Critical Social Policy-2003-Lynne Smith-63-88.pdf

8/10/2019 Critical Social Policy-2003-Lynne Smith-63-88.pdf

1/27

http://csp.sagepub.com/Critical Social Policy

http://csp.sagepub.com/content/23/1/63The online version of this article can be found at:

DOI: 10.1177/026101830302300104

2003 23: 63Critical Social PolicyJennifer Lynne Smith

Australian parliamentary discourse'Suitable mothers': lesbian and single women and the 'unborn' in

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

can be found at:Critical Social PolicyAdditional services and information for

http://csp.sagepub.com/cgi/alertsEmail Alerts:

http://csp.sagepub.com/subscriptionsSubscriptions:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navReprints:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navPermissions:

http://csp.sagepub.com/content/23/1/63.refs.htmlCitations:

What is This?

- Feb 1, 2003Version of Record>>

at Jazan University on July 24, 2014csp.sagepub.comDownloaded from at Jazan University on July 24, 2014csp.sagepub.comDownloaded from
http://csp.sagepub.com/http://csp.sagepub.com/http://csp.sagepub.com/http://csp.sagepub.com/content/23/1/63http://csp.sagepub.com/content/23/1/63http://www.sagepublications.com/http://www.sagepublications.com/http://csp.sagepub.com/cgi/alertshttp://csp.sagepub.com/cgi/alertshttp://csp.sagepub.com/subscriptionshttp://csp.sagepub.com/subscriptionshttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navhttp://csp.sagepub.com/content/23/1/63.refs.htmlhttp://online.sagepub.com/site/sphelp/vorhelp.xhtmlhttp://online.sagepub.com/site/sphelp/vorhelp.xhtmlhttp://csp.sagepub.com/content/23/1/63.full.pdfhttp://csp.sagepub.com/http://csp.sagepub.com/http://csp.sagepub.com/http://csp.sagepub.com/http://csp.sagepub.com/http://csp.sagepub.com/http://online.sagepub.com/site/sphelp/vorhelp.xhtmlhttp://csp.sagepub.com/content/23/1/63.full.pdfhttp://csp.sagepub.com/content/23/1/63.refs.htmlhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navhttp://csp.sagepub.com/subscriptionshttp://csp.sagepub.com/cgi/alertshttp://www.sagepublications.com/http://csp.sagepub.com/content/23/1/63http://csp.sagepub.com/


2/27

63

JENNIFER LYNNE SMITH

University of Queensland

Suitable mothers: lesbian and single women andthe unborn inAustralian parliamentary discourse

Abstract

Throughout the latter months of 2000 and early 2001, theAustralianpublic, media and parliament were engaged in a long and emotivedebate about motherhood. This debate constructed the two main

protagonists, the unborn child and the potential mother, with a varietyof different and often oppositional identities. The article looks at the

way that these subject identities interacted during the debate, startingfrom the premise that policy making has unintended and unacknow-

ledged material outcomes, and using governmentality as a tool throughwhich to analyse and understand processes of identity manipulation andresistance within policy making. The recent debate concerning the rightof lesbian and single women to access new reproductive technologies in

Australia is used as a case study. Nominally the debate was about accessto IVF technology; in reality, however, the debate was about the

governing of women and, in particular, the governing of motherhoodidentities. The article focuses on the parliamentary debate over the

drafting of legislation designed to stop lesbian and single women from

accessing these technologies, particularly the utilization of the unborn

subject within these debates as a device to discipline the identity ofmother.

Key words: governmentality, identity, motherhood, policy, reproduct-ive technologies, sexuality

The potential foetus/child subject

Children are our future, they are our investment in the next generationand they are people in their own right. I do not want the children of thenext generation to look back at us and say, You failed us.At a time

at Jazan University on July 24, 2014csp.sagepub.comDownloaded from
http://csp.sagepub.com/http://csp.sagepub.com/http://csp.sagepub.com/http://csp.sagepub.com/


3/27

64

when we werent even born - when we were without voice - you failed

us. I feel very strongly about this legislation because I think that the

voiceless, the vulnerable and the unheard have a place in this

parliament. (DeAnne Kelly, Hansard, 3April 2001: 26297)

The above quote, taken from a parliamentary speech made by theAustralian Federal National Party Member for Dawson, DeAnne

Kelly, focuses on the rights of children to expect a happy and safechildhood in which they are loved and cared for.An interesting aspectof this speech is that the children to whom Kelly referred were not yetborn and, indeed, not yet conceived. The aim of Kellys speech was to

support government legislation resulting in fertility clinics being ableto refuse services to lesbian and single women, thereby stopping thesewomen from becoming pregnant and raising children. Ironically,given this aim, we can see that, were the potential childrens rights tobe addressed as Kelly would have liked, they would not have beenborn at all. However, such is the emotive weight of the potentialfoetus/child subject that the majority of the debate is centred aroundthe needs and

rightsof this silent

potential subject.The character-

istics of this debate will be discussed shortly, but for now let us focuson the growing spectre of the unborn, its dimensions, utilization and

developing position within public discourse.

Throughout the debate, we continually come into contact withthe highly emotive presence of the unborn, a construct to which isadhered a corporeal nature, positioned as innocent, voiceless and ripefor exploitation, a body whose rights, in this debate, are positioned in

opposition to those of their potential mothers. Several recent academicworks from across a variety of disciplines have sought to address theconstruction of the unborn and its origins (Duden, 1993; Kaplan,1994; McLean and Petersen, 1996; Miller and Rock, 1998; Newman,1996; Weir, 1996; Weir and Habib, 1997). For the purpose of thisresearch, I use the term unborn in order to cover a variety of conceptsused to position the potential foetus/child as a public actor. I havechosen the term unborn to reflect this entity because of the frequencywith which it is used during the parliamentary debate from which Ihave taken my corpus.1

The unborn has been constructed as a public actor within a

variety of different contexts, and each of these contexts has had to

respond to its presence by rearranging hierarchies of meaning and



4/27

65

merit. Take, for example, the medical context: through developmentsin medical technology and foetal therapy within the medical arena,the

appearance of theunborn

hasmeant

thatcore

conceptssuch as the

patient have had to be reconsidered (McLean and Petersen, 1996:229). Increasingly, medical practitioners have found themselves con-

sidering whether their loyalties (both professional and legal) lie withthe unborn or with the pregnant woman.A 1995 report by Seymourentitled Fetal Welfare and the Law was produced in response to the

legal and professional concerns of many among theAustralian medical

profession to this question. The report aimed at balancing the needs of

both women and foetuses and found that, while the law should not beused to regulate the mother, it was nevertheless up to doctors to useeducation to properly inform women of all the possible consequencesof their actions (Marks, 1995). The inherent rather than explicitregulation of the mother in this response is indicative of the ways that

gatekeepers such as doctors, the law and the government can intrudeinto the intimate relationship between mother and child and, in

doingso,

symbolically separateone from the other.

The protection of the foetus (and through it the potential child)from the mother also serves to both create the foetus as a public actorand to separate it from the pregnant woman on whom it is dependent.This protection takes various forms and has been instituted both

legally and socially. Sex exclusionary policies have been institutedwithin various industries since the 19th century to stop women who

might conceive from damaging their foetuses through working in

conditions that were potentially hazardous (Starrels, 1995: 313, 315).Recently inAustralia, pregnant netballers were forced off the court byNetballAustralia, the main organizing body of the sport, for reasonsthat included potential foetal harm (Taylor, 2001). In Canada and the

USA, courts have forced women into custody for the good of a foetuswhom they were potentially endangering through drug abuse. Theyhave also sought to control the mothers behaviour by makingexamples of women who give birth to drug addicted babies, chargingthem with either child abuse or the delivery of a controlled substanceto a minor via the umbilical cord directly following birth (Schueller,1999: 167, 170). In all of these cases, society identifies the foetus as

needing protection from the mother, stepping in to imposerestrictions on the mothers conduct. These cases also serve to further



5/27

66

identify the foetus as a prominent public actor, endowing it withrights which society uses various institutions to enforce.

Far from

beinga new construct, it has been

arguedthat the

publicfoetus has been present as a subject of our social imagination forhundreds of years, being contingent on the social context in which itis situated (Newman, 1996). Our current understanding of theunborn as a subject has been created in response to recent develop-ments and contests in social knowledge and technology, including the

.

abortion debate, new reproductive technologies, genetic science and

imaging technologies. Imaging technologies such as ultrasound have

had a profound effect on how we both visualize the foetus andcharacterize it as a valid public actor, thereby allowing it to befurnished with certain rights. Where a woman would once have beenthe controller of information concerning the foetus she was carrying,medical knowledge has developed as a gatekeeper whereby society andmedicine are now able to look into the womb and comment on foetal

development and how this should best be handled (McLean andPetersen, 1996: 229). Practices such as the screening of foetuses

through amniocentesis in order to identify birth defects create the

identity of the abnormal foetus that needs to be dealt with (Millerand Rock, 1998: 293-4). Through processes such as this medicaltechnology, the society that creates and comments on this technologycan enter into and control the intimate relationship between thewoman and her foetus.

High profile foetal images such as the photographs by Swedish

photographer Lennart Nilsson, which graced the cover and contents ofa 1965 Life magazine, have entered the public imagination as

representations of foetal identity (Newman, 1996: 10-18). These

images have been taken up and reconstructed by the anti-abortionmovement as representations of the humanity of the unborn. Theyalso almost universally exclude the mother, thereby positioning thefoetus as central and separate from the mother. When positionedagainst the invisible mother, Miller and Rock (1998: 288) suggestthat this visibility gives the foetus a higher moral and politicalsignificance through its apparent silent innocence. Such images areused in conjunction with linguistic strategies that seek to endow theunborn with the rights of personhood and citizenship, therebyattempting to create the unborn as a visible and equal member of



6/27

67

society. This embodiment of the unborn as a person simultaneouslydisembodies the mother and makes her invisible within such

discourses.

The manner in which the unborn is made visible via these

strategies also reinforces its imagined voicelessness, thereby allowingthe opportunity for other groups to take up its voice supposedly on itsbehalf. It is this practice that DeAnne Kelly is engaging in, asdemonstrated in the quote presented above. Through taking up thevoice of the unborn, she is able to endow it with needs, rights and a

persona and, through this, construct it as an innocent yet needy

subject to be protected from those who would wish to exploit it fortheir own needs. Such tactics are also used by the anti-abortionmovement which endows the foetus with similar characteristics. This

serves to further displace the mother within our social and cultural

imagination by endowing the unborn with a persona separate fromthat of the mother (Kaplan, 1994: 122). Because the unborn in realityhas no voice, the potential ways that this putative voice can be

portrayed by other groups are almost unlimited. The potential for

utilizing this voice to constrain and govern the potential mother, andthrough her the potential child, is therefore also unlimited. In thedebate over access to reproductive technologies, we see the voicing ofthe unborn and, through this, the development of the unborn as adiscursive device through which to govern the mother. This process of

governing will now be discussed in greater detail.

Januss mother: governing the governor

The concept of governmentality is a very useful tool for the analysis ofthe tangled power relationships that shape the conceptualization,behaviour and interaction of women, children, potential foetuses,foetuses, potential mothers and mothers. It is a conceptual tool for usto see how the discursive device of the unborn is utilized in order to

manipulateactual lives.

Governmentalitywas an idea first fashioned

and put to use by Michel Foucault (1991[1979]) and since then hasgenerated an abundance of research into the nature of the governing of

personal and social identities and how specific subject identities areconstructed within social discourses. Mitchell Dean provides a usefuldefinition of governmentality:



7/27

68

Government is any more or less calculated and rational activity,undertaken by a multiplicity of authorities and agencies, employing a

variety of techniques and forms of knowledge, that seeks to shapeconduct by working through our desires, aspirations, interests andbeliefs for definite but shifting ends and with a diverse set of relativelyunpredictable consequences, effects and outcomes. (Dean, 1998: 11 )

Foucault likens the study of government to a study of the conduct ofconduct, whereby conduct comprises individual behaviours andactions and also the process of controlling ourselves and others within

given situations and relationships (Foucault, 1982: 220-1). Modern

practices of government reach into all aspects of our lives, fashioningour conduct according to the ever-changing discourses that accom-

pany different regimes of governance. These discourses, such as thecurrent political and social discourse of neoliberalism operating in

Australia, are created with the aim of regulating the conduct ofindividuals so that they conform to the ideals and beliefs of the

governing regime. This regulation takes place everywhere, evenwithin

relationshipssuch as

those thatare

physically intangible likethat between a woman and the idea of the potential child or foetuswhich she carries within her psyche.

Feminist theory developed an idea of the female body as a

politically inscribed entity, its physiology and morphology shaped andmarked by histories and practices of containment and control (Bordo,1994: 230). For Foucault, incorporating and building on this work,individual bodies are regulated, subjected and reconfigured through

discourse (Jose, 1998: 36). Writing about subject identities in certainways regulates how these view themselves and those systems and

subjects that operate around them (Bristow, 1997: 170).As Foucaultwrites (1979: 136, 138), regulation or discipline produces subjectedand practiced bodies, &dquo;docile&dquo; bodies [that may be] used, transformedand improved. This regulation sets out to create bodies that are usefulto the particular regimes of governance that an individual is subject toin a given context.As Mitchell Dean points out (1998: 22-3), the

rationale and practices of different actors come together to create aparticular matrix of ends and purposes which, among other things,works to form subjects, selves, persons, actors or agents in particularways. In this particular case, I also contend that this stretches to the

imagined, to the potential foetus as it exists personally within the



8/27

69

minds of women and, more generally, within the social imagination.In the case of the unborn and the In Vitro Fertilisation (IVF) debate in

Australia,we can see

that the actors within the particular regime ofpractice around policy making (the media, lobby groups, politicians,doctors, the general public) come together to construct an identity forthis imagined subject. The inscription of womens identities also takes

place within the practice of policy making, whereby women aredefined and managed through policy actions that reflect thesedefinitions. Thus, the unborn works as a discursive device that isutilized in policy making in order to manipulate and construct ideas

of motherhood.In conjunction with the use of the discursive device, processes of

normalization work towards shaping our conceptualization of mothersand thereby contribute to the governing of women.Any subjectpositioned outside the ever-changing concept of normality is pres-sured by discipline or regulation until they fit the norm and are no

longer resistant to the ideas and practices of the governing regimes

(Foucault, 1979: 20-1; Taylor, 1998: 333).Social

policycreates the

concept of a normal woman through discourses in which norms ofwomanhood are articulated over and over again and then enshrined in

legislation that regulates women to live normally (Carabine, 1996:64-6). The characterization ofdeviance and normativity is played out,on and within womens bodies from all angles, with womens sexu-

ality, race, nature as carers and mothers, wealth, ability, age and looks,for example, all being normalized. Women are therefore constantly

undergoing a process of self- and other-initiated regulation whichgoverns their behaviour. In the case of the construction of legislationaround IVF access, lesbian and single women are positioned as deviant

by the governing regime and are constructed discursively as such

through the discourse of the policy debate. The discursive device ofthe unborn works as a tool for policy makers in fashioning thesewomen as deviant subjects.

Mothers take up an interesting governing position in thattheyact as important governors while continually being subject to

governing which seeks to shape their mothering behaviour. Womensbehaviour is fashioned by the actual foetus or child for whom she isresponsible as a parent, in that the governing social regimes prescribea structured course of action that she should follow if she is to be



9/27

70

considered a good mother. Conversely, women are also responsiblefor the governing of their children, instilling in them practices thatwill fashion them into responsible and useful citizens. Sarah Nettleton(1991) has discussed this in her research on dental discourse that

shapes the behaviour of mothers by linguistically constructing a

conceptualization of good mothering with regard to dental hygiene.With the good dental conscious mother in place, mothers in turn

govern their children so that they take into their lives behaviours thatfit with appropriate dental care regimes. Mothers are, therefore, not

only subject to governing, but also themselves carry out an important

governing role within society, exercising social governance throughthe way they teach, care for and discipline their children (Nettleton,1991: 101-3). This is key for us in understanding why so muchemphasis is placed on the good mother within political and policymaking discourses. The significance of the social policy debate - inthis case, the debate around IVF access - is that it often actuallyenshrines these processes of normalization and governance throughlegislative outcomes, thereby enforcing the regulation of womens

bodies in a highly formalized way.

The debate

The continuing debate over the provision of IVF and associatedservices such as donor insemination (DI) to lesbian and single women

has raised many interesting questions for contemporaryAustralia.The

debate concerns proposed changes to the federal Sex DiscriminationAct 1984 which, if successful, would allow states to restrict access to

reproductive technologies on the grounds of marital status, therebypreventing lesbians and single women from accessing these services.The issue is a highly salient one for the general population, havingbeen widely discussed publicly within government and the media.IVF is therefore much more than a medical procedure, provoking

wide ranging social questions for both individual women and societyin general (Sullivan, 1989: 33). However, there has been a generallack of academic discussion of these issues, especially those involvinggovernmentality and the construction and interaction of the different

subject identities involved in the debate.



10/27

71

Controversy has accompanied every step in the development ofIVF procedures. During the 1980s, controversies over IVF were

mainly concerned with the practices of gamete donation and embryoscreening (Anleu, 1990: 40; Ewing, 1988: 31). Other more recentethical debates in Australia have concerned issues like the sale of

gametes on the Internet or posthumous assisted reproduction, withheadlines like I Want to Have My Dead Husbands Babies capturingthe publics attention (Riley, 2001; see also Rayner, 2000; Winckel,1998: 289). Other controversial issues such as the provision ofIVF for

post-menopausal women and the recent Woman, 62, Had Brothers

Baby (Bremner, 2001 ) case in France have continued to fuel societysunease about the boundaries of reproductive technologies and have ledto public debates about restricting access (see also Bita, 2002: 16;Carter, 1997).

During the late 1990s and on into the new century, the most

frequent controversy around reproductive technologies has been with

regard to restrictions placed on access to services. InAustralia, statesand individual service

providershave been able to limit access to

reproductive technologies. The major point of restriction has been onthe grounds of marital status. Legislation restricting access to de factoor married couples is in place in Victoria (the Victorian legislation was

only made to include de facto couples in 1997) and SouthAustralia.Other states and territories had no legislation restricting IVF access,but took their lead from the National Health and Medical Research

Council (NHMRC, the major body governing medical research and

research ethics inAustralia) guidelines which said that the techno-logies should only be provided to those in accepted family relation-

ships (Millbank, 1997: 126-7). It is this concept ofacceptable and

non-acceptable family relationships that has caused most debatearound access to IVF services inAustralia in recent years.

AcrossAustralia, cases went before the courts in order to chal-

lenge the restrictive nature of these rulings and the fact that the state

legislation apparently contravened the Sex DiscriminationAct 1984(Carrick, 1997: 12; Millbank, 1997: 129; QFG & GK vJM, 1997: 13;Statham, 1998: 19; Walker, 2000: 294). Increasing calls during the1990s for change on the basis of human rights, womens rights andlesbian and gay rights were met with a mostly hostile response from

legislators (Bell, 2000). However, in July 2000, Dr John McBain, a



11/27

72

Melbourne gynaecologist, commenced proceedings in the FederalCourt ofAustralia to seek a declaration that Victorias InfertilityTreatmentAct 1995 was inconsistent with Section 22 of the Sex

Discrimination Act 1984, which concerned discrimination on thebasis of marital status (Walker, 2000: 294). The Federal Court ruledin favour of Dr McBain, thereby overturning all legislation contraryto the Sex DiscriminationAct and opening the door for single womenand lesbians to IVF treatment (Crosweller, 2000). Immediatelyfollowing this decision, controversy broke out as citizens, interest

groups and politicians made their feelings known and made moves to

support or negate the decision.

The Government has decided to amend the Sex DiscriminationAct so as

to permit any state to legislate to the effect of the VictorianAct underconsideration in the McBain case.... This issue primarily involves thefundamental right of a child within our society to have the reasonable

expectation, other things being equal, of the care and affection of both amother and a father.... It is the Governments view that the Sex

DiscriminationAct was never intended to prevent States legislating torestrict IVF procedures to married women or those women living with aman in a de-facto relationship. (Howard, 2000)

As this press release states, Prime Minister John Howard and hisConservative coalition government immediately came out in opposi-tion to the decision and declared that they would put a bill to

parliament with the aim of amending the Sex DiscriminationAct so

that it permits State and Territory laws to discriminate on the basis ofmarital status in the provision of &dquo;assisted reproductive technologyservices&dquo; (Bills Digest, 2000-01: 5). These amendments were passedby the Federal House of Representatives in April 2001. Howard

justified the introduction of the bill by appealing to the rights of thechild and issues of state autonomy (2000-01 : 6-9).

Those most vocal in their support of the amendments were the

Liberal and National parties, conservative

family-orientedgroups and

most of the major churches, appealing to the nuclear family ideal and

citing biblical and moral reasoning.2 These groups argued that IVFprocedures should be regulated to make the welfare of the child

paramount at all times (Tarrant, 2000: 101). IVF regulation beforethe McBain case used a very heteronormative definition of the



12/27

73

family, despite this being inconsistent with other areas of the law(2000: 100, 104). The upholding of this definition (which also

excludes single women) was not basedon

scientific research, butrather on the social myths and norms of good parenting (Porter,1997: 4-5; Tarrant, 2000: 101; Walker, 2000: 296). Those groups in

support of the amendments capitalized on these social myths, con-

stantly articulating the idea that a child needs a mum and a dad and

using a rights-based discourse in order to back this up (James, 2000:16). Take, for example, the following quotes:

The issue primarily involves the right of a child within our society tohave the reasonable expectation, other things being equal, of the careand affection of both a mother and a father. (Williams, 2000)

We must support the fundamental right of children to grow up in a

family with both a mother and a father. (John Bradford, ChristianDemocratic Party, Press Release, 3August 2000)

Wedont seek in any way

to

discriminate against peoplewho are

homosexual. Thats their business. The issue is the rights of children.

(John Howard, TheAustralian, 2August 2000: 1 ).

While each of these statements was made by those in support of theamendment, the Labor Party, feminist, human rights and gay andlesbian rights groups used a variety of tactics in order to promoteopposing arguments.3 Labor generally supported womens rights, but

support was by no means unanimous within the party, with manyLabor members publicly calling for a vote of conscience on the issue

(Humphreys et al., 2000). Feminist groups focused on the rights ofwomen to make autonomous decisions about their own reproduction,and gay and lesbian groups cited the proposed amendments as yetanother homophobic attack on their rights by the Conservative federal

government (Emilys List, 2000). Public debate was generally framed

by the conflicting views on the issue of rival lobby groups, with mediadiscourse tending to focus on the suitability of single and lesbianwomen to raise children without the aid of a man.4 Childrens rightswere therefore positioned against the rights of women (WEL, 2001:2). This set up a dynamic whereby the discursive device of theunborn could be utilized as a tool of governance over women.



13/27

74

The unborn in the debate

The Australianparliamentary

debate over IVF access created the

unborn as a prominent actor, affording this subject various common

physical, emotional and social qualities and thereby constructing it asan entity in the consciousness of those involved in or listening to thedebate. Various adjectives are repeatedly used to describe the unbornsuch as voiceless, vulnerable and needy. Other commonly repeatedthemes are those of rights and needs. The unborn is afforded rightsand ascribed needs which are in turn required to be fulfilled by both

their parents and society as a whole. By considering the major waysthat the unborn are evoked within the debate, we are able to contrastand compare this to the identities that the debate produces for singlewomen and lesbians. In doing so, we see how the identity of theunborn is used as a discursive device to govern the natures of their

prospective parents.Throughout the debate, a number of terms are used to represent

the ideal entity that I refer to as the unborn. The emotive value of

these terms gradually evokes for the listener a concrete characteriza-tion of the unborn subject.As previously discussed, I chose the termunborn because a number of participants in the debate utilized this

specific word to represent the potential foetus/child subject. Otherwords and phrases used to represent the subject are future children,intended child, individual yet to be born and living human

person. However, Howard, and indeed most of those involved in the

debate, regularly use the word child in order to represent what I havereferred to as the unborn. The unborn subject is then discursivelyconstructed with characteristics that allow the parliamentarians totake up its voice and create an identity for the subject that can beutilized in order to govern the potential mother.

The unborn in this debate are constantly constructed as childrenwho are voiceless and unheard. For example, DeAnne Kelly, theFederal National Party Member for Dawson, stated: I feel very

strongly about this legislation because I think that the voiceless, thevulnerable and the unheard have a place in this parliament (Hansard,2001: 26297). This way of speaking about the unborn is oftenutilized as a tool, in conjunction with words like vulnerable, in orderto construct the unborn as needing protection and advocacy. In this



14/27

75

way, those supporting the amendments are able to take up the cause ofthe unborn and in several cases actually enact their voices and

emotions. Kelly does this directly in the quote with which this articlebegan, where she commented, I do not want the children of the next

generation to look back at us and say, &dquo;you failed us.At a time whenwe werent even born - when we were without voice - you failed us&dquo;

(Hansard, 2001: 26297). This is an example of the governments tacticof constructing a rhetoric designed to animate a subject that is, in

reality, a potential idea of a child. By doing so, the listener is made tofeel more emotively attached via the projection of an imaginary

humanity onto the subject. Likewise, discourses of rights andneeds, usually only ascribed to living citizens, help to animate andhumanize the subject, allowing us to forget the fact that the

potential child/foetus will never be part of humanity if the governmentlegislation is made law.

InAustralian society rights are only legally afforded to individualsonce they are born.5 In this particular debate, however, rights are

constantlyextended to the unborn and this is

subsequentlyused as

the basis for many arguments in support of the proposed amend-ments.An example of the use of the rights discourse for the unborn

subject is illustrated in the following statement byAlan Cadman, theLiberal Party Member for Mitchell, who states that children can be

deliberately deprived of their rights to be in contact with and caredfor by both parents (Hansard, 2001: 26199). Likewise, the LiberalParty Member for Herbert, Peter Lindsay, states that children have

the right to be brought up in a family based upon the marriage of aman and a woman (Hansard, 2001: 26192). These phrases are typicalof those made throughout the parliamentary debate in relation to the

rights of the unborn. Prime Minister John Howards initial pressrelease on the topic of the amendments is repeated mantra-like in

parliamentary speeches articulating the governments argument. The

press release contains the statement: This issue primarily involves thefundamental right of a child within our society to have the reasonable

expectation, other things being equal, of the care and affection of botha mother and a father (Howard, 2000; emphasis added). Thisstatement is mentioned, wholly or in part, 22 times during the

parliamentary debate and is often used as the point around which

arguments both for and against the amendments are proposed. Here



15/27

76

Howard is talking about children who are not yet born or even

conceived; these are children who will never exist if the government issuccessful in its aim to ban lesbian and single women from

accessingreproductive technologies and thereby conceiving. He is therefore

according rights to what can only be perceived as potential children.The use of the terms and phrases child, future children, individualchild and individual yet to be born creates an imperative spin to the

naming of the subject. This gives a false sense of inevitability, lendingthe argument a spurious weight. The logic of the governmentargument disintegrates if the intended audience realizes that it is

arguing for the right of these children not to be born to these womenand, therefore, not to be born at all. The argument works because it

employs a persuasive emotionality in the minds of the listeners

through invoking an idea of the perfect, innocent, silent child

subject to the mercy of flawed adults. This child apparently thereforeneeds to be saved by an intervening compassionate government.

The neediness of the unborn is also highlighted in this debate asa tool which constructs the subject in a certain way and elicits anemotive response that sways the listener in a particular way. Take, forexample, the phrases listed in Table 1. These statements concerningthe parenting needs of children are repeated over and over throughoutthe debate by the Conservative members of parliament. Here, themale and female parenting unit, ideally situated in a heterosexual de

jure marriage, is articulated and expressed as a fundamental need.What the utilization of discourses ofneed does in this context is

develop and expand our understanding of childrens needs by intro-ducing new needs to an already established lexicon. While fewwould argue against the necessity of the care and protection clause inHowards initial press release, this debate introduces the necessity for

specifically male and female parents into our understanding of child-rens needs. While the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child1989 states that a child should have as far as possible, the right toknow and be cared for by his or her parents, the Convention nevermentions the marital or biological status of the parents. The public,through continual repetition of these phrases, is encouraged to believethat the needs ofa child include the needs for, variously, a husband and

wife, a mum and dad, a mother and father, a loving mother and

loving father or any father. Through discourses ofneeds and rights,



16/27

77

the identity of the unborn is fashioned for use as a discursive devicewhich can then be utilized to govern the identity of the mother.

Through constructing the unborn as an innocent, needy, vulnerable,voiceless entity that possesses rights, the unborn identity can easily be

positioned against that of its potential mother who, as we shall see, isconstructed as good, bad, normal, deviant and even dangerous.

Table 1 The needy unborn



17/27

78

Mothers: the good, the bad and the ugly

Whereas the unborn are presented within this debate in a manner thatcreates them as vulnerable, voiceless children, womens subjectivityis defined by the government as flawed and predatory. Differentcategories of motherhood are constructed and enforced, such as goodand bad lesbian, normal and abnormal mother and deserving and

undeserving single mother. Within this, the broad identity grouplesbian is articulated in a monolithic manner that homogenizesdifferent lesbian identities and feeds off and responds to stereotypical

representations. The same occurs for single women who, along withlesbian women, are demonized for desiring an antisocial form ofmotherhood. The perpetuation of this negative language throughoutsets up lesbian and single women as subjects both open to and in needof a disciplinary governing driven by the more pure and unselfishneeds and rights of the unborn.A detailed study of the language usedto represent women and their relation to the unborn makes these

practices of governance very obvious.

Such practices are enacted in various ways within the debate. Thefirst to be discussed focuses on the political agency of the different

subjects, positioning lesbian and single women in opposition to theunborn. Throughout the debate, single and lesbian women are

continually characterized by those on the government benches as

noisy and vocal; they are seen as operating within highly sophistic-ated minority groups which use their organizational power todominate and

suppressthe views of the silent

majority (Schultz,Hansard, 2001: 26305).As DeAnne Kelly stated:

I think that the voiceless, the vulnerable and the unheard have a place inthis parliament. I do not think that noisy lobby groups, minoritygroups and so on should be allowed... to have their voice heard above

those who have no voice. (Hansard, 2001: 26297)

Womens lobby groups are accused of using noisy tactics in order toassert their rights over the rights of the unborn and their voices overthe majority. Silent children are constructed as indistinguishablefrom the silent majority ofAustralians united against the noisytroublemakers (Schultz, Hansard, 2001 : 26305). Employing imageryfrom popular culture, Kelly also describes feminist and gay and



18/27

79

lesbian lobby groups as the usual suspects, negatively highlightingtheir lobbying practices which are portrayed as drowning out the

silent majority of hardworking decentAustralians (Kelly, Hansard,2001: 26295, 26297). This, in turn, works to silence such mothers byteaching them that their noisy lobbying is selfish and is endangeringthe needs of the silent unborn. In this way, they are constructed asdeviant when compared to normal mothers whose established and

accepted role is to nurture and protect the unborn.

Throughout the debate, tactics are employed which encourage thelistener to accept a particular reading of single and lesbian women,

particularly through their opposition to the heterosexual, couplednorm. This gradually and subtly constitutes these women as deviant.If we look again at Kellysuse of the phrase hardworking decent

Australians, we see an attempt to characterize lesbian and singlewomen as sitting in opposition to respectful members of the

population. By positioning lesbian and single women as contrary to

hardworking decentAustralians, we are left to conclude that thesewomen must be slothful, indecent others.

Nothing is more precious than a child. I am sure that all of usremember the feeling when we held our newborn child in our arms.Asa parent, I know that having a child provides a real purpose to life and

is, frankly, a lifetime joy. For parents, the creation of a safe, protective,happy and supportive environment for our children is one of the mainaims in our life. I fully agree with the Prime Minister. (Kelly, Hansard,2001: 26294)

As exemplified in the above quote, government speakers often set uptheir arguments in support of the legislation by describing their ownnormal situation as parents and stating how they feel about childrenand parenting (Schultz, Hansard, 2001: 26304; St Claire, Hansard,2001: 26210).A logic is developed which gradually constructslesbian and single women in opposition to this ideal. This strengthensthe norm and also serves to entrench the deviance of the other,

constructing single and lesbian women as needing to be kept in checkbecause their aberrant nature poses a risk to the unborn. Those on the

opposition benches also describe the normality of their own families,using this tactic in order to gain the authority to speak - an authorityalready undermined by the government through their perceived



19/27

80

association with the deviant other - and, in doing so, also strength-ening in the listeners minds the heterosexual, coupled ideal (Horne,

Hansard,2001 :

26207).Throughout the debate, womens needs are portrayed as bad anddangerous and childrens needs as natural and vulnerable, a compar-ison that serves to govern women by deprioritizing their needs infavour of the needs of the unborn. The womens needs, as representedby their desire for children, are portrayed as bad and dangerous.Positioned against the natural needs of the vulnerable unborn child,the aberrance of the womens needs becomes clear, as does the need for

discipline. The following statements were made during the debateabout the general dangers children face as a result of having lesbian or

single mothers:

a child who is brought up in a traditional family... with a mum anda dad are lsic] happier, healthier and more well adjusted to deal with lifeas they grow up. I do not believe that a single woman or a woman livingin a same sex relationship and having an IVF procured child has the

capacity to provide for the whole range of a childs emotional needs.(Kelly, Hansard, 2001 : 26296)

I believe it is possible to legislate against unhappy families. We oughtto be making decisions to prevent those circumstances where childrenare going to have less chance or less opportunity.... I believe the

parliament has an absolute responsibility to maximise the opportunitiesfor children, to exclude the chance of damage being done and of any risk

to children. (Cadman, Hansard, 2001 : 26198)

These statements lead us to understand that children being raised bylesbian or single women will be unhappy, unhealthy, maladjusted,emotionally lacking, have less chance and opportunity and be put atrisk. These damning accusations about the appropriateness of parent-ing by these women are backed up by phrases that describe defi-ciencies in the very natures of lesbian and single women.

Single women and lesbians are constantly referred to using negativeverbs and adjectives to describe their personas and impact on children.Table 2 presents phrases that are used at various times in the debate.Phrases like legitimate single mums, loving mother, suitable

mothers, and so on also serve to highlight the fact that lesbian and



20/27

81

single women fit outside ofthe norm by hinting at the existence of theirinverse: illegitimate, unloving, unsuitable mothers. Through this lan-

guage,women are

portrayedas

being dangerousto the unborn and

thereby in need of discipline by society and the state. This rhetoric andthe use of the case studies of normal parenting referred to abovedemonstrate to women their own deviance when compared to how anormal parent acts and feels. Through this, a process of governanceoccurs in which women are shown the unacceptability of their parent-ing desires and are then constrained to act in an acceptable way via

legislation.The debate develops a hierarchy within the different categories of

deviant motherhood whereby some women are deemed to be more

acceptable (or less deviant) than others. Lesbian and single women,while similarly affected by the proposed legislation, are constructed in

very different ways throughout the debate, especially by those on the

opposition benches. These speakers create the entity of the goodlesbian by continually articulating an ideal of lesbian parenthood.

Take, for example, the following quotes:I know a lesbian couple - they are professional people with two children... those children are in a stable, loving environment. They are caredfor by both parents, and they are a delight of the whole of the

community. (Home, Hansard, 2001 : 26207)

Table 2 The nature of lesbian and single women



21/27

82

My Partner, Jane, and I have been in a stable, same-sex relationship forover 10 years. We are committed emotionally to each other, own ourown house, share our finances, nurture each others careers.... I havetaken extended leave from my work to be at home with [the children]while Jane has worked full time to support us. (letter quoted by Roxon,Hansard, 2001: 26312-13)

These examples, used by those on the opposition benches, constructthe concept of the good lesbian woman who fulfils all the criteriaassociated with good citizenship. Despite the very blatant demoniz-ation of lesbian women by those on the government benches (seeespecially Schultz, Hansard, 2001: 26302, 26304), those in oppositionto the amendments, as seen in the quotes from Home and Roxonabove, present lesbian women as three-dimensional characters whosenatures are enacted and given reality through case studies and

personal accounts.6 This practice constructs the lesbian ideal which is

employed, partnered and otherwise fulfils the criteria of good citizen-ship, such as paying taxes and community mindedness, as a citizen

worthyof

government support.These women are

encouraged because,despite their obvious deviance in choosing the same-sex lifestyle,they otherwise characterize good citizenship. Because they are deemedto be good citizens, they can be trusted to govern their children andraise them to also be good citizens. Opposition members therefore donot construct negative discourses around these mothers because theyare in no need of governance. Single women, on the other hand, aredemonized and criticized by those on both sides of the house, which

opens them up to a wide range of governing.Single women in the debate are presented in a very two-

dimensional stereotyped way that serves to dehumanize them and

opens them up to demonization. Unlike lesbian couples, no casestudies of the circumstances of actual single mothers are given, whichserves to construct the discussion of single women around the

negatively stereotyped single mother entity. Where lesbian womenseem to be redeemed and humanized through the close resemblance oftheir lifestyles to the ideal citizen, single women are almost univer-sally seen in a negative light throughout the debate, even by those inopposition to the proposed amendments, as seen by the followingquote from Labor Party Member for Paterson, Robert Home:Divorce, desertion, death and other factors condemn many children



22/27

83

to be raised in single parent homes without security, care or love.

Amending the Sex DiscriminationAct will not alter this reality

(Hansard,2001:

26209). Singlewomen are

constantlyseen as ineffi-

cient carers and poor citizens, with a distinction being made betweenvalid and non-valid single mothers.As Kelly states, Let me sayquite clearly this is not a judgement on those sole parents who,through divorce, death or other unforeseen circumstances, find them-selves raising children alone (Hansard, 2001: 26296). This sentimentis articulated repeatedly throughout the debate by those on both sidesof the chamber. The single mothers to which Kelly refers above areseen as valid because they have not chosen to raise children in thismanner. It is a womans ability to choose this life and to make thatchoice on her own or without a valid partner that is deemed

problematic. In government arguments, it seems that any man, nomatter how long he is in a womans life for, is necessary for valid

conception. Women are therefore not trusted to be able to make adecision about their own reproduction: single motherhood is onlyvalidated if it

happens accidentally.Other women are seen as

makinga choice that is deliberately and knowingly dangerous for the unbornchild. Those on the government side therefore reason that safeguardsneed to be put in place by the government to curb womens ability tomake these choices. The operation of the unborn as a discursivedevice in these processes is a very clear tactic by the government in

governing womens behaviour. The paradox is, of course, that theseunborn children, whose rights are being so vehemently defended by

the government, will in fact not be born at all if single women doconform to this governing and decide not to reproduce.

Conclusions

This study is an exercise in policy analysis. The main aim was to

investigate the premise that policy making has unintended materialoutcomes for the subject identities involved.An analysis of theconstruction of motherhood within the policy debate surroundingaccess to IVF technology demonstrates the way that the identity ofmother is governed. While the direct aim of the legislation is tolimit access to IVF technologies, it unintentionally serves to shape the



23/27

84

subject identities involved such as the identity of mother. The

governing of women in this debate is shown to make use of thediscursive device of the unborn. This unborn

entityis constructed

within the debate in such a way as to make the mother identity more

easily governed. Governmentality is used as an efficient tool for the

uncovering of these processes of subject formation, manipulation andresistance.Although I have utilized a very specific case study fromAustralia, a governmentality perspective alerts us to the ubiquity ofthese types of processes in the governing of citizens. InAustralia, thedebate over IVF access goes on. Even though this legislation was

intended for discussion by the senate until the November 2001elections, and is therefore now defunct, the debate is still very muchunder discussion in the media where it continues to be contentious

and, through such public discussions, continues to shape the subjectidentities of those women involved.

Notes

1. Although the word child is used more frequently, I have shied awayfrom this term because of the highly emotive way in which this termevokes an actual, living, breathing child when in fact this debateconcerns potential children and foetuses.

2. There were some exceptions to this, for example, MelbourneAnglicanethics consultantAlan Nichols (2000). Examples of those against wereAustralian Catholic Bishops Conference (2000), Australian Christian

Lobby (2000), Christian Democratic Party (2000) and Hollingworth(2000).

3. TheAustralian federal political environment of the time consisted of a

rightwing neoliberalist coalition government formed between theLiberal and National parties. The opposition was made up of the centre-left Labor party in the lower house and Labor and other small leftwingparties such as the Democrats and the Greens in the senate.

4. See Sydney Morning Herald, TheAustralian and The Courier Mail (28

July-4August 2000).5. Australias legislation aligns with the UN Convention on the Rights ofthe Child, to whichAustralia is a signatory and which does not extend

rights to the unborn (see UN, 1989).6. Case studies of good lesbian women are also used by Hoare(Hansard,

2001: 26299) and Lawrence(Hansard, 2001: 26196).



24/27

85

References

Anleu, S. (1990) New Procreative Technologies, Donor Gametes and theLaws Response: Developments inAustralia,Australian Journal of SocialIssues 25(1): 40-51.

Australian Catholic Bishops Conference (2000) Catholic Church Seeks HighCourt Ruling on IVF, Press Release. [http://www.catholic.org.au/media/2000_oct17.htm]Accessed 6 March 2001.

Australian Christian Lobby (2000) Christian Group Condemns Labor Standon IVF, Press Release. [http://www.acc.net.au/ivf.htm] Accessed 27February 2001.

Bell, R. (2000) Bracks Baby Ban: Pragmatist Premier Reins in ReformistHulls, Melbourne Star Observer 528 (23 June): 1.Bills Digest (2000-01) Sex DiscriminationAmendment Bill (No.1) 2000,

Bills Digest 24. Canberra:Australian Federal House of Representatives.Bita, N. (2002) Mother, Son and the Holy Father, The WeekendAustralian

(16-17 Feb.): 16-19.Bordo, S. (1994) Feminism, Foucault and the Politics of the Body,

pp. 219-43 in R. Miguel-Alfonso and S. Caporale-Bizzini (eds) Recon-structing Foucault: Essays in the Wake of the 80s.Amsterdam: Rodopi.

Bremner, C. (2001) Woman, 62, Had Brothers Baby, The Australian(22 June): 9.

Bristow, J. (1997) Sexuality. London: Routledge.Carabine, J. (1996) Heterosexuality and Social Policy, pp. 55-74 in

D. Richardson (ed.) Theorising Heterosexuality: Telling it Straight. Milton

Keynes: Open University Press.Carrick, D. (1997) Reproductive Technology, Legislation and Discrimina-

tion,Australian Lawyer 32(4): 12-14.

Carter,H.

(1997)Miracle

Mums, 52,Give

Birth,The Courier Mail

(5 Feb.): 1.Christian Democratic Party (2000) IVF LoopholeAttacks Family Values,

Press Release (3Aug.). [http://www.christiandemocratic.org.au/fed/mr/IVF_loopholes.htm]Accessed 6 March 2001.

Crosweller,A. (2000) Court Rules State IVF Ban Invalid, The WeekendAustralian (29-30 July): 5.

Dean, M. (1998) Governmentality: Power and Rule in Modern Society. London:

Sage.

Duden B. (1993) Disembodying Women: Perspectives on Pregnancy and theUnborn. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Emilys List (2000) Updates and Info (15 Nov.). [http://www.emitylist.

org.au/news/updates/00151_IVF.html]Accessed 6 March 2001.Ewing, C. (1988) Tailored Genes: IVF, Genetic Engineering, and Eugenics,

Reproductive and Genetic Engineering 1(1): 31-40.



25/27

86

Foucault, M. (1979) Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison (trans.A.Sheridan). Harmondsworth: Penguin.

Foucault, M. (1982) The Subject and Power, pp. 208-26 in H. Dreyfusand P. Rabinow (eds) Michel Foucault: Beyond Structuralism and Hermen-eutics. Brighton: Harvester.

Foucault, M. (1991[1979]) Governmentality, pp. 87-104 in G. Burchell,C. Gordon and P. Miller (eds) The Foucault Effect: Studies in Government-

ality. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Hollingworth, P. (2000) Caution Warned on IVF Move, Press Release fromthe BrisbaneAnglican Diocese. [http://www.anglicanbrisbane.gil.com.au/ivf.htm]Accessed 6 March 2001.

Howard, J. (2000) Amendment to Sex DiscriminationAct, Press Release(1 Aug.). [http://www.pm.gov.au/news/media_releases/2000/disc_act1-8.htm]Accessed 2 July 2001.

Humphreys, D., Metherell, M. and Whelan, J. (2000) Howards IVF BanOuts Labor at Odds, Sydney Morning Herald (3Aug.): 1.

James, P. (2000) A Kiss Is Never Just a Kiss,Arena 49: 16-17.Jose, J. (1998) Biopolitics of the Subject. Darwin: Northern Territory Univer-

sity Press.

Kaplan,E. (1994) Look Whos

Talking,Indeed: Fetal

Imagesin Recent

NorthAmerican Visual Culture, pp. 121-37 in E. Glenn, G. Changand L. Forcey (eds) Mothering: Ideology, Experience andAgency. New York:

Routledge.McLean, S. and Petersen, K. (1996) Patient Status: The Foetus and the

Pregnant Woman,Australian Journal of Human Rights 2(2): 229-41.Marks, L. (1995) Current Development: "The Seymour Report" on Fetal

Welfare and the Law inAustralia, Murdoch University Electronic Journal ofLaw 2(3). [http://www.murdoch.edu.au/elaw/issues/v4n3/port43.html]Accessed 6 March 2001.

Millbank, J. (1997) Every Sperm Is Sacred?,Alternative Law Journal 22(3):126-9.

Miller, F. and Rock, M. (1998) Mothering the Well-born: Choice as a

System of Governance, pp. 287-303 in S.Abbey andA. OReilly (eds)Redefining Motherhood. Toronto: Story Press.

Nettleton, S. (1991) Wisdom, Diligence and Teeth: Discursive Practicesand the Creation of Mothers, Sociology of Health and Illness 13(1):98-111.

Newman, K. (1996) Fetal Positions: Individualism, Science, Visuality. Stanford,CA: Stanford University Press.

Nichols, A. (2000) Should IVF Be Given to Lesbian Couples?, TheMelbourne Anglican (Sept.). [http://www.media.anglican.com.au/tma/2000_09/lesbian.html]Accessed 6 July 2001.



26/27

87

Porter, D. (1997) The Regulation of In-Vitro Fertilisation: Social Normsand Discrimination, Murdoch University Electronic Journal of Law 4(3).[http://www.murdoch.edu.au/elaw/issues/v4n3/port43.html] Accessed6 March 2001.

QFG & GK v JM (1997) O.A. No. 1877.Rayner, M. (2000) All in the Family, Eureka Street 10(7): 21.

Riley, R. (2001) I Want to Have My Dead Husbands Babies, Sunday Mail(1 July): 7.

Schueller, J. (1999) The Use of Cocaine by Pregnant Women: ChildAbuseor Choice?, Journal of Legislation 25(163): 163-80.

Seymour, J. (1995) Fetal Welfare and the Law. Canberra:Australian Medical

Association.Starrels, M. (1995) The Evolution of Fetal Protection Policies, Journal of

Family and Economic Issues 16(4): 313-40.Statham, B. (1998) On ReconfiguringAutonomy: Problematics of (Homo)

Sexual Orientation, Discrimination and Privacy,Australian Journal ofLegal Philosophy 23: 1-27.

Sullivan, L. (1989) Social Legislation for the Reproductive Technologies,Australian Journal of Social Issues 24(1): 33-43.

Tarrant, S. (2000) WesternAustralias Persistent Enforcement of an InvalidLaw: Section 23(c) of the Human Reproductive TechnologyAct 1991(WA),Journal of Law and Medicine 8(1): 92-111.

Taylor, D. (1998) Social Identity and Social Policy: Engagements withPostmodern Theory, Journal of Social Policy 27(3): 329-50.

Taylor, S. (2001) Latest News, Courtside 8. [http://www.netball.asn.au/press_releases/30_june.htm]Accessed 1 October 2001.

UN (United Nations) (1989) UN Convention on the Rights of the Child,DFAT online resource. [http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/other/dfat/treaties/

1991/4.html]Accessed 21 January 2002.Walker, K. (2000) 1950s Family Values vs Human Rights: In VitroFertilisation, Donor Insemination and Sexuality in Victoria, Public LawReview 11(4): 292-307.

Weir, L. (1996) Recent Developments in the Government of Pregnancy,Economy and Society 25(3): 372-92.

Weir, L. and Habib, J. (1997) A Critical FeministAnalysis of the Final

Report of the Royal Commission on New Reproductive Technologies,Studies in Political Economy 52: 137-54.

WEL (Womens Electoral Lobby) (2001)Australian Women Take On theCatholic Church to Protect Their Rights, Press Release (26Apr.). [http://www.wel.org.au/issues/sda/0104ivf1.htm]Accessed 1 May 2001.

Williams, D. (2000) Sex DiscriminationAmendment Bill (No.1) 2000,Press Release (17Aug.). [http://law.gov.au/aghome/agnews/2000newsag/806_00.htm]Accessed 2 July 2001.



27/27

88

Winckel,A. (1998) The Dead Mans Sperm Case,Alternative Law Journal23(6): 288-9.

&squ; Jennifer Lynne Smith has worked as an activist, researcher and organizerin the areas of womens rights and sexuality. She is currently completing her

PhD in the school of social work and social policy at the University of

Queensland. Her research investigates the construction of sexual and

motherhood identities within policy making.Address: School of Social Work

and Social Policy, University of Queensland, Australia 4067. email:

[email protected] &squ;

Critical Social Policy-2003-Lynne Smith-63-88.pdf

Documents

Transcript of Critical Social Policy-2003-Lynne Smith-63-88.pdf