also has recognized the fundamental nature of procreational rights. In In re Baby M, we considered a custody dispute between a father and a surrogate mother. 109 N.J. 396, 537 A.2d 1227 (1988). Although the case involved the enforceability of a surrogacy contract, the father asserted that his right to procreate supported his claim for custody of Baby M. Id. at 447-48, 537 A.2d 1227. We held that the right to procreate was not implicated by the custody battle, which dealt with parental rights after birth. Ibid. We observed, however, that “the rights of personal intimacy, of marriage, of sex, of family, of procreation ... are fundamental rights protected by both the federal and state Constitutions.” Id. at 447, 537 A.2d 1227; see also In re Grady, 85 N.J. 235, 247-48, 426 A.2d 467 (1981) (<HOLDING>); cf. Schroeder v. Perkel, 87 N.J. 53, 66, 432
recognizing a constitutional right of privacy in mental health records holding that the constitutional right to a speedy trial includes the right to a reasonably prompt sentencing recognizing that decisions in griswold and eisenstadt ended any doubt about a personal right to prevent conception and holding that an individuals constitutional right of privacy includes the right to undergo sterilization voluntarily holding right to testify was federal constitutional right holding that when a constitutional right is vested in a party and there is a doubt as to whether that right has been waived the doubt should be resolved in the defendants favor