NEW YORK, Sep 30 2025 (IPS) – DANGER – WARNING – ALARM: Nobel Peace Prize Laureate Maria Ressa is warning that lies are being weaponized deliberately to manipulate people around the world. Big, profit-oriented, and technology-enabled companies are now disregarding or trampling over the sanctity and veracity of facts and information to speed up disinformation, (using AI) in ways that quickly erase truth and leave people manipulated.
Even democratic elections are getting manipulated to the extent that some 72 per cent of the world is now living under illiberal or authoritarian regimes that have been “democratically” elected. Journalism, fact-checking, and public trust are under attack from this deliberate subversion of information integrity.
Enjoy this interview I conducted with Ms Ressa, (produced, directed and edited by my UN News and Media colleagues, Paulina Kubiak and Alban Mendes De Leon).
[embedded content]
Ben Malor is the Chief Editor, UN Dailies, at UN News.
Participants at the Non-Governmental Organizations Forum meeting held in Huairou, China, as part of the United Nations Fourth World Conference on Women held in Beijing, China, on 4-15 september 1995. Credit: UN Photo/Milton Grant
UNITED NATIONS, Sep 30 2025 (IPS) – Thirty years since the UN Fourth World Conference on Women in Beijing, the resolve that defined and united the world toward a global agenda for gender equality make it just as relevant in 2025.
The Beijing Conference represents a turning point for the global movement in gender equality. It is marked by the adoption of the Beijing Declaration and Platform for Action, which is still held up as a landmark document in presenting a comprehensive blueprint to achieve gender equality.
The Beijing Conference was just “one stop in a long and continuing journey of feminist advocacy,” said Sia Nowrojee, a Kenyan women’s rights advocate with more than thirty years’ experience.
“Even though it’s thirty years later, it’s absolutely relevant. It was the culmination of twenty years of advocacy and gender equality.” Nowrojee is the UN Foundation’s Associate Vice President of their Girls and Women Strategy division.
The Beijing Conference was the first time that the international community integrated gender equality into the global development and rights agenda. It was recognition that securing the rights and dignities for all women and girls would be integral to achieving widespread development. This was key for the countries that had emerged in the post-colonial era.
Sia Nowrojee, UN Foundation’s Associate Vice President of Girls and Women Strategy. Credit: UN Foundation
The leadership of advocates from the Global South was instrumental to the Beijing PoA. Representatives from Africa, Asia, and Latin America pushed for the measures that make the framework as inclusive as it is. Nowrojee gave the example of girls’ rights being recognized thanks to the efforts of African feminists in the lead-up to Beijing.
Hibaaq Osman, a Somali human rights activist and founder of El-Karama, considers that the Global South activists had been uniquely prepared to participate as they had lived through their countries’ great political upheavals against colonialism and racism.
Osman attended Beijing 1995 as part of the Center of Strategic Initiatives of Women, a civil society network.
Hibaaq Osman, a Somali human rights activist and founder of El-Karama. Credit: UN Foundation
“For me, as a young woman, I was shocked by the things that I heard. I was raised to believe that everything was a privacy. But to hear a woman speaking for herself and sharing things that I never thought you could share with others, including violence against women… It absolutely opened my eyes and made me see, ‘Oh my god, I can actually share things with other women,’” Osman told IPS.
For Osman, the Beijing conference represented the possibilities of what could be achieved through a shared agenda and a shared sense of hope. The unique energy from that conference drove her advocacy work through groups like the Strategic Initiative for Women in the Horn of Africa (SIHA) and then El-Karama, which is working to end violence against women in the Arab region and South Sudan.
General view of the opening session of the Fourth World Conference on Women in Beijing. Credit: UN Photo/Milton Grant
Beijing 1995 also provided the expectation of accountability from governments and policy makers if they did not implement the PoA. “That had never happened before. There was a mechanism for the first time…,” said Osman. “You can hold governments and policymakers accountable. But you also have the connection with grassroots. That it was no longer the individual woman that could claim that she was the leader, but having accountability to your own people, I think that whole thing was fantastic.”
“I think the legacy of Beijing 1995 honestly, it gave us a legacy of getting out of our corners and just wide open to the rest of the women. And I think that vision, that framework is still working.”
Delegates working late into the night to draft the Beijing Declaration and Platform for Action. Credit: UNDP/Milton Grant
The success of the Women’s Conferences also demonstrated the UN’s role as a space to build up the gender equality movement, Nowrojee remarked. The UN has also served as a platform for emerging countries to raise their issues to the international community and to shape global agendas on their terms.
Prior to Beijing, the UN World Conference on Women had previously been held in Nairobi (1985), Copenhagen (1980) and Mexico City (1975). These were also key forums for people from all parts of the world to build relationships and for there to be a “cross-pollination of ideas and experiences”, laying down the groundwork for what was later achieved in Beijing.
Nowrojee was 18 years old when she attended the Nairobi 1985 Conference as part of a school/youth delegation. The experience was formative in listening to women’s activists from the region impart their wisdom and insights.
“To see the world’s women come to my home and talk about the fact that we mattered was life-changing for me,” Nowrojee said. “I made friends who I still work with and love and see today. And I think there is that sort of personal part, which is both personally sustaining, but it’s a critical part of feminist movement building.”
Each conference built up momentum that saw no sign of slowing down. Osman and Nowrojee explained that as gains were being made at local, national and global levels, this encouraged those in the movement to act with urgency and go further. This provided them the spaces to learn how to refine the messages for local contexts.
Delegates at the Fourth UN World Conference on Women in Beijing 1995. Credit: UNDPI /UN Women
The gains towards gender equality should be noted: the codification of women’s rights around the world, their increased participation in politics and in peace negotiations. Evidence has shown that investing in women’s participation in society through health, education and employment leads to economic growth and prosperity. More women in the workforce mean greater economic gains and stability. Increased social protections for women lead to more stability in communities.
And yet, there was backlash to the momentum. Recent years have seen the rise of anti-rights and anti-gender movements gain greater traction, combined with increasing attempts to strip women of their rights. UN Women has warned that one in four countries are reporting a backlash to women’s rights.
Nowrojee remarked that the autocratic leaders that champion these movements target women’s rights because it threatens their own agenda. “If you are silencing half the human family, and you are hampering their ability to make decisions about their bodies, to participate in political process… these are very, very effective ways of undermining democracy, development, peace and the achievement of all the goals and values that we hold dear.”
“They understand that if you bring women down, you are bringing society down, because women are the core of society,” Osman added.
The modern movements are also well-funded and well-organized. But there is an irony to it in that they use the same tactics that feminist movements have been using for decades by organizing at the grassroots level before moving their influence up to the national level and beyond. But this should not be where activists fall to despair. Instead they should understand, Osman and Nowrojee remarked, that women in this space already know what actions need to be taken to regain lost momentum.
“I’m sure that Sia and I and many, many others who were part of that are also thinking about today and what’s happening, and we know the space for civil society is shrinking,” Osman said. “The space for democracy, human rights, justice, reproductive rights, for all of that, there is absolutely a rollback, But it’s not going to delay us. We are just going to be more sophisticated and ask ourselves “Where are the blocks, how do we build… diverse constituencies?”… So it is hard, but we are not slowing down whatsoever.”
Today, it may seem the pursuit of gender equality is an ongoing struggle that faces the threat of autocratic movements that sow distrust and division. For the people who championed the women’s rights movement and can recall a time before the Beijing PoA, they are all too aware of what is at stake. The leaders in modern movements today need to look back to the past to take lessons, and to take courage.
NEW YORK, Sep 30 2025 (IPS) – Last week, the United Nations (UN) marked its 80th anniversary against the backdrop of an unprecedented global crisis. With the highest number of active conflicts since 1946, trust in multilateralism is faltering.
Yet the UN’s founding vision, rooted in the principle of ‘We the Peoples,’ remains as urgent as ever; affirming that peace, human rights, and development cannot be achieved by governments alone. From the very beginning, civil society has been integral to this vision, a role formally recognised in Article 71 of the UN Charter, which underscores the value of NGOs in shaping international agendas.
“Article71: The Economic and Social Council may make suitable arrangements for consultation with non-governmental organisations which are concerned with matters within its competence. Such arrangements may be made with international organisations and, where appropriate, with national organisations after consultation with the Member of the United Nations concerned.”
Yet despite this important provision, multilateral processes have increasingly become state-centric, turning global governance into a top-down exercise detached from the people it is meant to serve.
Excluding civil society and global citizens from policy-making not only produces laws and policies out of touch with local needs but also undermines community-driven practices that are often best placed to identify challenges and craft solutions.
At worst, silencing those who hold governments accountable empowers authoritarian regimes to flout international law, restrict human rights, and erode the rules-based international order. While the UN may recognise the role of civil society in principle, why does practice remain so distant from this commitment?
One area for reflection is the extent to which international spaces mirror national realities. Many see the multilateral system as an all-powerful body safeguarding humanity from the scourge of war. In reality it is a regrouping of national actors, the same ones responsible for shrinking civic space at home.
According to the CIVICUS Monitor, more than 70 percent of the global population lives in countries where freedoms of expression, association, and assembly are severely restricted. For many human rights defenders (HRDs), even raising their voices at the UN has led to reprisals at home, including surveillance and imprisonment.
By privileging repressive states and sidelining accountability actors, multilateral institutions replicate domestic restrictions globally, leaving abuses unchecked and defenders excluded.
A second challenge is how money dictates priorities. The collapse of the global aid sector has forced many to confront this reality again. The UN is funded largely by member states through mandatory and voluntary contributions. Over time, earmarking of funds and shifting UN priorities have led to chronic underinvestment in human rights.
Today, the human rights pillar receives just five percent of the UN’s regular budget, and with the upcoming UN80 budget cuts, this already underfunded area faces further risk. When human rights are deprioritised through budget cuts and underfunding, the message to member states is clear- resources and political will are better placed elsewhere. This dynamic discourages collaboration with civil society and reinforces their marginalisation.
A third challenge is the unequal access granted to civil society at UN headquarters. Negotiation rooms are closed to most organisations, and draft resolutions are often circulated only among those with close ties to diplomats, leaving others without privileged access unable to provide timely input. Meaningful participation is impossible without timely information.
During high-level weeks in New York, even side event spaces can only be booked through a member state, effectively controlling who speaks and what is discussed. Major processes such as the Summit of the Future or Financing for Development rarely engage civil society at the national level in time to influence outcomes.
Even when hundreds of civil society organisations submit feedback on policy documents, there is little transparency on how their contributions are used. These opaque practices erode trust and leave committed groups questioning whether investing their scarce time and resources in multilateral spaces is worthwhile.
Despite these glaring challenges, which have turned the system into “we the member states,” the UN is not without tools to ensure it is inclusive of the people it was created to serve. First, existing tools such as the UN Guidance Note on the Promotion and Protection of Civic Space provide a clear framework for action through the “three P’s”: participation, protection, and promotion. To move this document beyond paper, the task force assigned to implement it must act urgently.
Accreditation processes may get civil society past the security desk after years of hurdles, but it does not guarantee meaningful engagement. What matters in the long run is meaningful participation across the UN system, not just at headquarters, in order to achieve political and practical impact.
Second, a focus on accountable leadership. When funding is slashed and political will abandoned, the UN inadvertently strengthens authoritarian regimes, enabling them to silence voices, restrict rights, and openly flout international law. This erosion of support for human rights contributes to shrinking civic freedoms worldwide and leaves many losing trust in the multilateral system.
In this context, civil society engagement is not optional, it is key to steering the UN’s future leadership toward defending human rights and global freedoms.
With conversations on the next Secretary-General already gaining momentum, civil society’s role must be a central test for every candidate. Town halls with nominees should be used to demand clear commitments to meaningful participation of civil society, as well as sustained funding and protection for human rights programmes.
This is not about tokenistic symbolism; meaningful civil society engagement is a fundamental condition for development progress, the protection of human rights, and the survival of a rules-based international order- including multilateral organisations like the UN.
As the UN enters its ninth decade, its relevance depends on accountability to the people, not just the states. Civil society must be recognized as independent partners, with their constructive input embedded across decision-making, financing, and oversight. Only by centering people and their rights can the UN restore trust, strengthen multilateralism, and truly fulfill its founding promise: a world grounded in peace, development, and human rights.
Jesselina Rana, a human rights lawyer, is the UN Advisor at CIVICUS’ New York Hub.
Sarah Strack is Forus Director and Christelle Kalhoulé is Forus Chair and civil society leader in Burkina Faso
Credit: Forus – UN High-Level Political Forum 2025
NEW YORK, Sep 26 2025 (IPS) – This September the UN turns 80, but the lessons of peace, justice, and cooperation are still unfinished. The world today faces the flames of inequality, conflict, ecological collapse and growing digital threats. In short, the very problems the UN was created to solve are once again staring us in the face.
That’s why the UN’s latest reform push, “UN80,” matters. Launched this spring, it promises to make the multilateral system more inclusive and accountable. But here’s the real question: can it align with 21st century’s needs? Will it be remembered as a budget drill or the start of a renewal that truly delivers for people where they live?
If this moment is going to count, three things must happen.
First, reforms must put people at the center, and we must avoid a reform by spreadsheet.
The UN is under financial strain. Geopolitical tensions are sky-high, negotiations are gridlocked, Member States are late on dues and membership fees, arrears run into the billions, and the UN’s mandate, efficiency, and effectiveness are under question.
“In a polycrisis world, shrinking the UN’s capacity is like cutting the fire brigade during wildfire season,” warns Christelle Kalhoulé, Forus Chair and civil society leader in Burkina Faso. “Reform cannot be about cutting corners. It must be about giving people the protection, rights, and solidarity they are being denied today.”
On paper, these reforms could bring overdue coherence. But the process has too often felt opaque, with key documents surfacing via leaks and staff unions flagging limited transparency and consultation.
Increasing the use of tools like AI is among the “solutions” being floated to “flag potential duplication” and shorten resolutions — yet without clear guardrails, there’s a risk of automating cuts and reinforcing bias rather than empowering people-first innovation. And the debate has too often been framed around cash flow, back payments, and cuts. The United States alone owes $1.5 billion in dues. Major donors are cutting ODA, and several UN humanitarian agencies are planning double-digit reductions in 2025 in their budgets.
As Arjun Bhattarai, Executive Director of the NGO Federation of Nepal warns: “Reform cannot be a synonym for austerity. Cutting budgets may make spreadsheets look tidy in New York, but it leaves communities in Kathmandu, Kampala, Khartoum, or Kyiv without support when they need it most.”
The danger is a reform focused on management efficiencies instead of reimagining what the UN must be to meet today’s and tomorrow’s challenges.
Second, a better compass exists.
Despite its flaws, multilateralism remains indispensable. Without the UN, the world would be poorer when it comes to peace, cooperation, and collective problem-solving.
What makes the UN matter most, however, are not the halls of New York or Geneva, but the people and communities it exists to serve.
The UN was created “for the people and by the people”. Protecting, safeguarding and promoting healthy sustainable lives for communities must remain the core priority.
Our measure for reform is simple: a transformed UN must reduce inequalities, ensure fairer and more inclusive representation across its governance structures, deliver public goods fairly with accountability, and protect people better, faster, while safeguarding rights.
As Moses Isooba, Executive Director of the Uganda National NGO Forum, puts it: “A reformed UN must stand closer to the people than to the corridors of power. It must be measured not by the length of resolutions, but by the depth of hope it restores and the changes it makes for communities worldwide.”
If UN80 becomes a technocratic exercise in “doing less with less,” we will emerge with a smaller, weaker UN at precisely the moment we need it most.
If instead it becomes a justice-driven reimagining — linking architecture and finance to a clear vision of protection, equity, participation, and decentralization — it could renew the UN’s capacity to act as a backbone of international cooperation.
As Justina Kaluinaite, Policy and advocacy expert at the Lithuanian NGDO Platform, stresses: “The UN will survive another 80 years only if it learns to listen. True reform is not about doing more with less, but about doing better with those who have been left out.”
Third, put reforms through three simple tests.
When leaders meet in New York, we challenge them to have every reform proposal answering three questions:
1. The Inequality Question: Does this reform measurably narrow gaps — by income, gender, geography, or status — in who is protected and who benefits?
2. The Localisation Question: Does it move money, decisions, and accountability closer to communities, with transparent targets and timelines?
3. The Rights Question: Does it strengthen — not dilute — protection, gender equality, and human rights?
As Christelle Kalhoulé, sums it up: “The measure of UN80 should not be how much paper it saves, but how many lives it protects. History and the legacy we leave to future generations will not ask whether the UN balanced its budget in 2025; it will ask whether it stood with people.”
If leaders embrace this moment, the UN can emerge sharper, stronger, and more inclusive, with a justice-driven renewal of multilateralism, reclaiming its place as the backbone of global cooperation. If not, UN80 may go down in history as the moment when multilateralism chose retreat over renewal.
If UN80 is going to matter, it must prevent crises before they explode, deliver for both people and planet, give underrepresented countries and communities a real voice, keep civil society free and strong, and fix financing so money reaches those on the frontlines. The real test isn’t how tidy the org chart looks, it’s whether lives are saved, trust is rebuilt, and the UN proves it can still rise to the moment and be fit to serve this 21st century world.
NEW YORK, Sep 23 2025 (IPS) – No leader responsible for mass atrocities enjoys greater impunity on the international stage than Benjamin Netanyahu. This is due to the strange stranglehold of the pro-Israel lobby on the two major political parties in the United States.
Unsurprisingly, the assertion by New York City mayoral candidate and front runner Zohran Mamdani on September 13 that he would order the arrest of Netanyahu if he ever came there, has attracted blowback from within the mainstream political establishments of both the Democratic and Republic parties, as well from extremist right-wing circles.
Legal experts have gone into a tizzy whether a future mayor of New York can arrest the leader of a foreign government. The unjustified blowback apparently in support of Israel’s televised genocide of the Palestinian people flies in the face of facts, basic principles of humanity and the shifting sands of public opinion in the United States.
A high- powered UN Commission of Inquiry led by a judge who investigated the Rwandan genocide of 1994 has recently concluded that Israel has committed genocide – the worst crime under international law – in Gaza.
The International Criminal Court (ICC) has a standing arrest warrant against Netanyahu and his former defence minister for using starvation as a weapon of war and for deliberately killing thousands of Palestinian civilians in Gaza. But bizarrely, it’s not Israel’s leaders but ICC judges and prosecutors who are being targeted through sanctions by the Trump administration.
Nevertheless, Netanyahu’s cruel war on Gaza is rapidly eroding American public support for Israel. According to the Pew Research Center’s latest findings more than half of American adults now possess an unfavourable opinion of Israel. Just 32 percent have confidence in Netanyahu himself.
However, the negative impacts of the damage done to American democracy by Netanyahu and his hardline supporters will linger on. Under the pretext of containing anti-Israeli sentiment, the Trump administration has attacked universities that were the site of sustained pro-Palestinian protests including Columbia and Harvard.
Academic freedom is a cherished American ideal but that hasn’t prevented the administration from threatening colleges and universities with federal funding cuts and placing restrictions on foreign students if they don’t toe the government’s line. Sadly, several pro-Palestinian student protest leaders have been arbitrarily detained in direct repudiation of constitutional protections on the freedom of speech and the right to peaceful protest drawing criticism from UN experts.
Many of us in civil society have been pointing out for some time that the leaders of the two major political parties in the United States are so beholden to the moneyed interests of their donors that they have become out of touch with the needs and aspirations of the American people.
Indeed, Israel’s belligerence in continuing atrocities on the civilian population in the Occupied Palestinian Territories of Gaza and the West Bank has been sharply rebuked by progressive groups like Jewish Voices for Peace and Jews for Racial and Economic Justice who support a new wave of politicians such as Mahmud Mamdani who are willing to stand up for human rights.
A generation of politicians who represent a more forward looking and inclusive vision for the United States and who enjoy widespread support in New York and beyond such as Alexandria Ocasio Cortez have rallied to Mamdani’s side.
Mamdani’s win in the Democratic primaries for the New York mayoral election was powered by a diverse coalition of supporters in America’s most diverse and vibrant city. He continues to be the front runner for the mayoral election slated on November 4.
So far, his focus has been on the issues that matter to most of the people of New York, such as the high cost of living and the ever- widening gap between millionaires and the rest of the country fueled by pro-big business policies and tax cuts.
Funnily, in blatant negation of diplomatic protocol, Netanyahu has jumped into the political fray by dubbing Mamdani’s proposals for New York City’s mayoral elections as ‘nonsense’.
Notably, Netanyahu is planning to come to New York to address the UN General Assembly on 26 September. When he speaks at the UN, it’s usually to disparage the institution, which will be marking 80 years of its founding from the ashes of war and the horrors of the holocaust.
Last year, a large number of delegates walked out of the UN hall when he came on stage. This year, Netanyahu emboldened by Trump’s support will try his best to repudiate the findings of the UN Commission of Inquiry on genocide in Gaza. Whether the delegates will pay attention is arguable.
However, one thing is certain. If Netanyahu attempts to go on to the streets of New York to campaign against Mamdani he will likely be met by mass protests.
Mandeep S. Tiwana is a human rights lawyer and Secretary General of global civil society alliance, CIVICUS. He is presently based in New York.
United Nations Special Rapporteur Reem Alsalem recently released her report on violence against women and girls with a focus on surrogacy, one of the most controversial topics in the medical field.
United Nations Special Rapporteur Reem Alsalem. Credit: UN Photo/Loey Felipe
UNITED NATIONS, Sep 19 2025 (IPS) – A United Nations report calling for the global abolition of surrogacy has sparked intense debate among experts, with critics arguing that blanket bans could harm the very women the policy aims to protect.
Reem Alsalem, the United Nations Special Rapporteur on violence against women and girls, issued a report on violence against women and girls with a specific focus on surrogacy as a form of exploitation. The report, officially titled “The different manifestations of violence against women and girls in the context of surrogacy,” was published on July 14, 2025, and is slated for discussion at the upcoming UN General Assembly session in October.
The report calls surrogacy “direct and exploitative use of a woman’s bodily and reproductive functions for the benefit of others, often resulting in long-lasting harm and in exploitative circumstances.”
It further delves into the danger of surrogacy business models, in particular, which embrace the ambiguity of international law to churn a profit, often at the expense of both the surrogate and the prospective family. Alsalem recommends the abolition of surrogacy and asks member states to “work towards adopting an international legally binding instrument prohibiting all forms of surrogacy.”
One of the largest problems with surrogacy today, according to Senior Lecturer at Swinburne University Jutharat Attawet, is a lack of comprehensive education and legal standards around the practice. This results in social alienation and false conceptions, which worsen exploitation of people who participate in surrogacy—they are not provided adequate resources
Attawet, who specializes in surrogacy healthcare and domestic policy, considers surrogacy itself a beneficial tool for nontraditional family building. However, she acknowledges the steps it has to take to ensure autonomy and respect for surrogates.
Attawet’s research, cited in Alsalem’s report, shows that approximately 1 percent of babies born in Australia are from surrogates, so although the number has doubled over the past decade, doctors are not familiar with the process. Furthermore, legislation is primarily top-down rather than region- or area-specific. Since doctors in places like Australia are “intimidated by the language” surrounding surrogacy due to minimal education, they are less willing to openly engage with the procedures. This pushes families to seek surrogates elsewhere, where laws are less stringent and doctors more comfortable with the procedures.
Another incentive for overseas surrogacy, Attawet says, is lack of national support for surrogacy. Since it does not fulfill the criteria of most healthcare insurance plans, prospective parents often seek a more affordable surrogacy birth internationally. This further contributes to the exploitation both she and Alsalem note in their respective research—international surrogacy is much more difficult to regulate between different countries’ laws and often primarily harms the surrogate and the child, who is less likely to know their birth mother from an international surrogacy.
Alsalem criticized the practice of international surrogacy as an exploitative technique to perpetuate wealth inequality between different countries, but many experts argue that the job is one of the few accessible, well-paying jobs for child-bearing people who need to care for their family full-time. Polina Vlasenko, a researcher whose work was also cited in Alsalem’s report, explained to IPS that international surrogacy in Ukraine and the Republic of Georgia “is the type of job you can combine with having a kid and being a full-time caretaker of your kid… it still benefits women.”
Vlasenko elaborated, saying that most workers in the surrogacy industry, including intermediaries and clinicians, were women who had some sort of pre-existing connection to the process—often being former surrogates. To ban surrogacy entirely, Vlasenko argues, would merely harm women in all facets of the industry rather than resolving wealth gaps. She said, “this inequality is much deeper than services of surrogacy.”
Social worker and professor at Ohio State University Sharvari Karandikar similarly opposes the Special Rapporteur’s recommendation of abolition. In an interview with IPS, Karandikar explained that “in countries like India, it’s really hard to implement policies in a uniform way, and I think that one needs to have proper oversight of medical professionals and how they’re engaging in surrogate arrangements and medical tourism. Blanket bans do not work.”
She emphasized the dangers of surrogacy without regulation, saying it would only do more harm.
Instead, Karandikar advocates for “the safety, the better communication, more education, more informed choice and decision, more safeguards, better treatment options, and long-term health coverage for women who engage in surrogacy” as “a wonderful way to speak about women’s choices, decisions and their health instead of penalizing anyone.”
However, in order for the global conversation surrounding surrogacy to center around female agency, experts like Vlasenko say the perception of surrogates needs to change. She said, “sex work is not seen as violence or exploitation when it’s done for free… it’s the same with childbirth… surrogate mothers are taking the only work that, in their situation, allows them to fulfill certain responsibilities like childcare and income generation. They think that they’re agents in this process, but society sees them as victims.”
Ultimately, the surrogacy debate reflects broader questions about women’s autonomy, economic inequality and reproductive rights. As Vlasenko noted, addressing the “much deeper inequality” that pushes women to surrogacy may prove more effective than focusing solely on limiting the practice itself.
