Catherine Bennet in the Guardian

[WSPU]

Good piece on surrogacy and a swipe at Maria Miller’s ‘understanding’ of women’s biological reality. Sorry, can’t do linky as on dodgy phone.

www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/jan/06/keeping-up-with-the-kardashians-paying-other-women-to-have-your-babies-surrogacy

That's an excellent article. Women, our bodies and our identities increasingly up for sale and appropriation by men. And as always it is the vulnerable and poor that are targeted.

from the article:
"In charge of reviewing laws on UK womb rental will be five law commissioners who could only be at the paying end of such a transaction: Green, assisted by Professor Nick Hopkins, Stephen Lewis, Professor David Ormerod QC and Nicholas Paines QC. While the men are undoubtedly conversant with the ethics of gestational labour, and more sensitive to women’s biological reality than Maria Miller, it’s not great for appearances. That part of the female population that notes the uncomfortable parallels between current surrogacy practices and the regimes imposed in Margaret Atwood’s The Handmaid’s Tale may need reassuring that Green’s commission had not, before the off, accepted that outsourced gestation, in docile human containers, is so unremarkable as to require only improved paperwork."

Recent BBC5Live series about surrogacy by Dustin Lance Black (Tom Daley's husband)
www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p06tn77s/episodes/player

I don't believe for a second that the people who are pushing for commercial surrogacy are motivated by the welfare of the children and the women whose wombs they need.

It's about the lack of supply - they are hoping that payment will encourage more women. And more importantly, it's the need for a contract. They want the agreement to be forced at conception, not after birth as it is at the moment.

I have two questions.

1. Who exactly is pushing for this review in the UK?

1. Who decided it should be framed as "streamlining", just like the GRA?

It's a good article. It's also good to see Catherine Bennett braving GC waters again (with the Helen Lewis link) after the hammering she took last year.

4/1/19 Mirror
'Britain's first transgender husband and wife 'excited' to start familyJake Graf, who transitioned 10 years ago, and his wife Hannah, who transitioned five years ago, married in 2018 after connecting over social media through mutual friends '

(extract)
"Keen to have children, the couple are starting 2019 by looking into the surrogacy process.

Jake said: “Our next plan is now surrogacy. So we have already spoken to several agencies about our surrogacy journey and done lots of research.”

The couple will meet with an agency for the second time in January to see what the next steps will be.

Jake said: “We are very excited about the potential of starting a family. And if surrogacy doesn't work for us for whatever reason, then we will go down the adoption route.”

www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/britains-first-transgender-husband-wife-13811912

And forgot to say, yes interesting to see references to 'streamlining' popping up again.

current thread re BBC segment (31/12/18) about NHS provision of fertility treatment for people who are transgender:
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3465629-the-bbc-have-just-peak-transed-the-nation

And forgot to say, yes interesting to see references to 'streamlining' popping up again.

It's something a business would say.

@WSPU THanks for sharing this article.
Might you consider asking editing the title of thread to include reference to the subject or title of the article please?

MN have been happy to do this in similar situations, you just report the OP and ask there.

Things move really quickly in FWR and it would make it easier for more people interested in the use of mothers for surrogacy and possible changes to UK legislation to find the thread.

The women who are currently altruistic surrogates in the UK are vehemently opposed to commercialised surrogacy being introduced - those arguing for reform are lawyers and agencies who stand to profit from a commercial model. The women whose wombs they're legislating are saying very clearly that they are not being listened to and that these advocates do not speak for them

Every article that expresses support for commercialisation of surrogacy in the UK is from a lawyer or agency, or sometimes intended parents

The women whose wombs are being legislated don't get a voice in this debate

twitter.com/green_chelle/status/1072761105607462912?s=21

Surrogacy law reform. YES! Commercialisation. NO!
Listen to the people actually having to navigate the laws, not people who think they know best.

twitter.com/linder81752995/status/1070191442017075200?s=21

Disagree from a #surrogate's perspective! How can someone who will profit from commercialism and fees rather than expenses attempt to speak for women in surrogacy! We dont want a penny more than out of pocket expenses. Total lack of understanding of altruistic #surrogacy in UK

twitter.com/green_chelle/status/1070300739010998277?s=21

it’s funny how it’s all the lawyers etc that want commercialism. Are you a surrogate?- NO are you and Intended Parent? - NO..Then why is it acceptable that you speak on behalf of us!
#forlovenotmoney

twitter.com/surrogacyukorg/status/1073210291142475777?s=21

"In this debate it is important that we do not forget that surrogacy is about creating human lives, those little people whom the intended parents trust us to care for, nurture and bring into the arms of their loved ones. Mutual trust and respect (with guidance and support) rather than contracts and fees should be the foundations of a surrogacy relationship. For love… not money.

I would (with much sadness) walk away from surrogacy if a commercialised model was introduced in the UK and I’m confident I would not be alone in this."

2. Who decided it should be framed as "streamlining", just like the GRA?

It is interesting that multiple different laws designed to limit or remove rights for women are being framed as "streamlining", isn't it? As if women having any sort of privacy or autonomy was an inconvenience that should ideally be remedied via better paperwork.

I see the linked article about Sweden banning surrogacy is dated from 2016. Did they follow through and totally ban it then?

www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/feb/25/surrogacy-sweden-ban

Also from the 2016 article:

"Earlier in February, feminist and human-rights activists from all over the world met in Paris to sign the charter against surrogacy, and the European Parliament has also called on states to ban it."

What became of this?

Yes indeed AAK

"Just streamlining" a red flag 🚩 reassurance to be challenged everywhere I think.

"Nothing to see here, just a bit of admin tidying up"

^^ That's what we were told about the Equality Act and associated legislation, too...

I remember seeing a programme (BBC I think?) a while back in which a doctor referred to cutting off bits of a young woman's labia to make it align better with what porn had groomed her to think it should look like as "tidying up" too. So apparently that's misogynist speak for "make women adhere better to our fantasy of them existing purely to serve us".

@rowan yes, good idea. Will ask now.

Glad I'm not the only one to hear the "streamlining" as cause for concern. It's the modern equivalent of "don't you worry your pretty little head about it", it seems.

I'm curious to who these lawyers are. Maybe I'm lurking at KF too much but it would be fascinating to some exploring of influences, wouldn't it.

Get KF interested and I guarantee there are people there who can find out.

(I don't share the general horrified recoil a lot of people here seem to have about them. Guess that's me failing at female socialization once again - I don't much care that they're "nasty", especially given how often it's directed at genuinely loathsome people.)

One of the main advocates for lifting the ban on payments is a female lawyer (in a same sex relationship)

www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/dec/04/surrogacy-money-law-women-payments-fair

Hmmm. As with IVF I always wonder how necessary this direction of medical support generally is. According to this link -
www.theguardian.com/social-care-network/2015/mar/04/adoption-and-fostering-the-best-thing-you-have-ever-done
36,000 children get placed in care in the UK every year. It strikes me as quite unethical that a society that struggles to look after children already born should find more ways to grow them.

Then there is the whole issue of an ever expanding population in the face of climate change, pollution and habitat loss.

The UK population has increased by over 5 million in 11years (Office for National Statistics: 62% due to immigration, 36% due to difference between birth & death rates, missing 2% due to armed forces postings & unstated reasons)

Whereas the world population rate has doubled since 1960...which really isn't sustainable long term...but I suppose as long as people can make money...

The country is below replacement fertility rate so there will be more grandparents than there will be grandchildren to pay for them

With regard to children in care and increasing population, why do fertile couples not adopt before having a biological child?

I'm not advocating for commercial surrogacy, far from it. I'm an infertile woman who's had (unsuccessful) IVF and I absolutely respect anyone's right to disagree with fertility treatment, I'd just pose the question as to why adoption is suggested as the responsibility of infertile couples.