.

Senate Bill 171 would provide that a surrogate parentage contract is void and
unenforceable as against State policy.

A typical surrogate parent agreement is one in which a woman (the surrogate mother)
agrees to be impregnated by artificial insemination with sperm of the biological father, to
carry the fetus to term and relinquish custody of the child to the biological father after
birth. The biological father usually agrees to pay all medical and other expenses and a fee
to the surrogate mother.

I vetoed an identical measure in 1992 (Senate Bill 251) and opposed the measure in 1993.
Senate Bill 369 of 1993 received an unfavorable report in the House Judiciary Committee.
Indeed, the debate on the bill and the much larger number of votes against the bill on the
floor of the House of Delegates this year indicates to me that the bill raises even more
questions which have not been properly addressed.

- 3471 -