FEATURE
The legality of forced sterilisation of women and girls with disabilities SARAH MCINNES, BACHELOR OF LAWS STUDENT, UNISA
T
he practice of forced sterilisation of women and girls with disabilities garners attention and discussion; particularly surrounding the legality of such an exercise. Despite a plethora of sanctions from the disability community, their allies and international bodies to condemn and criminalise forced sterilisation, this practice is still very much legal in Australia.1 While it is widely recognised that the practice of forced sterilisation is identified to be a form of violence and violates several human rights outlined in a multitude of United Nations Treaties and Conventions,2 there are still some existing justifications in favour of the procedure.3 These rationales are protected, and in many cases reinforced by the lack of legislative action by the Australian Government.4 This essay examines Australia’s compliance with their international obligations surrounding this issue, Australia’s current legislative
24 THE BULLETIN December 2020
framework and the reasoning’s being used to justify this form of violence.
OVERVIEW The definition of ‘sterilisation’ is outlined by Women With Disabilities Australia (WWDA) as ‘the performance of a medical procedure which permanently removes an individual’s ability to reproduce, and/or the administration of medication to suppress menstruation.’5 WWDA also defined ‘forced/involuntary sterilisation’ as ‘the performance of a procedure which results in sterilisation in the absence of the free and informed consent of the individual who undergoes the procedure.’6 This delineation includes situations where sterilisation has been authorised by a third party such as a parent, legal guardian, court, tribunal or judge.7 The Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities 2008 (CRPD)
defines persons with disabilities as those who have ‘long-term physical, mental, intellectual or sensory impairments which in interaction with various barriers may hinder their full and effective participation in society on an equal basis with others.’8 Procedures with the result of sterilisation can vary from permanent or irreversible procedures like a hysterectomy, tubal litigation and endometrial ablation. They also include non-permanent contraceptive measures such as oral contraceptives, diaphragms, intrauterine devices and long active reversible contraceptives such as injections or implants.9 There may be occurrences in which disabled men and boys are victims of sterilisation, however, all sources state that this is clearly a gendered issue simply because sterilisation disproportionately affects women and girls.10
