Tokyo, Japan – In a groundbreaking legal challenge, a group of Japanese women is contesting the constitutionality of the country’s decades-old maternity protection law, which severely restricts access to sterilisation.
Among the plaintiffs is Kazane Kajiya, who voluntarily underwent sterilisation in the United States at age 27. Kajiya, who has never wanted children, describes the procedure as a deliberate act of defiance against Japan’s patriarchal expectations of motherhood.
“We’re not wombs, we’re humans,” Kajiya told AFP. “By having the surgery, I smashed the windows, and hurled myself out of that train bound for motherhood.”
Legal Barriers to Sterilisation
Under current Japanese law, women can only access sterilisation if:
They have multiple children and face serious health risks from additional pregnancies, or
Pregnancy poses a life-threatening danger
Even then, spousal consent is required, effectively banning sterilisation for healthy, childless women like Kajiya.
The plaintiffs’ lawsuit, called “Maternity is Not My Body’s Purpose,” argues that the law violates women’s constitutional rights to bodily autonomy and self-determination. A verdict is expected next week.
Historical Context and Social Pressure
The law is a remnant of Japan’s wartime policies, which treated women primarily as resources to boost population growth. According to Michiko Kameishi, the lead attorney for the case, it “manages all fertile women as potential maternal bodies.”
The requirement for spousal consent further reinforces societal perceptions that women are not independent decision-makers regarding their reproductive choices.
A Broader Struggle for Reproductive Freedom
Other plaintiffs include 26-year-old Rena Sato, who identifies as aromantic and asexual. She rejects the expectation to marry or bear children and argues that forcing her to maintain fertility exposes her to risks she cannot ethically accept.
The plaintiffs’ struggle highlights Japan’s position as an outlier among modern democracies. A 2002 study by EngenderHealth found that more than 70 countries allow sterilisation for contraception, while Japan severely restricts it. Currently, only 0.5% of women in Japan opt for sterilisation, and contraceptive pills are used by just 2.7% of women.
Male vasectomies are also legally restricted but are more accessible due to laxer enforcement.
Government Position
Japanese authorities defend the law as a safeguard against “future regret,” emphasizing the irreversible nature of sterilisation. Government statements submitted to Tokyo District Court claim that restrictions protect women’s rights to decide if and when to have children.
Breaking Social Myths
The case challenges entrenched societal norms that equate womanhood with motherhood. Plaintiffs like Kajiya and Sato are fighting not just for legal recognition, but for cultural change, seeking a society where women’s reproductive choices are respected as part of their bodily autonomy.
“Had I been born in a country where women have the same rights to bodily autonomy as men, I might not have had to make incisions in my body,” Kajiya reflected.
