hand, enforcing the husband’s right to procreate using the embryos at issue in this case could result in the birth of the wife’s biological child. Even if the wife were relieved of the financial and custodial responsibility for her child, the fact that her biological child would exist in an environment controlled by strangers is understandably unacceptable to the wife. Arguably, therefore, enforcement wife also relies on her constitutional right of privacy and the right not to procreate. We do not, however, resolve this case on constitutional grounds because it is not clear that judicial enforcement of the alleged private contract would constitute state action under the Fourteenth Amendment. Compare Shelley v. Kraemer, 334 U.S. 1, 19, 68 S.Ct. 836, 845, 92 L.Ed. 1161, 1183 (1948) (<HOLDING>) and Tulsa Professional Collection Servs., Inc.
holding proof of racially discriminatory intent or purpose required to show equal protection violation holding that state court enforcement of racially restrictive covenants constituted state action in violation of the equal protection clause of the fourteenth amendment holding that neither the due process clause nor the equal protection clause of the fourteenth amendment require the appointment of counsel on a petition for discretionary review to a state supreme court holding that racially discriminatory use of peremptory challenges violates the equal protection clause of the fourteenth amendment holding that the fourteenth amendment only applies to state action