Das amas de leite às mães órfãs: reflexões sobre o direito à maternidade no Brasil

Abstract

Resumo O artigo aborda a retirada compulsória de filhos de mulheres em situação de vulnerabilidade no Brasil. Objetivou-se refletir sobre a violação do direito à maternidade; apresentar os limites impostos, especialmente às mulheres pobres, negras e indígenas e as estratégias de controle sobre sua vida e de seus filhos; e os movimentos de resistência que se contrapõem às segregações. Foram fontes da pesquisa: narrativas de mulheres em situação de vulnerabilidade, de familiares e trabalhadores da saúde; entrevistas com atores estratégicos; análise documental; diários de campo. Evidenciou-se que vulnerabilidades atreladas à criminalização da pobreza e ao preconceito racial têm justificado as separações. A desresponsabilização do Estado e da sociedade quanto à formação de uma rede de apoio às mulheres, a desvalorização de produções não hegemônicas de maternidades e o reforço de uma razão de mundo que produz a violência como ferramenta para exclusão vão conformando limites práticos quanto ao direito à maternidade. Mulheres e seus filhos são desconsiderados em suas singularidades. Os movimentos de resistência mostraram que diálogos intersetoriais são uma alternativa para superar discriminações e vulnerabilidades.

Vulnerabilities among homeless women experiencing pregnancy, childbirth and puerperium

“…There are women who run away to give birth to their babies in areas far from urban centers, as well as those who leave hospitals with babies hidden in bags, with the prospect of exercising their desired motherhood. [22][23][24] There are also women who omit information from health services and declare old addresses or those of family members in order to prevent institutions from identifying their condition of living on the streets and, consequently, kidnapping their children. 1,3,22 When it comes to childbirth itself, homeless women also encounter numerous barriers to accessing maternity hospitals, due to various absences, such as: information; documentation; transportation; and a conventional address.…”

“…Thus, even though they can breastfeed and even though scientific evidence recommends skin-to-skin contact, breastfeeding, and early bonding, demonstrating the negative repercussions of the immediate separation of mothers from their babies, they are prevented from having these experiences with their children. [22][23][24][25] Therefore, the argument that homelessness makes it impossible to exercise motherhood safely has been used as a technical justification to legitimize compulsory removal, disregarding other possibilities for these women and children to remain together. Furthermore, the quantitative and qualitative insufficiency of institutional facilities aimed at welcoming mothers and children together has been another argument commonly used in this context.…”

“…Furthermore, the quantitative and qualitative insufficiency of institutional facilities aimed at welcoming mothers and children together has been another argument commonly used in this context. [24][25][26] It can be said that this insufficiency materializes the precariousness and dismantling of public policies aimed at homeless women. This does not happen by chance and ends up making them more vulnerable, sustaining the production of precautionary and eugenic measures, which assume that being on the streets alone would make them more likely to abuse or neglect their children.…”

“…From the perspective of Vulnerability and Human Rights, 15 care actions should be guided by awareness of this social condition, which requires specific actions to promote equity. 22,24 In this sense, it should be stressed that in other scenarios, such as Belo Horizonte, São Paulo and Rio de Janeiro, institutional interventions to kidnap the children of homeless women are also recurrent, reflecting the interdiction of their sexual and reproductive rights, based on official regulations that authorize the compulsory removal of their babies. The class and race division behind these regulations is unmasked, making explicit the institutionalization of racism and poverty, given that private services, mostly accessed by white women from privileged social classes, are not called into action in relation to these determinations.…”

“…The class and race division behind these regulations is unmasked, making explicit the institutionalization of racism and poverty, given that private services, mostly accessed by white women from privileged social classes, are not called into action in relation to these determinations. [22][23][24][25] This situation shows that the compulsory removal of the children of homeless women happens without subtlety, and is marked by pain and suffering. After the babies have been abducted, these mothers leave the maternity hospitals alone, return to the streets without knowing where they have been taken, and no longer receive any news about them, thus breaking their bonds.…”