Moral frameworks of commercial surrogacy within the US, India and Russia

References

• Cooper M, Waldby C. Clinical labour: tissue donors and research subjects in the global bioeconomy. Durham: Duke University Press; 2014.
   Google Scholar
• Waldby C, Cooper M. The biopolitics of reproduction: post-Fordist biotechnology and women’s clinical labour. Aust Fem Stud. 2008;23(55):57–73.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Colen S. “Like a mother to them”: stratified reproduction and West Indian childcare workers and employers in New York. In: F Ginsburg, R Rapp, editors. Conceiving the new world order: The global politics of reproduction. Berkeley: University of California Press; 1995. p. 78–102.
   Google Scholar
• Rudrappa S. Discounted life: the price of global surrogacy in India. New York: New York University Press; 2015.
   Google Scholar
• Stuvoy I. Accounting for the money-made parenthood of transnational surrogacy. Anthropol Med. 2018. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1080/13648470.2017.1392100
   Google Scholar
• Twine FW. Outsourcing the womb: race, class, and gestational surrogacy in a global market. Second edition. New York: Routledge; 2015.
   Google Scholar
• Weis, C. Reproductive migrations: surrogacy workers and stratified reproduction in St Petersburg, PhD Thesis, 2017 De Montfort University. Available at: https://www.dora.dmu.ac.uk/xmlui/handle/2086/15036.
   Google Scholar
• Whittaker A. Cross-border assisted reproduction care in Asia: implications for access, equity and regulations. Reprod Health Matters. 2011;19(37):107–116.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Berend Z. The online world of surrogacy. New York: Berghahn; 2016.
   Google Scholar
• Jacobson H. Labour of love: gestational surrogacy and the work of making babies. New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press; 2016.
   Google Scholar
• Pande A. Wombs in labour: transnational commercial surrogacy in India. New York: Columbia University Press; 2014.
   Google Scholar
• Rudrappa S, Collins C. Altruistic agencies and compassionate consumers: moral framing of transnational surrogacy. Gend Soc. 2015;29(6):937–959.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Teman E. Birthing a mother: the surrogate body and the pregnant self. Berkeley: University of California Press; 2010.
   Google Scholar
• Nadimpally S, Banerjee S, Venkatachalam D. Sama Resource Group for women and health, commercial Surrogacy: a contested terrain in the realm of rights and justice. Asian-Pacific Resource and Research Centre for Women (ARROW), Kuala-Lumpur [cited 2018 December 23]. Available at: http://www.samawomenshealth.in/commercial-surrogacy-a-contestedterrain-in-the-realm-of-rights-and-justice/.
   Google Scholar
• Smietana M, Thompson C, Twine FW. (2018). Introduction: making and breaking families: reading queer reproductions, stratified reproduction and reproductive justice together. In: Smietana M, Thompson Ch, editors. Symposium: making families: making families: transnational surrogacy, queer kinship and reproductive justice. Reproductive BioMedicine and Society Online. 7, Nov., DOI:https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rbms.2018.11.001 (open access).
   Google Scholar
• Darnovsky M. An international agreement on commercial surrogacy?. Biopolitical Times, 9 April 2014 [cited on 2020 July 31]. Available at: https://www.geneticsandsociety.org/biopolitical-times/international-agreement-commercial-surrogacy.
   Google Scholar
• Cheney K. Preventing exploitation, promoting equity: findings from the International Forum on Intercountry Adoption and Global Surrogacy 2014. Adopt Foster. 2016;40(1):6–19. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1177/0308575915626377.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Humbyrd C. Fair trade international surrogacy. Dev World Bioeth. 2009;9(3):111–118. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-8847.2009.00257.x.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Smith-Rotabi K, Mapp S, Cheney K, et al. Regulating commercial global surrogacy: the best interests of the child. J Hum Rights Soc Work. 2017;2:64–73. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1007/s41134-017-0034-3
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Franklin S, Inhorn M. Introduction: IVF global histories. Reprod BioMed Soc. 2016;2:1–7.
   Google Scholar
• Deomampo D. Transnational reproduction: race, kinship, and commercial surrogacy in India. New York: New York University Press; 2016.
   Google Scholar
• Majumdar A. Transnational commercial surrogacy and the (un)making of kin in India. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2017.
   Google Scholar
• Lewis S. Full surrogacy now: feminism against family. London: Verso; 2019.
   Google Scholar
• Almeling R. Selling genes, selling gender: egg agencies, sperm banks, and the medical market in genetic material. Am Sociol Rev. 2007;72(3):319–340.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hochschild A. Global care chains and emotional surplus value. In: A Giddens, W Hutton, editors. On the edge: living with global capitalism. London: Jonathan Cape; 2000. p. 130–146.
   Google Scholar
• Utrata J. Women without men: single mothers and family change in the New Russia. London: Cornell University Press; 2015.
   Google Scholar
• Nakano Glenn E. Unequal freedom: how race and gender shaped American citizenship and labour. Cambridge (MA): Harvard University Press; 2002.
   Google Scholar
• Boris E, Parreñas R. Intimate labours: cultures, technologies, and the politics of care. Stanford: Stanford University Press; 2010.
   Google Scholar
• England P. Emerging theories of care work. Annu Rev Sociol. 2005;31:381–399.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Folbre N. The invisible heart: economics and family values. New York: The New Press; 2001.
   Google Scholar
• Rudrappa S. What to expect when you’re expecting: the affective economies of consuming surrogacy in India. Positions. 2016;24(1):281–302.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schurr, C. From biopolitics to bioeconomies: The ART of (re-)producing white futures in Mexico's surrogacy market. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space 2017; 35(2):241–262. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1177/0263775816638851.
   Google Scholar
• Thompson C. Medical migrations afterword: science as a vacation? Body Soc. 2011;17(2–3):205–213. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1177/1357034X11405549.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Smietana M. Affective de-commodifying, economic de-kinning: surrogates’ and gay fathers’ narratives in U.S. surrogacy. In: C Faircloth, Z Gurtin, editors. Making parents: reproductive technologies and parenting culture across borders, Special Issue of Sociological Research Online. 2017. Vol. 22(2).
   Google Scholar
• Ragone H. Surrogate motherhood: conception in the heart. Boulder (CO): Westview Press; 1994.
   Google Scholar
• Inhorn MC. Globalization and gametes: reproductive “tourism,” Islamic bioethics, and middle Eastern modernity. Anthropol Med. 2011;18(1):87–103.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Goffman E. Frame analysis: an essay on the organization of experience. Boston (MA): Northeastern University Press; 1974.
   Google Scholar
• Roberts E. God’s laboratory. assisted reproduction in the Andes. Berkeley: University of California Press; 2012.
   Google Scholar
• Inhorn MC, Birenbaum-Carmeli D. Assisted reproductive technologies and culture change. Annu Rev Anthropol. 2008;37:177–196.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hampshire K, Simpson B. Assisted reproductive technologies in the third phase: global encounters and emerging moral worlds. New York: Berghahn Books; 2015.
   Google Scholar
• Kahn SM. Reproducing Jews: a cultural account of assisted conception in Israel. Durham: Duke University Press; 2002.
   Google Scholar
• Firestone S. The dialectic of sex: the case for feminist revolution. New York: William Morrow; 1970.
   Google Scholar
• Thompson C. Three times a woman: voting, egg donation, cosmetics, and the punctuated gendering of stem cell innovation in California. Les Cahiers du Genre, 56, Special Issue, “Reproductive labour and transnational technology: a new order of gender?”; 2014.
   Google Scholar
• Franklin S. Feminism and reproduction. In: N Hopwood, R Flemming, L Kassell, editors. Reproduction: antiquity to the present day. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2018. p. 627–640.
   Google Scholar
• Ginsburg F. Contested lives: the abortion debate in an American community. Berkeley: University of California Press; 1998.
   Google Scholar
• Briggs L. How all politics became reproductive politics. Oakland: University of California Press; 2017.
   Google Scholar
• Franklin S, Ginsburg F. Reproductive politics in the age of Trump and Brexit. Cult Anthropol. 2019;34(1):3–9. DOI:https://doi.org/10.14506/ca34.1.02
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Thompson C. Good science: the ethical choreography of stem-cell research. Cambridge, Mass./London: MIT Press; 2013.
   Google Scholar
• Merleau-Ponty N, Vertommen S, Pucéat M. I6 passages: on the circulation of a human embryonic stem cell line from Israel to France. New Genet Soc. 2018. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1080/14636778.2018.1548269
   Google Scholar
• Nahman M. Migrant extractability: centring the voices of egg providers in cross-border reproduction. Reproductive BioMedicine and Society Online Vol.7. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rbms.2018.10.020.
   Google Scholar
• Weis C. Situational ethics in a feminist ethnography on commercial surrogacy in Russia: negotiating access and authority when recruiting participants through institutional gatekeepers. Methodol Innov. January–April 2019;2019: 1–10.
   Google Scholar
• Cook M. New York legalises commercial surrogacy. BioEdge, 5 April 2020 [cited 2020 July 31]. Available at: https://www.bioedge.org/bioethics/new-york-legalises-commercial-surrogacy/13392.
   Google Scholar
• Finkelstein A, MacDougall S, Kintominas A, et al. Surrogacy law and policy in the U.S.: a national conversation informed by global lawmaking. Report of the Columbia Law School, Sexuality & Gender Law Clinic. May 2016 [cited 2018 November 28]. Available at: https://web.law.columbia.edu/sites/default/files/microsites/gender-sexuality/files/columbia_sexuality_and_gender_law_clinic_-_surrogacy_law_and_policy_report_-_june_2016.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Bhalla N, Thapliyal M. India seeks to regulate its booming “rent-a-womb” industry; 2013. Reuters [cited 2018 November 06]. Available at: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-india-surrogates-idUSBRE98T07F20130930.
   Google Scholar
• Rudrappa S. Reproducing dystopia: the politics of transnational surrogacy in India, 2002-2015. Crit Sociol (Eugene). 2018;44 (7–8):1087–1101. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1177/0896920517740616.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dow K. Making a good life: an ethnography of nature, ethics, and reproduction. Princeton (NJ): Princeton University Press; 2016.
   Google Scholar
• Stacey J. Brave new families: stories of domestic upheaval in late-twentieth-century America. Berkeley: University of California Press; 1998.
   Google Scholar
• Thompson C. IVF global histories, USA: between a rock and a marketplace. Reproductive BioMedicine and Society Online; 2016. Available at: https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rbms.2016.09.003.
   Google Scholar
• Duggan L. The new homonormativity: the sexual politics of neoliberalism. In: Castronovo R, Nelson DD, editors. Materializing democracy: toward a revitalized cultural politics (new Americanists). Durham, NC: Duke University Press; 2002. p. 175–194.
   Google Scholar
• Puar J. Terrorist assemblages: homonationalism in queer times. Durham: Duke University Press; 2007.
   Google Scholar
• Wright MW. Disposable women and other myths of global capitalism. New York: Routledge; 2006.
   Google Scholar
• Issupova O. From duty to pleasure? Motherhood in Soviet and post-Soviet Russia. In: S Ashwin, editor. Gender, state and society in Soviet and post-Soviet Russia. London: Routledge; 2000. p. 30–54.
   Google Scholar
• Bridger S, Kay R, Pinnick K. No more heroines? Russia, women and the market. London: Routledge; 1996.
   Google Scholar
• Rivkin-Fish M. Conceptualizing feminist strategies for Russian reproductive politics: abortion, surrogate motherhood, and family support after socialism. Signs (Chic). 2013;38(3):569–593.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar