#Surrogacy for profit is a form of human trafficking

[coochiequeens]

Experts say this practice carries a heightened risk of maternal mortality. It is not widely available in the UK, with triple embryo transfers banned in all but exceptional circumstances.” Surrogacy exploits poor women.

Shanti Das, Simon Bowers and Malia Politzer

Sun 18 Dec 2022 03.00 EST

Women recruited by an international surrogacy agency to carry babies for wealthy clients are being asked to undergo “unethical” medical procedures that increase their risk of serious complications, an investigation suggests.

New Life Global claims to have brokered more than 7,000 cross-border deals between clients mostly based in the UK, western Europe and North America and surrogates in countries including Mexico, Colombia, India, Ukraine and Georgia.

Facebook adverts offer women the chance to earn life-changing money to be surrogates, while marketing says “commissioning parents” including same-sex couples and those struggling with fertility problems are “guaranteed” a baby.

But a joint investigation by international media outlets including the Observer, funded by the Pulitzer Center and coordinated by Finance Uncovered, has found evidence of ethically questionable and potentially illegal practice by the agency, which has a UK-registered firm and offices around the world. New Life denied the allegations, saying it has helped thousands of couples “achieve their goals” and operates in full compliance with local laws.

Analysis of marketing materials, contracts and other documents suggests the company has for years taken advantage of lax regulation in developing countries to offer controversial services to clients not available to them in their home countries.

Websites for several New Life branches, including those in Georgia and Ukraine, promote multi-embryo transfer, which involves two or three embryos being implanted into surrogates and increases the chance of twins or triplets being born.

Experts say this practice carries a heightened risk of maternal mortality. It is not widely available in the UK, with triple embryo transfers banned in all but exceptional circumstances.

New Life branches, including those in Asia, Mexico and Ukraine, which is currently closed due to the war, also allow or have recently allowed clients to select the sex of their baby. Clients might want to do this “to balance the gender in the family”, to prevent genetic disorders linked to a particular sex and to meet “cultural and social norms”, its website says.

While permitted in those New Life locations, sex selection for non-medical reasons is banned in Australia, Canada, the UK and other countries in Europe. The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority, which regulates fertility clinics in the UK, said it had no control over treatments offered abroad but described the findings as “extremely concerning”.

It said selecting the sex of a child for any reason other than preventing serious inherited illness was allowed in some countries but “strictly prohibited by UK law”, and that the offer to implant multi embryos was “deeply worrying”. “A multiple pregnancy increases the risk of stillbirth, neonatal death and disability. Risks to [the surrogate] include late miscarriage, high blood pressure, pre-eclampsia and haemorrhage,” it said. There is no suggestion the practices were offered in the UK.

Separate evidence suggests New Life may have flouted UK laws when brokering agreements linked to its London-registered entity, New Life Global Network LLP. While altruistic surrogacy is permitted in the UK, commercial surrogacy is banned, with those brokering or offering to negotiate surrogacy arrangements for profit risking a three-month prison sentence and unlimited fine.

New Life is registered in the UK and says on its website that it is headquartered in London. It is actively offering to “meet parents willing to discuss surrogacy/egg donation options” in the UK and has issued contracts bearing the name of its UK entity.

Three legal experts who reviewed New Life contracts said they believe the firm may have violated UK laws.

Dr Kirsty Horsey, an expert in surrogacy law at Kent University, said: “The terms of the agreement are: you will find me a surrogate and I will pay you money for it,” which she said appeared to be a “criminal activity on their part”. Professor Emily Jackson, an expert in medical law and ethics at the London School of Economics, said the documents looked “really concerning”, adding: “I would avoid this [agency] with a bargepole.”

Founded in 2008 by Georgian doctor Mariam Kukunashvili, New Life Global offers low-cost surrogacy to international clients, many of whom live in countries where surrogacy is illegal, prohibitively expensive or the number of surrogates is limited.

In the UK, commercial surrogacy is banned but altruistic surrogacy is permitted and surrogates can be paid reasonable expenses. An historic lack of surrogates has driven some to look abroad. In 2020-21, more than 300 applications for parental orders were made, around half of whichwere international surrogacy arrangements.

With “hundreds of employees” worldwide and at least 16 active websites advertising services in 10 languages, New Life is a major agency catering to the demand and boasts of a “world renowned reputation”.

The women it recruits as surrogates typically come from lower income countries where regulation is nonexistent or relaxed. The amount they can earn ranges but Facebook ads recruiting New Life surrogates in Colombia last year said they would receive $12,000.

Legal experts believe New Life’s decision to operate in “grey markets” where surrogacy is neither legal or illegal leaves both surrogates and commissioning parents exposed. In these countries surrogacy agreements are unlikely to be enforceable by law, they say. In the UK, all surrogacy agreements are legally unenforceable.

New Life has previously said lax regulation allows it to operate with more freedom. The website for its former Kenya branch, which has now been removed, said the absence of “strict criteria and legal restrictions” in the country allowed it to provide “the best possible service to our intended parents by adjusting to patient individual needs in a very flexible and comfortable manner”.

In an extreme example, its branch in Ukraine previously suggested babies born with disabilities could be legally abandoned at an orphanage if they were unwanted, telling potential customers from overseas that, in the event of their surrogate giving birth to a baby with an “anomaly”, they “have a right to leave the baby” at an orphanage. “In this case government dedicated office from government side undertakes the responsibility toward baby and no lawyer is needed for this,” an FAQ page told customers until 2015.

This weekend, New Life Global denied claims of unethical practice and said all its branches operate in jurisdictions where commercial surrogacy is legal. After being contacted for comment, the company removed a section on its Georgian website that said it recommended multiple embryo transfer. The site for its Ukraine branch continues to promote the procedure, telling clients that “generally, it is a good practice to transfer more than 1 embryos (2 or 3 ) at a time”.

David Bezhuashvili, the firm’s owner and husband of Mariam Kukunashvili, its founder, said the materials were out of date.

“The guideline for multiple embryo transfers has been changed ... and companies under New Life strictly follow the rules on one embryo transfer,” he said.

“We have assisted many people to overcome poverty and earn a living,” Bezhuashvili added. “We have made our worthy contribution to the cause of human importance.”

The company did not answer questions about its UK operations or the enforceability of contracts issued by its London registered company, which it said “acts as an international marketing and promotion tool” for affiliates around the world.

“Due to the limited functions of the company in respect of marketing and promotion, the ownership structure has been simplified by top management,” Bezhuashvili added. Financial statements filed by the company in October show it reported earning £343,000 in commission in 2021-22, more than double the year before.

The Department of Health said it was assessing evidence passed to it by the Observer and would refer it to relevant authorities if it appeared that UK laws on commercial surrogacy were being broken.“We encourage people considering surrogacy to remain in the UK, take independent legal advice and use recognised UK-based surrogacy organisations,” it said.

#New Life Global #Anti surrogacy #Anti exploiting women #Anti turning babies into commodities #Surrogacy for profit is a form of human trafficking #No one is entitled to bio kids

[wdi-usa-official]

Physical/Reproductive Integrity – Article 3 of The Declaration

(the following is a repost from the WHRC USA website)

Article 3 of the Declaration reads: “Reaffirming the rights of women and girls to physical and reproductive integrity.”

Abortion access might be the first issue that comes to mind when you read the third article of the Declaration. However, that is not the only right it covers. Rather, it’s about all reproductive services and rights, surrogacy in all its forms, and the ongoing attempt to use medical research to compromise female reproductive integrity.

Reproductive Services and Rights

First, Article 3 concerns matters related to reproductive health and services, and women’s and girls’ ability to access them effectively.

This includes services such as abortion access, birth control, and reproductive medicine. It also covers comprehensive pregnancy and prenatal care that helps to lower the maternal mortality rate.

As women, we have been defined throughout history by our female reproductive systems. Women have faced discrimination because of our female bodies. In order for women to combat this discrimination, it is crucial that we have the ability to control our reproductive systems. Lawmakers should ensure that women have this ability, as well as the right to access proper reproductive healthcare.

Surrogacy

The second part of Article 3 of the Declaration concerns surrogacy as a violation of the reproductive integrity of women.

According to third wave feminism and mainstream society, surrogacy is a harmless practice. However, this couldn’t be further from the truth.

Altruistic surrogacy tends to be what most people imagine when they think of surrogacy. But the reality is that the commercial surrogacy industry is the most common form of the practice.

Commercial surrogacy is an industry that thrives on classism, racism, misogyny, and profit. In fact, there are many who consider the commercial surrogacy industry to be a modern form of human trafficking.

Female reproductive capacity is not a product that can be exploited, trafficked, or sold for profit. Surrogacy exploits women by reducing them to an “incubator,” and the child to a product. In fact, some women who work as surrogates have been dehumanized by being referred to as “gestational carriers.”

This clearly violates a woman’s right to reproductive integrity and control over her own reproductive system. It also perpetuates the sex-based discrimination and sexism that women face. This is because women and girls, as members of the female sex-class, uniquely face the possibility of exploitation through motherhood.

Female reproduction does not exist for the benefit and profit of men, as has too often been the case throughout history.

Medical Research and Reproductive Integrity

The last part of Article 3 of the Declaration concerns medical research that seeks to enable men to gestate and give birth to children as a form of sex-based discrimination.

With the push to enshrine “gender identity” into law comes the push to consider men as women. To this end, many activists have pushed for the inclusion of males in uniquely female experiences, such as the recent attempt by a man to “breastfeed” his child, or the increasing number of men seeking uterus transplants.

Any medical research that would seek to make this a reality is a violation of women’s reproductive integrity.

For example, the attempt to transplant a woman’s uterus into a man not only would not make the man into a woman, but it would also compromise the woman’s bodily integrity by removing her uterus from her own body.

Moreover, a recent experiment involving transplanting a uterus into a male rat so that it could gestate offspring highlights the futility of this type of medical research and how it compromises female integrity. Even after the uterus transplant, the male rat was unable to gestate without being sewn to a female rat so he could share her bloodstream.

This research demonstrates the centrality and necessity of the female in female reproduction. It is impossible to separate the two.

To do such research on humans would be a violation of women’s rights to control their own reproduction. Because women’s oppression revolves around the exploitation of female reproductive biology, disconnecting women’s reproductive capacity from women is a form of sex-based discrimination.

Even worse, it is a disservice to women and girls to put money towards helping men achieve these impossible and unethical goals. Instead, that money could prevent sex-based discrimination by helping women access comprehensive reproductive services and have safer and healthier pregnancies.

Article 3 of The Declaration in Law and Policy

We need lawmakers across the U.S. to commit to protecting women’s rights to control their own fertility and reproduction, to access reproductive healthcare, and to have female reproductive integrity free from men. To this end, we must preserve the true definition of sex in federal, state, and local law. A definition of sex that does not include “gender identity” and usher in self-ID policies.

Want to read the two previous posts in this series? Read our explanations on Article 1 and Article 2 of the Declaration.

To read the Declaration in full and become a signatory click here.

#RadFem #radical feminism #radfem safe #feminism #feminist

[comrade-meow]

MOST readers of this paper are familiar with Momentum.

Many are probably members and, even if you’re not, you’re likely to share its stated aims of redistributing wealth to properly fund public services and infrastructure and striving for equality and empowerment for the many rather than the few.

If so, you may be wondering how those aims square with a tweet that Momentum put out on Monday boasting of signing up to the DecrimNow campaign to fight against attempts by a Labour woman MP to introduce the Nordic Model approach to prostitution in Britain.

The Nordic Model approach decriminalises those who are prostituted and provides them with support, genuine alternatives and routes out.

It also cracks down on pimps and traffickers, and makes buying sex a criminal offence — with the key aim of changing men’s attitudes.

This approach is founded in the socialist feminist understanding of prostitution as an institution of oppression that has been used for centuries by the capitalist system to co-opt men, and to ensure the subordination of women and the division of the working class.

More recently women have become the locus of wealth extraction as the global capitalists have turned to mining women and girls’ bodies for the primitive accumulation of capital through the industrialisation of prostitution, porn, egg harvesting and surrogacy.

The global capitalists have been so successful in selling the sexual use and abuse of women and girls as entertainment to ordinary men that the global sex industry makes profits so huge that even Amazon’s seem like small change in comparison.

However, the Nordic Model was not developed simply from theory. Rather it came out of practical research.

Feminists in Sweden conducted large-scale research on prostitution — talking extensively to people both selling and buying sex.

The women selling sex told of their paths into prostitution, about the men who bought them, about their relationships with pimps and drugs, about how prostitution affected them and the violence and shame they experienced, and about their survival strategies.

What the researchers found was that prostitution is an extreme, concentrated version of the general relationship between the sexes.

It therefore makes no sense to punish the women — because their choices are limited and getting out of prostitution once embedded in it is hard, and sometimes impossible.

It became clear to the researchers that prostitution exists because men buy sex.

So, if they were to reduce prostitution (and the trafficking and misery associated with it), they realised they must challenge men to change their belief that they have the right to buy sex from another human being.

And that’s the whole point of the law. Just as the law against smoking in pubs is not about demonising or criminalising smokers — it is primarily about changing attitudes and behaviour.

The approach was first introduced in Sweden in 1999 and since then a number of other countries have followed suit. Each country has framed the law slightly differently and with different degrees of commitment and success.

There have been endless attempts to sabotage it — mostly because men, including so-called socialist men, do not want to give up the right granted them by the capitalist elites to sexual access to their more unfortunate sisters — and many women resist seeing the reality of a system that defines themselves as not quite human, as commodities for men’s use and abuse.

The Momentum tweet says, “The evidence shows that criminalising those who pay for sex only puts sex workers in more danger. Proud to have put our name to this important campaign.”

How can they be so naive?

I am sure that the Tories can produce “evidence” that shows that privatising the NHS is better for everyone and that the original socialist model puts people in “danger.”

There’s a long and shameful history of academics and NGOs being bought.

Rather than relying on dodgy “evidence,” we need to consider, what are the alternatives?

A free-for-all for pimps and traffickers, the ever-greater brutalisation of ordinary people, the neoliberal elite scooping up ever more wealth from the suffering of women and children.

That’s the choice we’re looking at.

The DecrimNow open letter says: “Trafficking isn’t caused by the demand for sex, but by people’s poverty and lack of options: people are made vulnerable to traffickers for a number of reasons.”

Sex trafficking is hugely more lucrative than any other form of human trafficking — 10 times more lucrative according to a recent study — precisely because so many men are prepared to pay for sexual access to vulnerable women and girls.

To suggest that the desire to cash in on this bonanza is not a cause of sex trafficking is disingenuous, bonkers even.

Yes, poverty and brutal immigration laws cause large numbers of people, particularly women and children, to be trapped in situations where they are vulnerable to traffickers who want to use them as a meal ticket.

But they wouldn’t be such a great meal ticket if large numbers of men weren’t such enthusiastic prostitution users.

The solution to poverty and brutal immigration laws is not opening up prostitution but tackling these inequities head on.

The open letter’s aspiration to make “sex workers” safe is an oxymoron.

Prostitution in all its forms is inherently dangerous and can never be brought into line with even the most basic health and safety guidelines.

We need to reduce the size of the prostitution system, while providing those caught up in it with a viable transition out.

This is exactly what the Nordic Model aims to do — and can do when implemented properly and with solid support from the working class.

Men, you need to face up to the unsavoury truth that the capitalist system constantly attempts to buy you off with power over women and children, including the power to buy sexual access to them. When you succumb to this, you sabotage the socialist resistance.

Women are human too.

#Anglo.txt

[millionth-attempt]

Buying Babies

Surrogate parenting is an arrangement in which someone, typically a married infertile couple (the intended rearing parents), contract with a woman to gestate a child for them and then to relinquish it to them after birth (https://www.iep.utm.edu/). In the Netherlands, it is legal for the intended parents to have a private arrangement with an acquaintance in which the surrogate mother may be compensated financially. It is illegal to promote commercial surrogacy, either by advertising surrogacy or by publicly announcing in social media that they are looking for a surrogate mother (https://www.government.nl/topics/surrogate-mothers/surrogacy-legal-aspects). Commercial surrogacy is legal in countries like India, Thailand, Russia, Ukraine and some states of the US. Advocates of commercial surrogacy believe that it is best to openly allow the practice so that it can be regulated and everyone’s rights can be protected. In countries where it is illegal, people will travel to access surrogacy services, so isn’t it better to regulate the services everywhere and save people time and money?

In my opinion, this kind of reasoning is unethical and harmful for both the women and the children. Regulation of commercial surrogacy perpetuates systems in which women are exploited to satisfy the belief that parents have the right to have children. Coerced surrogacy by spouses or intermediaries is a form of human trafficking, and it happens in places where commercial surrogacy is legal. It can be argued that regulation should be a way to protect the women involved, but I don’t believe that regulation protects anybody. Instead, it normalizes and covers up for the fact that surrogate mothers are women in situations of vulnerability and poverty. A pretty website and a big amount of money can easily ease the consciences of people that access these services, but it does not solve the deeper problem. Commercial surrogacy has to be understood not through individual cases, but within a system of power dynamics, where the rich get to make business with the poor, where women’s bodies are exploited for a profit. Regulating commercial surrogacy encourages that. It makes babies and women subject to market dynamics ruled by the laws of demand and supply. It promotes the idea that (rich) people can buy (poor) people. And when that is allowed, what happens with babies that are born with some kind of disorder? What happens if labor goes wrong and the surrogate mother dies?

But surrogacy has helped thousand of infertile couples, single parents and members of the LGBT community to get children. They have the same right to be parents than straight fertile couples! Of course they do. But that cannot be mistaken by a right to have children. That is, everyone should have equal rights to become a parent (the criteria to determine whether someone is able to be a parent cannot be based on sexuality or gender), but no one has a right to have children. No one has a right to treat children as goods. Instead, children do have a right to have a family, and there are so many children out there that need one that it sounds almost selfish that, when unable to conceive, someone contributes to a system that demonstrably abuses women and treats babies as products. Maybe the efforts in regulating surrogacy should be redirected in facilitating adoption processes and protecting kids that have already been born. People are beginning to understand that it is better to adopt a dog than to buy one that was specifically bred to make money. Same goes for babies. Plus, when surrogacy advocates bring LGBT people to the discussion, they are (pink) washing their faces. Arguments pro-surrogacy are not part of LGBT activism, and it is vile to pretend that they are and profit from that.

Altruist surrogacy happens when acquaintances of the intended parents volunteer to be the surrogate mothers. I have nothing to argue against that, as well as, in principle, I have nothing to argue against intended parents that want to compensate financially the voluntary surrogate mother, as it is legally allowed in the Netherlands. However, these cases are specific and are not part of the systemic problems that commercial regulated surrogacy carries. Commercial surrogacy is rooted in a misogynist and capitalist system where it is not wild to use vulnerable women, to sell babies, and to cover it all up with the liberal myth that poor people are free to be exploited.  

#im posting this here because maybe my university doesn't like it #surrogacy #i think i don't like science #the moment i could write something not scientific i wrote this #science #psychology #sexology #surrogate parents

[comrade-meow]

“If you’ve recently discovered radical feminism and would like to read more about the core issues - prostitution, surrogacy, pornography, misogyny in all its forms - here are some books we’d like to recommend. And to get you started, simply enter code FREEPOST at the website checkout and we’ll throw in free delivery to all Australian addresses. Use the links below to the books, read more about them, and add them to your cart. We’ve also put together a special bundle of all five books. Buy all five and save.

Let’s start your radfem library with the classic Radically Speaking: Feminism Reclaimed edited by Diane Bell and Renate Klein. Since the 1960s radical feminists have worked to articulate a vision of the world in which all women are safe and are acknowledged as human beings in their own right. Their projects include Take Back the Night campaigns, establishing women’s refuges, rape crisis centres, health centres, organising against pornography and developing courses in Women’s Studies. The richness of the practice and the theory of radical feminism is often misrepresented or unknown. Radically Speaking tells this important story. It’s a good starting point and has been described as an ‘incredibly powerful collection of articles by radical feminists about radical feminism.’

Prostitution Narratives: Stories of Survival in the Sex Trade, edited by Caroline Norma and Melinda Tankard Reist, documents the reality of prostitution revealing the cost to the lives of women and girls. For too long the global sex industry and its vested interests have dominated the prostitution debate repeating the same old line that “sex work” is just like any job. In large sections of the media, academia, public policy, Government and the law, the sex industry has had its way. Little is said of the damage, violation, suffering, and torment of prostitution on the body and the mind, nor of the deaths, suicides and murders that are routine in the sex industry. This important book refutes the lies and debunks the myths spread by the industry through the lived experiences of women who have survived prostitution. These disturbing stories give voice to formerly prostituted women who explain why they entered the sex trade. They bravely and courageously recount their intimate experiences of harm and humiliation at the hands of sex buyers, pimps and traffickers and reveal their escape and emergence as survivors. Prostitution Narratives: Stories of Survival in the Sex Trade will strengthen and support the global campaign to abolish prostitution, provide solidarity and solace to those who bear its scars and hopefully help women and girls exit this dehumanising industry. As one reviewer said “these narratives should serve as a rallying cry for action to end this modern-day slave trade.

”Informed and informative, thoughtful and thought-provoking, Prostitution Narratives: Stories of Survival in the Sex Trade is a compelling and exceptional read from beginning to end…— Midwest Book Review

Misogyny Re-loaded is an explosive manifesto against the resurgent sexual fascism of the new world order. By exposing the casual acceptance of snuff pornography in gore culture through to the framing of rape as slapstick, Abigail Bray links the celebration of sexual sadism to the rise of an authoritarian culture of militarised violence. Arguing that a meaningful collective resistance has been scattered by the mass destruction of genuine social and economic security for ordinary women, Misogyny Re-loaded presents a scathing critique of the political drool of mainstream billionaire-friendly feminism.

According to a New Statesman article by Victoria Smith @glosswitch feminists first started to express concerns about the development of reproductive technologies and the associated commoditisation of pregnancy during the 1980s. Spinifex Press speaks out about the multitude of harms caused by the practice of surrogacy around the world. As Robert Jensen asks in an article on Feminist Current how did we get here - an allegedly civilized world which treats a woman’s body as a commodity. And even polite liberal circles find it not only acceptable but a sign of being progressive, and celebrated — not only among many men but also many women, even among some feminists! 

Start reading more about surrogacy with Broken Bonds: Surrogate Mothers Speak Out. Who are the faceless, nameless women who nurture and give birth to these babies? These women who are left with empty arms and leaking breasts after delivery? Surrogacy-dealing companies call them ‘special angels’ who ‘make miracles possible’, giving ‘an extraordinary gift’. IVF clinics call them ‘gestational surrogates’. The intended parents have promised them healthcare, full reimbursement, and ongoing contact with the baby. What could possibly go wrong? Everything. Because surrogacy violates the human rights of the women whose bodies are used, and the children who are born. Because it is a fundamentally flawed and misogynist concept to imagine that women are interchangeable. And it is wishful thinking that watertight legal contracts and counselling can fix this.

 In Broken Bonds, strong and courageous women from the USA, the UK, Canada, Australia, India, Austria and Russia share their true stories of becoming 'surrogate' mothers out of kindness and compassion (or need for money), only to be deceived, neglected, abused, harassed, or abandoned by ‘baby buyers’, clinics, and lawyers. Their stories are tragic, shocking, and revelatory of a profit-driven industry that preys on desperation and women’s compassion. You won’t look at surrogacy the same way after reading it.

Lastly, your radfem collection requires a book on pornography and we’d recommend Big Porn Inc: Exposing the Harms of the Global Pornography Industry edited by Melinda Tankard Reist and Abigail Bray. With contributions from leading world experts and activists, Big Porn Inc offers a cutting edge exposé of the hidden realities of a multi-billion dollar global industry that promotes itself as a fashionable life-style choice. Unmasking the lies behind the selling of porn as ‘just a bit of fun’ Big Porn Inc reveals the shocking truths of an industry that trades in violence, crime and degradation. This fearless book will change the way you think about pornography forever. Contributors include: (Australia) Maggie Hamilton, Nina Funnell, Christopher Kendall, Susan Hawthorne, Sheila Jeffreys, Caroline Taylor, Meagan Tyler, Robi Sonderegger, Caroline Norma, Renate Klein, Helen Pringle, Betty McLellan, Melinda Tankard Reist, Abigail Bray, Melinda Liszewski. (International) Gail Dines, Catharine A MacKinnon, Melissa Farley, Diana Russell, Robert Jensen, Jeffrey Masson, Chyng Sun, Julia Long, Diane L Rosenfeld, Linda Thompson, Hiroshi Nakasatomi, Anne Mayne, Ruchira Gupta, Asja Armanda, Natalie Nenadic, Anna van Heeswijk, Matt McCormack Evans.

 Look out for a future post to highlight the next lot of books for your radfem collection and important books from Renate Klein, Julie Bindel, Rachel Moran, and many more. And if you’re interested in learning more about the books we publish please sign up to our newsletter and follow us on social media. Links in header above.

Spinifex Press books can be ordered directly from this website, from all good bookshops, online booksellers and ebook etailers. 

And please ask for them at your library.“

#Anglo.txt