Court finds Japanese sterilisation law 'lacks rationality' and should be debated
Plaintiffs Hisui Tatsuta, Kazane Kajiya, Reino Sato and "Chifumi" each had different reasons for wanting to undergo sterilisation procedures. (Supplied: Maki Amemori)
In short:
A court in Tokyo has found a law which bans women from voluntary sterilisation “lacks rationality" but is not unconstitutional.
The five female plaintiffs believe the ruling is a step forward for Japan, which has one of the world's strictest barriers to sterilisation.
What's next?
The judge presiding over the landmark case has called for active debate on the issue.
A Japanese court has found the law banning women from voluntary sterilisation “lacks rationality” and should be debated but is not unconstitutional.
Five women in Tokyo have been fighting for the right to undergo voluntary sterilisation, claiming the country's laws deny women bodily autonomy and push them into motherhood.
One of those women, Kazane Kajiya, never wanted children.
She flew to the United States to have her fallopian tubes removed at the age of 27 because under Japan's maternity protection law, she was not allowed to have the procedure because she was not a mother.
"It's a law that stigmatises women who choose to be child-free and makes them feel guilty about doing whatever they want to do with their bodies,"she said.
Japan has one of the world's most restrictive barriers to sterilisation.
Sterilisation is a permanent but sometimes reversible form of birth control.
Four plaintiffs in Japanese sterilisation lawsuit in Tokyo. (Supplied: Maki Amemori)
In Japan, women face prison time or thousands of dollars in fines if they have their fallopian tubes "tied" to prevent fertilisation without their spouse's consent.
Even then, it is only allowed under strict conditions, including if a woman's life is in danger or they have already had several children and another would impact their health.
Tokyo District Court judge, Masahiro Kaman, dismissed the women's case, finding the law was not unconstitutional as women were still entitled to "guaranteed contraceptive freedom" through multiple other methods.
"It is difficult to conclude that undergoing sterilisation is essential to the survival of one's identity," he said.
But he also said the law's restrictiveness "lacked rationality" and called for an active debate on the matter.
A lawyer for the women, Michiko Kameishi, said she was disappointed the court found sterilisation was to be merely a form of contraception.
Human Rights Lawyer Michiko Kameishi led the lawsuit for five women who wanted the right to undergo sterilisation procedures in Japan. (Supplied: Maki Amemori)
She said the procedure was about "removing fertility altogether" so the women "can feel alive in their own bodies".
Despite losing the case, Ms Kajiya described the verdict as "historic" and a "step forward" for Japan.
"I can say I've done nothing wrong," she said.
"I can hold my head high, and walk proudly."
She has vowed to continue fighting against the country's maternity protection law.
AFP