On May 12, 1996, the JCLU held a commemorative symposium titled "Eugenics Protection Law, Criminal Abortion, and Human Rights" to coincide with its general assembly at Kuramae Kogyo Kaikan Hall in Shinbashi, Tokyo. The panelists were Ms. Keiko Higuch, member of Machida city parliament and member of DPI Handicapped Women's Network, Mr. Takashi Wagatsuma, gynecologist, and Ms. Kiyoko Kinjo, JCLU Representative Director and Professor at Tsuda Women's College. This panel of experts was moderated by Mr. Yoshinori Nakanishi, a lawyer and member of the JCLU Committee for Mental Patients' Rights
The Eugenics Protection Law, which was discussed heavily at the May Symposium, underwent a major transformation in June. Drafters of the amendment openly asserted that eugenic thought is the source of discrimination against the handicapped and therefore should be deleted from the Law. A statement on the reason for the amendment clearly read that the objective and some provisions of the Eugenics Protection Law discriminate against the handicapped because they contain elements that seek to prevent the birth of children who are deemed "defective."
The major reforms were the following: 1) Change the name of the law from Eugenics Protection Law to Maternal Protection Act. 2) Eliminate from the provision on the objectives of the law the term "the prevention of the birth of children deemed "defective." 3) Change the name of the operation from "eugenic operation" to "sterility operation." 4) Eliminate the article forcing the mentally handicapped to undergo coercive eugenic operations. 5) Under former legislation, the list of people not needing permission to undergo sterilization or abortion included the mentally ill and those with hereditary disease. Eliminate this part of the legislation.
These points are in accordance with the proposition, "Eugenic operations and abortions based on eugenic thought must be abolished," made by the JCLU Committee for the Mental Patients' Rights. Although there remain questions as to why such obviously necessary reforms were enacted so late, these reforms must still be applauded.
Some women's groups, however, point out that these reforms are insufficient. First, the focus of the new law became the article giving permission for abortion. Thus, the name of the law seems inappropriate. "Maternal protection" generally means the protection of a woman's body during pregnancy and right after childbirth. As a result, this name does not coincide with the content of the law, which regulates abortion and sterilization, both of which involve deciding not to give birth. Besides, the name reinforces the traditional notion that women must give birth to children.
Furthermore, there was severe objection to the fact that a criminal law that punishes an abortion in certain circumstances still exists. While reproductive health/ rights are clearly confirmed in the Platform for Action of the Beijing World Conference on Women, this reform does not consider this internationally recognized women's rights. We must note that a Senators' board on health and welfare adopted a resolution attached to the reformed bill that states, "To take full advantage of this reform regarding reproductive rights, there should be a general investigation of policies concerning women's health. Proper measures should be taken in the future."
Although the proposed reform is obviously necessary, there are many issues that are insufficiently addressed. Such shortcomings were also explored at the May symposium.
Issues that will become the focus of attention in the future are legislation that guarantee a woman's right to choose, and the abolition of the criminal abortion. The JCLU must utilize the unique strengths of its members in facing these problems.
When I became aware of myself as a young child, I already had a handicap. Since I became ill when I was one-and-a-half year old, I received various messages about being handicapped from the society around me as I grew up. As a result, I identified myself as handicapped even before I identified myself as a woman or human being. I did many activities in the hope of a changing society and asserting the rights of the handicapped.
Women's opinions must be expressed by women, so we started DPI Handicapped Women's Network. As women with handicaps, we have been active in such areas as enhancing our own independence, trying to abolish the Eugenics Protection Law, and exchanging information with other people with disabilities. We view our situation in a positive light. We must choose our own way of living and achieve a lifestyle that is possible only for those with disabilities. But society has not progressed very much. Fifty years have passed since the war, yet the Eugenics Protection Law still exists.
In 1995, twenty-some members of DPI attended the Beijing World Conference on Women and held a workshop. The opinion was expressed that the Eugenics Protection Law trivialized people with disabilities, viewing them as inferior. Because of this, people with disabilities cannot have pride in this society and are forced to give up their hopes and aspirations. Furthermore, privacy is not considered in facilities for the handicapped. Thus women with disabilities have been made unaware that their privacy should be protected. Some members who have mental disabilities asked, "Why should our wombs be taken away? We want to choose what to do with our own bodies."
We cannot tolerate the forced use of women's bodies to control the population and manipulate lives. Due to this belief, we want to change the Mother-Child Health Law, and believe that we must appeal to the people to abolish the Eugenics Protection Law and criminal abortion.
Abortion is morally acceptable or not -- these distinct opinions seem to divide the world in two. From the standpoint of human rights, there are cases in which the reproductive rights of women and the rights of the fetus conflict. Each country has different laws concerning abortion. Many laws state that abortion is acceptable early in the pregnancy, if the woman chooses. During the mid-period of the pregnancy and afterward, many laws state that the fetus can no longer be aborted. In Japan, we have an application with conditions, meaning that women can have abortions after the mid-period of pregnancy for economic and health reasons.
We must define whether sterilization is a medical act or not. There are about five methods of contraception internationally recognized as safe. In Japan, however, virtually none of those five methods are recognized. About twenty years ago, medical experts tested all varieties of contraceptive "rings," yielding very positive results. The Ministry of Health, however, has not approved this contraceptive method.
From our point of view, Japan is a very backward country when it comes to contraception. It seems that women are ill-informed regarding this situation.
Needless to say, it is important to support the right to choose and the abolition of criminal abortion in the Penal Code. I am not opposed to that. However, it is necessary to campaign for a "safer, more effective, better form of contraception." So often, couples use the rhythm method, the woman gets pregnant, and she must get an abortion. We must change this pattern. But I feel that changing it will be very difficult under current circumstances.
Many women around the world have become concerned about the legal nature of abortion and contraception.
When I am asked about these legal issues, I tell people, "In Japan we have a provision of criminal abortion and abortion is legal under certain conditions outlined in the Eugenics Protection Law." When foreign women hear this, they are outraged: "How can you have a law like the Eugenics Protection Law?" "The laws that are supposed to guarantee women's right to choose discriminate against the handicapped. Why do Japanese women allow such laws?" Women's right to choose has recently been recognized internationally, and in Japan the handicapped are taking leading, vocal roles in the crusade to abolish the Eugenics Protection Law. Under such circumstance, I believe that it is time for women in general, not just handicapped women, to grapple with this issue.
Since the purpose of the Eugenics Protection Law is the "prevention of the birth of defective children," it is impossible to correct the problem merely by reforming the wording of the law. We must abolish it altogether. Furthermore, I believe that the criminal law of abortion must be abolished.
I think it is necessary to create a law addressing the artificial termination of pregnancies similar to the law that exists in England. This law dealing with the artificial termination of pregnancies should be limited to the regulation of terms within which a woman can have an abortion upon request. It should not allow or disallow abortions based on the economic situation of the mother.
In addition, when we consider the human rights of women, we realize that it is very important to guarantee reproductive health/rights. When we explain Japan's situations abroad, the next issue that is criticized by foreigners is the banning of the birth control pill. They ask me, "Why don't Japanese women vigorously pursue a campaign to lift the ban on the pill?" But my real feeling is that the pill has side-effects. Regardless of this, the nation should not ban the pill, but should allow women to choose whether or not to use it. Enough information should be provided to allow them to make educated decisions on this matter.