Photo by Omar Lopez
Italy’s recent ban on international surrogacy, spearheaded by the far-right party led by Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni, has ignited controversy and raised concerns about LGBTQ+ rights in the country. This legislation expands upon an existing domestic surrogacy ban, further limiting options for couples seeking to have children through this method. The move is part of a broader trend of policies that have been criticized for curtailing LGBTQ+ rights in Italy.
Prime Minister Meloni has publicly stated that the ban is not intended to discriminate against LGBTQ+ couples, despite her deep history of homophobic beliefs. However, the rhetoric surrounding the legislation has raised eyebrows. Supporters of the ban have framed it as a victory for traditional family structures, with one notable statement celebrating it as a “Hurrah for children and their right, which is a priority, to have a father and a mother.” Brothers of Italy (Italian: Fratelli d’Italia, FdI) is a national-conservative and right-wing populist political party in Italy’s parliament that has strong fascist and anti-LGBTQ beliefs, something they have not been shy about promoting.
It’s important to note that the impact of this ban extends beyond the LGBTQ+ community. According to Rainbow Families President Alessia Crocini, approximately 90% of Italian couples seeking surrogacy are heterosexual. This statistic underscores the fact that surrogacy is a reproductive option utilized by a diverse range of individuals and couples. LGBTQ+ advocates have expressed concern that the law may disproportionately affect same-sex couples, particularly gay men, for whom surrogacy is often one of the few available paths to biological parenthood. The worry is that since same-sex couples are more easily identifiable as having used surrogacy, they may face greater scrutiny and potential legal consequences under the new law. This recent development in Italy is set against the backdrop of a long and complex history of surrogacy as a feminist issue. The debate surrounding surrogacy has been contentious and multifaceted, with perspectives evolving.
In the early days of surrogacy, feminist critiques often centered around the concept of “wombs for rent.” This provocative phrase encapsulated fears about the commodification of women’s bodies and reproductive capabilities. Critics argued that surrogacy could lead to the exploitation of economically vulnerable women, creating a troubling dynamic where wealthy individuals could effectively purchase reproductive labor from those with fewer resources. As surrogacy became more widespread, the feminist debate intensified. Some maintained that surrogacy, especially in its commercial form, was inherently exploitative and reinforced patriarchal control over women’s bodies. They pointed to cases of surrogates in developing countries working under potentially coercive conditions as evidence of the dangers of treating reproduction as a commercial transaction. This became the case in countries such as Cambodia, where women were given vast sums of money for surrogate motherhood just to be left with a child that was never retrieved and no payments made.
However, this narrative was challenged by other voices within the feminist movement. These perspectives argued that framing surrogacy solely as exploitation denied women’s agency and right to make decisions about their bodies. From this viewpoint, surrogacy could be seen as a form of empowerment, allowing women to use their unique biological capabilities to help others while potentially improving their economic situations. The advent of gestational surrogacy, where the surrogate is not genetically related to the child, added new layers to the debate. Some argued that this form of surrogacy mitigated concerns about women selling their genetic offspring, while others maintained that it still represented a form of bodily commodification.
As the LGBTQ+ rights movement gained momentum, surrogacy took on new significance in the broader conversation about reproductive rights and family formation. For many same-sex couples, particularly gay men, surrogacy represented one of the few ways to have genetically related children. This led to a complex intersection of feminist concerns about exploitation and the reproductive rights of LGBTQ+ individuals to have families of their own.
Advocates for LGBTQ+ families have argued that access to surrogacy is a matter of reproductive justice and equality. They point out that restricting surrogacy disproportionately affects LGBTQ+ individuals’ ability to form families. This perspective has challenged feminists to consider how their stance on surrogacy might impact other marginalized groups.
Intersectionality is a key pillar of feminism, and it is crucial to understanding how issues can be intertwined in complicated ways. It is essential to recognize that as feminists, standing with the LGBTQ+ community is vital to support women and allies who live in that intersection. Simultaneously, the issues of commercial surrogacy are ever-present, and the ongoing debate has led to a more nuanced understanding of surrogacy. Many now advocate for carefully regulated surrogacy practices that protect the rights and well-being of surrogates while still allowing access for those who need it, including LGBTQ+ individuals. This approach aims to address concerns about exploitation while recognizing surrogacy’s potential to help create families for those who couldn’t otherwise have biological children.
In the context of Italy’s recent ban, these complex issues come to the forefront. The legislation highlights the ongoing tension between concerns about potential exploitation in surrogacy arrangements and the reproductive rights of individuals and couples, including those in the LGBTQ+ community. And while Italy’s parliament mostly used this ban as a way to undercut LGBTQ+ families, it has brought forth the ever-complicated nature of the act itself. As the global conversation around surrogacy continues to evolve, policies like Italy’s ban serve as flashpoints for broader debates about reproductive rights, LGBTQ+ equality, and the ethical implications of assisted reproductive technologies.
