Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is back in New York for the annual fall gathering of heads of state at the U.N. General Assembly meeting.  As expected, his remarks to the body on Wednesday provoked outrage, walkouts, and general condemnation by various states and the media.  If all you did was read the press reports about it, you’d think that in his speech he once again denied the fact of the holocaust and threatened to wipe Israel off the map.  In fact, if you watch the speech, or read it, it’s much less inflammatory than the media reported, and in some respects merely echoes the condemnation of Israel’s invasion of Gaza contained in the report issued by the UN Human Rights Council Fact Finding Mission on the Gaza Conflict, led by Justice Richard Goldstone.  It’s interesting how any criticism of Israel is read as anti-semetic in this setting.

I mention Ahmadinejad’s speech because it’s hard to believe it’s been two years since he came to Columbia University as part of our World Leaders Forum.  As you may recall, Columbia University President Lee Bollinger “introduced” President Ahmadinejad with an anticipatory condemnation of what the Iranian President might say, calling him “a petty and cruel dictator,” and closed with the charge that “I doubt that you will have the intellectual courage to answer these questions.”  The tone and content of the introduction drove some members of the University faculty to bring to the full arts and sciences faculty a motion criticizing Bollinger for violating core principles of academic freedom.  See more here.

What garnered the greatest attention from President Ahmadinejad’s talk, however, were his remarks in response to a question about the mis-treatment of women and homosexuals in Iran.  He declared: “women in Iran enjoy the highest levels of freedom,” and then asserted that “In Iran we don’t have homosexuals like you do in your country.  We do not have this phenomenon. I don’t know who’s told you that we have it.”  The media frenzy in response included a New Yorker Magazine cover tying the Iranian President to Larry Craig.

Lesbian and gay human rights organizations the world over immediately condemned these remarks as ignorant and hateful.  “Of course there are gay people in Iran – we are everywhere!” they proclaimed.   But Ahmadinejad’s remarks and the responses they received demand much more complex thinking about the role of lesbian and gay human rights in global politics.  For this reason I’ve written a short paper trying to offer one such thicker reading of what happened when President Ahmadinejad came to Columbia.   I’m giving it as part of our Feminist Theory Workshop series next Tuesday, and you can read the draft here.  But it concludes:

Once we recognize that the normative homosexuality that undergirds human rights discourse is not merely a “fact” in the world, but more of complex value, it becomes easier to see how the state’s embrace of the sexual citizenship of these new human rights holders risks rendering more vulnerable a range of identities and policies that have refused to conform to state endorsed normative homo- or hetero- sexuality.  This is true both for queers whose desires refuse to orient themselves ineluctably toward marriage, or Muslims with sexual norms and practices of polyamory, homosociality, and modesty.  Under this scenario, newly patriotized gay subjects find themselves implicated, whether they want to or not, in the construction and identification of the “enemies of the state.”   Witness the ingenious strategy of StandWithUs and the Israeli Foreign Ministry to appeal to gay rights supporters in their efforts to shore up Israel’s foreign policy with respect to Palestine and Iran.

So does this discussion leave us helpless in the face of a critique that eschews both the epistemic violence of securing human rights for global gay subjects on the one hand, and state politics as cynical, manipulative, instrumental and tragic on the other?  To be sure, this is where some find themselves.  But we can do better than that.  Critical awareness of the state’s role as now-fundamental partner in the recognition and protection of a form of sexual rights should push us to regard these “victories” as necessarily ethically compromised.

The moral atrophy that has kept us from recognizing the tragedy of these strategies and outcomes is where more critical, and indeed discomfiting, work needs to be done.  By theorists and activists alike.  This means rethinking the horizon of success in this work.  “Victory” in the sense of gaining the state as a partner, rather than an adversary, in the struggle to recognize and defend LGBT rights ought to set off a trip wire that ignites a new set of strategies and politics.  This must necessarily include a deliberate effort to counteract, if not sabotage, the pull of the state to muster rights-based movements into its larger governance projects, accompanied by an affirmative resistence to conceptions of citizenship that figure nationality by and through the creation of a constitutive other who resides in the state’s and human right’s outside.

After much gossip, hand-ringing, internecine scuffles and turf kick-up, the White House has announced that Luis de Baca will be appointed to head up the State Department’s Trafficking In Persons (TIP) Office.  The TIP Office coordinates policy out of the State Department on the Traffic in Persons and, perhaps most importantly, must issue an annual Report in which it assesses the efforts that foreign governments are making to combat severe forms of trafficking, and in which countries are ranked in tiers based upon the TIP Office’s assessment of their commitment to and success in combating human trafficking.   The Bush Administration had used the TIP Office and the annual TIP Report to advance a highly contested policy of forcing foreign governments and NGOs  to adopt laws criminalizing sex work on the flawed hypothesis that prostitution “causes” sex trafficking.  See previous post discussing this problem.

de Baca’s appointment is very good news.  Mr. de Baca, a lawyer who has worked as legislative counsel for the House Judiciary Committee and in the Justice Department as chief counsel of Civil Rights Division’s Human Trafficking Prosecution Unit is a smart, experienced and effective choice for the job.   He has worked for years on this issue and is very-well respected in criminal justice and advocates’ circles alike for his approach to this difficult problem.  He was one of the lead DOJ attorneys who successfully prosecuted Kil Soo Lee, the former owner of an American Samoa garment factory, who was sentenced to 40 years in prison for his role in illegally confining and using as forced labor over 200 Vietnamese and Chinese garment workers.

de Baca, as evidenced by this presentation available on the web, takes a complex and nuanced view of the injustice of trafficking.  He is not liable to over-determine the work of the TIP office with trafficking that is sexual in nature, recognizing that the trafficking of persons into sex work is a part, albeit an important part, but a part of the vast range of work-sectors into which people are illegally trafficked – including agricultural, domestic (meaning work in homes as nannies, maids and servants), factory, restaurant and other work that is exploitive but not necessarily sexual in nature.  So too, de Baca has acknowledged a need for law enforcement officials to work closely with NGOs to create support and exit for trafficked persons that does not over-rely on raids as the principal means by which people who have been trafficked can be “rescued” by law enforcement officials, or worse, get swept up in raids that result in their datainment and deportation along with other undocumented people.  We’ve blogged about this previously.

Perhaps most importantly, de Baca appreciates the importance of a harm reduction approach to the problem of trafficking that prioritizes the needs, risks, complexities of the trafficked person rather than that of law enforcement or anti-sex evangelists.

- Katherine Franke

News sources report today that the Obama Administration has determined to reverse the previous administration’s refusal to be a signatory to UN statement calling for an end to rights abuses based on sexual orientation and gender identity.  As we blogged earlier here and here, the declaration was signed by all 27 European Union members as well as Japan, Australia, Mexico and three dozen other countries.  The US was the only Western country not to sign on – an international embarrassment.

Today’s news reports misstate the substance of the resolution – it reaches not only the criminalization of sodomy, but violence, harassment, discrimination, exclusion, stigmatization and prejudice on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity.

This change may signal two important shifts in policy – 1. that the US is joining the world community as an ardent defender of human rights, and 2. that protections against sexual orientation and gender identity discrimination have made their way into the consensus of the bundle of rights protected by international human rights law.

Both are overdue, both are about time in coming.  This willingness on the part of the Obama Administration to change course on this resolution suggests a different tact on other homophobic federal policies such as “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” the failure to provide health benefits to the partners and families of gay and lesbian federal employees etc.

Text of the declaration

1. We reaffirm the principle of universality of human rights, as enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights whose 60th anniversary is celebrated this year, Article 1 of which proclaims that “all human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights”;
2. We reaffirm that everyone is entitled to the enjoyment of human rights without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status, as set out in Article 2 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and Article 2 of the International Covenants on Civil and Political, Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, as well as in article 26 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights;
3. We reaffirm the principle of non-discrimination which requires that human rights apply equally to every human being regardless of sexual orientation or gender identity;
4. We are deeply concerned by violations of human rights and fundamental freedoms based on sexual orientation or gender identity;
5. We are also disturbed that violence, harassment, discrimination, exclusion, stigmatisation and prejudice are directed against persons in all countries in the world because of sexual orientation or gender identity, and that these practices undermine the integrity and dignity of those subjected to these abuses;
6. We condemn the human rights violations based on sexual orientation or gender identity wherever they occur, in particular the use of the death penalty on this ground, extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions, the practice of torture and other cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment, arbitrary arrest or detention and deprivation of economic, social and cultural rights, including the right to health;
7. We recall the statement in 2006 before the Human Rights Council by fifty four countries requesting the President of the Council to provide an opportunity, at an appropriate future session of the Council, for discussing these violations;
8. We commend the attention paid to these issues by special procedures of the Human Rights Council and treaty bodies and encourage them to continue to integrate consideration of human rights violations based on sexual orientation or gender identity within their relevant mandates;
9. We welcome the adoption of Resolution AG/RES. 2435 (XXXVIII-O/08) on “Human Rights, Sexual Orientation, and Gender Identity” by the General Assembly of the Organization of American States during its 38th session in 3 June 2008;
10. We call upon all States and relevant international human rights mechanisms to commit to promote and protect human rights of all persons, regardless of sexual orientation and gender identity;
11. We urge States to take all the necessary measures, in particular legislative or administrative, to ensure that sexual orientation or gender identity may under no circumstances be the basis for criminal penalties, in particular executions, arrests or detention.
12. We urge States to ensure that human rights violations based on sexual orientation or gender identity are investigated and perpetrators held accountable and brought to justice;
13. We urge States to ensure adequate protection of human rights defenders, and remove obstacles which prevent them from carrying out their work on issues of human rights and sexual orientation and gender identity.

- Katherine Franke

On Friday, the Gender and Sexuality Law Program held its inaugural symposium, this year honoring  the work of Professor Martha Nussbaum.  Nine scholars submitted papers providing insights on  Professor Nussbaum’s scholarship, points of departure for her theories, and novel applications of her  theories to many different contexts.  Dean Schizer introduced Professor Nussbaum before her keynote  speech at the end of the day, and Professor Nussbaum gave a summary of her scholarship and ideas, and thoughtfully responded to each paper.

The diversity and creativity of scholarship and thought that came out of the symposium was really remarkable.  We covered everything from Nussbaum’s capabilities approach as applied to women’s movements (Amrita Basu), the possibility of a collective capabilities approach to women’s empowerment in Africa (Aili Tripp), and the relationship of the state to the capabilities approach (Tracy Higgins), to the application of Nussbaum’s work to the same-sex marriage debate, the LGBT community, and its relationship with science (Nancy Levit), and whether the state should be in the business of regulating marriage in the first place (Janet Jakobsen).  Nussbaum’s capabilities approach was applied to global economic systems (Saskia Sassen) and stretched from its universality to its flexibility in encouraging people of opposite viewpoints to sympathize with one another (Carlos Ball).  We learned of a historian’s perspective on Nussbaum’s reliance on the history of relationships to support her arguments about same-sex marriage (Alice Kessler-Harris), and tough questions were asked of how far the law should go in the forcing of certain types of relationships, and what emotions, aside from disgust and shame – and anger for that matter – might be appropriate for opponents of same-sex marriage (Mary Anne Case).  I fully admit, that’s not nearly the half of it; you can read all the papers in the Columbia Journal of Gender and Law’s forthcoming publication of them.

On a personal note: law school does not all too often provide the opportunity to stop learning about the law per se and actually examine its parameters and characteristics.  That the emotions of shame and disgust might problematically inform how the law is shaped, or the notion that all human beings are entitled to a range of fundamental capabilities, are concepts that add a huge depth to legal study.  This conference was a great moment to pause and consider, and I hope everyone at the end of the day felt similarly enriched.

Jeannie Chung

Jeannie Chung is a second-year law student and research assistant for the Gender and Sexuality Law Program.

I blogged recently about the concerns I had when I read the statements Hilary Clinton made in her Senate confirmation testimony related to the issue of sex trafficking.  I heard little sign in her testimony of a desire to change policy from the crusade undertaken by the Bush Administration that overdetermined the problem of human trafficking in sexual terms (thereby ignoring the enormous problem of other forms of forced labor), driven largely by an evangelistic judgment about sex work more generally.

But the State Department through the policy set by its Secretary is not where we can find the front line of the federal government’s efforts to combat human trafficking.  That job falls to the Department of “Homeland” Security (I hate that term), particularly to ICE (Immigration & Customs Enforcement) which conducts raids of brothels and other workplaces where it suspects undocumented and/or trafficked persons may be working.   Indeed, ICE raids have been the U.S. government’s principal means of identifying victims of trafficking according to a recent GAO report.

So, was Janet Napolitano asked about her views on human trafficking in general, or sex trafficking in particular, when she came before the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs for confirmation?  Nope.

Did she volunteer anything about this issue, as did Clinton in her confirmation hearings?  Nope.

Surely Secretary Napolitano has views on this issue, but we don’t know them yet.  When you go to the “Homeland” Security website the 2008-2013 Strategic Plan, developed by the old Secretary Chertoff but still on the website, does not even mention trafficking.  Yet if you go to ICE’s “What We’ve Done Lately On Human Trafficking and Smuggling” Webpage they highlight all manner of good things they’ve been up to, but few of them are trafficking-related.  Lots of smuggling work (and trafficking is legally and socially a different thing from smuggling), and a bunch of arrests of “illegal aliens.” The two most recent trafficking cases involve raids of brothels in Seattle and  South Florida, both last November.

It’s too early to know what kind of policy will be set by Secretary Napolitano with respect to domestic enforcement of the Trafficking Victims Protection Act.  But she and her policy team are without question important players in setting a new agenda when it comes to the problem of relying too heavily on raids to deal with the protection of trafficked persons and the prosecution of traffickers.  (More about this below.)  For the moment however, we have some reason to be concerned.

Timothy Keefer remains as Napolitano’s Chief Counsel for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties at ICE.  Keefer, a graduate of William and Mary Law School worked for Covington and Burling after clerking a couple years.  In late 2000, after three months at the firm, he was sent to Florida to work on George W. Bush’s legal team seeking to secure him a win in the contested presidential election.  He was rewarded for that service by the new administration with an appointment as special assistant to the U.S. Department of Labor’s Acting Solicitor Eugene Scalia (Antonin’s son).  He could be a good guy, but …  So far, none of Napolitano’s senior appointments have much of a track record in dealing with gender issues.

(Keefer’s ongoing employment at ICE may signal a much larger problem for the Obama Administration – the presence of Bush loyalists deep into every crevice of the federal government, as both political and career employees.  It’s not obvious that the new administration has the will or the capacity to clear out the thousands of neo-cons who were given government jobs for ideological reasons.  The scandal of politically motivated appointments at the Justice Department is just the tip of the iceberg.)

As for ICE’s overreliace on raids to protect the victims of trafficking, the Sex Workers Project in New York has just issued a report, Kicking Down the Door: The Use of Raids to Fight Trafficking in Persons, in which it documents how in the name of “rescue” these raids often result in the arrest, detention and deportation of trafficked persons because they are undertaken by ICE, together with local law enforcement officers, who are poorly trained or ill-equipped in identifying victims of trafficking, and who are, after all, focused on arresting criminals, people who pose potential terror threats, are dealing drugs and/or are sans papiers, that is, found without necessary paperwork demonstrating legal presence in the U.S.

I urge all who are concerned about this issue to read the Sex Workers Project report and to monitor the new team and policy being developed at Janet Napolitano’s “Homeland” Security and ICE.

- Katherine Franke

Columbia’s Sexuality and Gender Law Clinic recently filed a brief in the European Court of Human Rights involving the right of victims of sex trafficking to a remedy under various European and International Laws.  My recent article in the European Lawyer magazine, which takes a somewhat different view from Professor Franke’s post, elaborates the trafficking/slavery linkage.  Here’s an excerpt (you can link to the full article here ):

The UK officially abolished the trans-Atlantic slave trade more than 250 years ago, but it turns out that the practice is far from dead.
A case recently filed in the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR), M. v the United Kingdom, shows just how vigorous and heinous the slave trade continues to be. But the trade’s character has changed, with £5 billion generated each year largely from traffickers’ control of women and children, making trafficking in persons the second largest criminal activity in the world.
With clearer attention to the facts and more developed identification systems, the international community has begun to see these women and children for what they are – victims of severe human rights abuses.  M v the United Kingdom thus offers an important opportunity, during a crucial moment, for the ECtHR to clarify the obligations of Council of Europe member states to trafficking victims. A ruling in M’s favour would reinforce that sex trafficking is a modern form of slavery and should be treated with as much seriousness as we treat the trans-Atlantic slave trade of the past. It would also clarify and underscore states’ responsibilities to victims in their territories who have suffered human rights abuses, including the duty not to act in ways that expose victims to further harm.

In her confirmation hearing last week Hilary Clinton was asked by Barbara Boxer to talk about how she plans to use the office of the Secretary of State to better the “status of women in the world.” She was particularly interested in the problems of violence against women and sex trafficking, making explicit reference to the series of op-eds that Nicholas Kristof has published on these issues.

Not surprisingly, secretary-designate Clinton offered a strong response with respect to her agenda on women’s rights. She told the Senate panel:

I have also read closely Nick Kristof’s articles over the last many months, but in particular the last weeks, on the young women that he has both rescued from prostitution and met who have been enslaved and abused, tortured in every way: physically, emotionally, morally.

And I take very seriously the function of the State Department to lead our government through the Office on Human Trafficking to do all that we can to end this modern form of slavery. We have sex slavery, we have wage slavery, and it is primarily a slavery of girls and women.

So we’re going to have a very active women’s office, a very active office on trafficking. We’re going to be speaking out consistently and strongly against discrimination and oppression of women and slavery in particular, because I think that is in keeping not only with American values, as we all recognize, but American national security interests as well.

While these comments from now-Secretary of State Clinton gained applause from some precincts of the women’s and human rights community, they made some of us sit up in alarm. Not only was Mrs. Clinton misstating frequently repeated “facts” about sex trafficking, her answer to Senator Boxer signaled the continuation of the misguided Bush policies on this issue – policies heavily influenced by a particular camp in the women’s rights community that sees sex in general, and prostitution in particular, as the root of all evil for women. This ideology – one that has been shown all over the world to more often harm rather than help women in precarious situations – threatens to become the official policy of the Obama Administration if we aren’t careful.

No one denies that the traffic in persons, women and girls, but boys and men as well, for the purpose of sex or sexual enslavement is a terrible thing and should be stopped. Yet the Bush administration made the combatting of sex trafficking their premier human rights objective more as a moral crusade than as a way to address the real life oppression of the people involved. As Ronald Weitzer writes in The Social Construction of Sex Trafficking: Ideology and Institutionalization of a Moral Crusade

Moral crusades advance claims about both the gravity and incidence of a particular problem. They typically rely on horror stories and “atrocity tales” about victims in which the most shocking exemplars of victimization are described and typified. Casting the problem in highly dramatic terms by recounting the plight of highly traumatized victims is intended to alarm the public and policy makers and justify draconian solutions. At the same time, inflated claims are made about the magnitude of the problem. A key feature of many moral crusades is that the imputed scale of a problem (e.g., the number of victims) far exceeds what is warranted by the available evidence. Moreover, crusade leaders consider the problem unambiguous: they are not inclined to acknowledge gray areas and are adamant that a particular evil exists precisely as they depict it.

All these things were present in the old Administration’s policies. In a letter to the director of the State Department’s Office to Monitor and Combat Trafficking in Persons, a group of researchers and policy advocates who were experts in the human rights of trafficked persons systematically showed how the State Department had misstated the prevalence of persons being trafficked for sex, cherry-picked data that substantiated their crusade linking sex trafficking to prostitution, and was otherwise “potentially damaging to on-going efforts globally to prevent trafficking and protect the rights of trafficked persons.” Other human rights organizations, such as Global Rights, have testified before Congress on the dangers and distortions of the Bush Administration’s trafficking crusade.

Unfortunately, nothing in Hilary Clinton’s testimony reassures us that the State Department under her leadership will improve upon the policies of the prior administration. What’s more, the voices from within the advocacy world who favored and pushed hard for the crusade linking sex trafficking to prostitution, such as Equality Now and their leadership Jessica Newirth and Catharine MacKinnon, have recently gained prominent appointments in the United Nations. In November MacKinnon was appointed as Special Gender Adviser to the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court in the Hague, and Jessica Newirth, the Director of Equality Now, has been appointed to head the New York office for the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights.

Senators Barbara Boxer and Carolyn Maloney have introduced legislation called The International Women’s Freedom Act of 2009 that would create a U.S. Commission on International Women’s Rights. The commission, modeled on the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom, would report to Congress and the President on the status of women worldwide. The bill would also establish an Office on International Women’s Rights headed by an Ambassador at large for International Women’s Rights and it would direct the President to conduct an annual review of the status of women’s rights in each foreign country, and subsequently designate ‘Countries of Particular Concern’ that have severe human rights violations.

The UN’s “women’s rights” and anti-trafficking work has been captured by the anti-prostitution crusaders, but Secretary Clinton has not yet filled out her staff on this issue. Let’s hope that she and the Obama Administration more generally are better able to appreciate the complexity of this problem than did their predecessor, and that their policies flow less from politicized research and more from reliable data that situates sex trafficking in a larger context of forced labor and migration. The advice of the authors of the letter to the Director of the Bush Office to Monitor and Combat Trafficking in Persons remains valid: “the single-issue focus on prostitution, rather than on the exploitation that operates in all of the different sectors in which trafficking occurs (e.g., in agricultural work, domestic work, factory work and prostitution), seems to be moving the U.S. government away from the crime of trafficking and from responding to the needs of all trafficked persons.”

The Huffington Post has got a story about the Gonzales case before the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights about which we have already blogged.  The case is being handled by students in the Human Rights and Sexuality & Gender Law Clinics, under the supervision of the Human Rights Clinic’s Deputy Director Carrie Bettinger-Lopez:

The unfortunate saga has played out one too many times. A young woman, fearing for her life at the hands of a spouse or live-in companion, seeks protection from law enforcement officials by obtaining an order of protection. However, the restraining order is not enforced and those intended for protection meet with a tragic end. What then is the appropriate course of action? What duty does the government have to protect individuals, and to what extent, against private acts of violence? This is the dilemma facing Jessica Gonzales.   Read the full article on Huffington Post.

Nazneen Mehta is a second-year law student at Columbia Law School and is writing a Note on the international market in surrogacy services – particularly between relatively affluent “intended parents” in the US and poor female surrogates in India. Her Note will examine the ways in which this market might better be regulated by law in order to protect the rights and interests of the surrogates in India. Her research has taken her to Mumbai, India over the winter break to better understand the conditions under which the surrogates are working. What follows are her initial reflections on this research:

Alex Kuczynski’s story, “Her Body, My Baby,” about her experience bonding with the woman who became her son’s surrogate mother portends the rise of what Noa Ben-Asher on this blog suggested are “new and surprising extra-legal familial structures.”

But, maybe not. In a largely obscure industry that is becoming increasingly transnational, Kuczynski’s story could be the outlier.

Surrogacy has quietly spread beyond national borders, creating a multi-million dollar global industry that joins together women like Kuczynski with poor women in developing nations. But unlike Kuczynski and her surrogate, Cathy Hilling (with whom she was on a first-name basis), the surrogates in these developing nations will never share tuna sandwiches or host backyard barbeques with the “intended parents.”

In fact, very few surrogates in developing nations will meet the parents for whom they are carrying a child. As a doctor at an international surrogacy clinic in Mumbai, India, related to me, the clinic discourages intended parents from meeting the woman the center has chosen to be the surrogate. The doctor explained that the women come from the ranks of India’s poor, and if they “see foreigners,” the women may try to get more money or resources out of the intended parents. There is no “wink and nod” custom, and the reality of class division lie exposed between the intended parents and the surrogate.

The selection process further removes intended parents from knowing the individual women who become their surrogates. Kuczynski pored over the profiles of potential surrogates, reading each woman’s personal story and employment demands. International surrogacy agreements, however, are largely facilitated by surrogacy clinics operating in developing nations. The clinics recruit a pool of poor women to become surrogates and then assign the women to intended parents. There are no personal stories about the women’s lives or ambitions to distinguish one from another; women need only pass the clinics’ health and psychological screening to become a surrogate. (The selection process implicates the issues of race and class discussed by Khiara Bridges on this blog, and suggests that her analysis of Black women in the U.S. could extend to poor women of color in developing nations).

I make these comparisons between international surrogacy and Kuczynski’s story not to push normative claims about either type of surrogacy agreement. Rather, I contrast the two models to bring international surrogacy into the discussion. And to suggest that in the battle between the legal frameworks mentioned by Ben-Asher—the surrogate as hired outsider vs. surrogate as extended family member—the former may be pulling ahead.