A group of women in Japan has launched a landmark legal challenge against the country’s restrictive sterilisation laws, arguing that the decades-old legislation violates their constitutional rights to bodily autonomy.
Among the plaintiffs is Kazane Kajiya, who chose to undergo sterilisation in the United States at the age of 27 after being unable to legally access the procedure in Japan. Kajiya says the decision was a protest against social and legal pressures that push women toward motherhood.
The case, which has been dubbed “Maternity Is Not My Body’s Purpose,” is currently being heard at the Tokyo District Court, with a verdict expected next week. The plaintiffs are challenging the constitutionality of Japan’s long-standing “maternity protection” law, which sets strict conditions for sterilisation.
Restrictive legal framework
Under Japanese law, women can only undergo sterilisation under limited circumstances—such as having multiple children and facing health risks, or if pregnancy would pose a life-threatening danger. Even in such cases, the law requires consent from a spouse.
Critics argue the requirement effectively blocks healthy, childless women from choosing sterilisation as a form of contraception.
Kajiya, now 29, travelled abroad to have her fallopian tubes removed through a minimally invasive procedure. She said the surgery represented a definitive rejection of expectations that women should eventually become mothers.
Legal challenge on bodily autonomy
Lead lawyer Michiko Kameishi says the law reflects outdated views rooted in wartime policies that treated women primarily as contributors to population growth.
According to Kameishi, the legal framework effectively “manages all fertile women as potential maternal bodies,” undermining their ability to make independent decisions about reproduction.
The lawsuit aims to establish that women in Japan have constitutionally protected rights over their bodies, placing sterilisation within the same realm of personal autonomy as cosmetic surgery or other elective medical procedures.
Japan an outlier among democracies
Advocates say Japan’s restrictions stand in contrast to policies in many other countries. A study by the global reproductive health organisation EngenderHealth found that more than 70 countries explicitly allow sterilisation as a method of contraception.
Japan, however, remains among a small group of nations where the procedure is heavily restricted.
The limited availability of other contraceptive options has also drawn criticism. In Japan, condoms remain the most widely used form of birth control, while sterilisation and contraceptive pills are used by a small minority of women. Long-acting methods such as contraceptive implants and injections are not widely available.
Government defence of the law
The Japanese government has defended the current legal framework, arguing that restrictions help protect individuals from making irreversible decisions they might later regret.
In documents submitted to the Tokyo District Court, authorities said the law aims to safeguard “self-determination” by ensuring careful consideration before undergoing a permanent procedure.
Social stigma and silence
Despite the legal challenge, campaigners say the issue has received limited public debate in Japan, partly due to persistent social expectations surrounding motherhood.
Kameishi noted that many women hesitate to openly discuss sterilisation because childlessness itself can carry social stigma.
“Merely being childless can make women feel guilty,” she said, adding that this pressure discourages women from publicly advocating for the right to voluntarily end their reproductive capacity.
Diverse motivations among plaintiffs
Another plaintiff in the case, identified under the pseudonym Rena Sato, said her personal identity as aromantic and asexual means she does not plan to marry or have children.
For her, maintaining fertility against her wishes raises concerns about bodily autonomy and personal safety.
Meanwhile, Kajiya says she does not regret undergoing sterilisation but sometimes reflects on whether societal pressures in Japan pushed her toward such a decisive step.
She believes that in a society where women’s reproductive choices were fully respected, the decision might not have required such a drastic measure.
