{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.01728608470181504, 'fraction_numerical': 0.005185825410544511, 'mean_word_length': 5.0, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Itskov v. New York Fertility Institute.


 The Civil Court of the City of New York, 29 July 2004 [date of decision], held that a contract between a genetic mother and a physician concerning a gestational surrogacy is not an unenforceable "surrogate parenting contract" and is therefore not void. Ilona Itskov consulted with the New York Fertility Institute about transferring her embryos to another woman as a gestational surrogate. The defendant physician allegedly agreed to perform the embryo transfer. Once he had removed twelve ova from Itskov and preserved eight embryos created by in vitro fertilization, the physician refused to perform any further procedures, including implanting the embryos into a surrogate. Surrogate parenting contracts, where a woman is artificially inseminated by a donor or gives up a child resulting from artificial insemination by donor, are considered contrary to state public policy and are thus void and unenforceable. The Civil Court held that a contact between a "genetic mother" and a doctor for a performance of medical services does not fall under the definition of a surrogate parenting contract and is not void.
