we conclude that forced procreation is not an area amenable to judicial enforcement. It is well established that courts will not enforce contracts that violate public policy. [Id. at 1057-58 (citations omitted).] The court relied on certain Massachusetts statutes and judicial decisions from which it “gleaned” that “agreements to enter into familial relatio 102 S.Ct. 1388, 1394, 71 L.Ed.2d 599, 606 (1982) (noting “this Court’s historical recognition that freedom of personal choice in matters of family life is a fundamental liberty interest protected by the Fourteenth Amendment”); Right to Choose v. Byrne, 91 N.J. 287, 306, 450 A.2d 925 (1982) (recognizing that “the choice to terminate a pregnancy or bear a child” is “one of the most intimate decis 3d 1186, 1191-92 (11th Cir.1995) (<HOLDING>) and American Mfrs. Mut. Ins. Co. v. Sullivan,
holding that the state circuit court did not have the authority to award prejudgment interest for matters occurring prior to arbitration award holding that florida statute did not constitute an unreasonable exercise of the states police power and rejecting due process and equal protection challenges holding that judicial enforcement of arbitration award did not constitute state action triggering due process protection holding that an aaa arbitration was a private proceeding and therefore that a decision by the arbitrator pursuant to the federal arbitration act did not constitute state action holding that arbitration award is binding on the parties