On March 17, the Tokyo District Court dismissed all claims brought by five plaintiffs who had sued the state, challenging the provisions of the Maternal Health Act that deprive them of the right to undergo sterilization surgery to live life on their own terms — a case known as the "Maternity Is Not My Body's Purpose" lawsuit. The Court ruled that the right to undergo sterilization surgery is not guaranteed under the Constitution.
At the same time, the Court stated that the provisions of the Maternal Health Act concerning sterilization surgery "lack rationality in light of the law's objectives," and that "it is hoped that appropriate consideration will be given to the structure of the sterilization surgery framework, including each of the relevant provisions."
The Court also referenced Article 13 of the Constitution, stating that it guarantees women "reproductive autonomy with respect to contraception," and that compelling a woman to become pregnant, or intervening in or interfering with her decision not to become pregnant, would violate that freedom and constitute a breach of Article 13 of the Constitution.
Today's ruling marks an important step forward in advancing the protection of the right to reproductive self-determination. However, as the unconstitutionality of the provisions on sterilization surgery was not recognized, the plaintiffs filed an immediate appeal on the same day.
This ruling also represents a significant milestone for LEDGE. We extend our heartfelt gratitude to everyone who has supported this lawsuit.
"Maternity Is Not My Body's Purpose" Lawsuit
The Maternal Health Act prohibits sterilization surgery for non-medical purposes in principle, and requires conditions such as spousal consent or having already given birth to several children in order to undergo the procedure.
The central question in this case was whether these provisions infringe on the right to reproductive and bodily self-determination and thereby violate the Constitution, which guarantees individual dignity and the essential equality of the sexes.
The plaintiffs argued that the ability to make one's own decisions about one's body and whether to have children is at the core of respect for the individual guaranteed under Article 13 of the Constitution, and that the right and freedom to undergo sterilization surgery is constitutionally protected.
They further argued that the provisions requiring spousal consent or having multiple children are rooted in an era when women were placed under state control as vessels for childbearing, and that they also violate Article 24(2) of the Constitution, which stipulates that laws must be enacted from the standpoint of individual dignity and the essential equality of the sexes.
The state, for its part, emphasized the possibility that individuals may later regret being unable to become pregnant, and argued that imposing conditions and regulating access to sterilization surgery "also contributes to substantively guaranteeing the right to self-determination of those who seek to undergo the procedure."
Summary of the Ruling〓
Full Text of the Ruling〓
Debriefing Session Live-streamed on YouTube at 6:30 PM
A ruling report session will be live-streamed on LEDGE's YouTube channel today, Tuesday, March 17, beginning at 6:30 PM. The legal team will explain the contents of the ruling and, together with the plaintiffs, share their reactions and outlook for the future. We hope you will join us.
Please support the lawsuit
Since its filing in February 2024, the "Maternity is not my body's purpose" lawsuit has been made possible by the support of many people. We would be grateful for your continued support as we work toward a society in which every individual can freely make their own decisions about their body and reproduction.
