Disability, Security, and Rights: A critical analysis of the lost autonomy of disabled women on their bodies

Source: European disability form report

Sterilization is the permanent method to control birth in human beings which leaves the human unable to reproduce. This concept mainly emerged because of the fear of overpopulation growth. As the population expanded, particularly in urban areas policymakers and the people in power became extremely concerned about the strain it would put on the resources. During the early 20th century, ideologies like eugenics were also gaining traction. Eugenics are people who believe that selective breeding and the restriction of reproduction by those who were deemed unfit according to their legacies, history, etc This ideology promoted sterilization, particularly of marginalized and vulnerable populations, such as people with disabilities or certain ethnic groups. There is a history of these practices being heavily biased and based on principles of caste, race, and unfair advantages.

This blog critically analyses the  case of European Union countries that have no laws to protect their disabled women against forced sterilization. These countries in the EU are Bulgaria, Croatia, Czechia, Cyprus, Cyprus, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Portugal, and Slovakia. Reports from the European disability forum point towards a total ban on this practice in the upcoming legislation on combatting violence against women but no action as of now has been taken on the same. States are targeting everyone with a disability for sterilization, including minor girls which demonstrates the extent these states might go to meet their goals.

The last blog post introduced the theory of securitization proposed by Ole Weaver. It provides a framework for understanding how security should be understood as a social construct and a speech act, rather than a fixed concept. Here certain issues are constructed as “security threats” and addressed through exceptional measures. The practice of forced sterilization is not only a violation of human rights but also can be seen as a security concern for the affected population because here the state looks at these individuals as a threat object. In the securitization process, the theory tells us that an issue is identified as a threat to a particular referent object (e.g., state, society, or group). Here the forced sterilization of these individuals represents a threat to the security of those individuals themselves and also the state. It undermines their bodily autonomy, reproductive rights, and also their overall mental well-being. The narratives that these states are constructing are problematic because they portray the issue as an existential threat that requires urgent action. Misconceptions about disability and concerns about societal purity and order make these narratives even more important and embed them into society. In this case study we can clearly understand the fact that forced sterilization policies do not take into account the individuals' consent and medical laws and ethics into account. These practices lead the population of these states to be fearful, vulnerable, and distrustful of their governments and ultimately it ventures into a territory of mistrust and social chaos. Weaver's theory suggests that there is potential for resistance and counter-resistance, and in this case, actors such as human rights organizations, individuals, and activists may demand legal reforms and policy changes. As mentioned earlier in the blog, such changes have been made.

Analysing this case study from a feminist perspective of the securitization theory shows that disabled women may face disproportionate targeting because of intersecting oppressions based on gender and disability. The control over women's reproductive capacity has been historically used to exert power and control, and forced sterilization perpetuates this dynamic. Lene Hansen highlights the need to consider the perspectives and agency of marginalized communities. In the case of disabled women, their voices are often silenced or ignored in decision-making processes, further disempowering them and making them vulnerable to harm. Women are further marginalized because of their gender and their physical impairments.  Therefore, intersectionality plays an important role because factors like race, sex, and class are often given importance but not in the same context.  Hansen’s critique gives us a more comprehensive understanding of how security issues are constructed, contested, and transformed.

Foucault conception of biopolitics essentially means the sovereign right to control life. This case study of forced sterilization can be understood as a biopolitical practice aimed at controlling the reproduction of certain groups essentially the disabled or the minorities within society. This sterilization process can be looked at as a broader plan or motive of these states to manage their population control which is only targeting the minorities. If we analyse the case study through the PARIS School of (in)securitization emphasizes the role of discourse and how institutions play an important role in the same. This policy can be looked at as a way of controlling who gets to live and who does not. In a way, the state wants to normalize the bodies they deem as deviant. The bodies of these disabled women are looked at as a threat by these states.  This results in the justification of sterilization which violates individuals' bodily autonomy and reproductive rights. We can also see how biopolitics comes into play here as the state is regulating human bodies and gives us a broad understanding that individuals who do not have the right to bodily integrity, autonomy, and self-determination are always at risk of being compromised.

In summary, we can see that the forced sterilization of disabled women by some EU countries and around the world is a form of biopolitical control, with states manipulating and controlling their reproductive rights. Actions are being taken against this gross crime by these human rights activists and institutions. The state's control over its citizens' lives, bodies, and even death is a sovereign right, but states must not misuse this power by treating disability as a problem and threat to societal order. A more comprehensive understanding of security, prioritizing inclusivity, empowerment, and justice, is essential.  

Citations

• Why is forced sterilisation still legal in the EU? https://www.edf-feph.org/why-is-forced-sterilisation-still-legal-in-the-eu/

• Weaver, O. (1995). Securitization and desecuritization. In R. Lipschutz (Ed.), On security (pp. 46-86). Columbia University Press. https://www.libraryofsocialscience.com/assets/pdf/Waever-Securitization.pdf

• Young, I. M. (2003). The logic of masculinist protection: Reflections on the current security state. Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society, 29(1), 1-25. https://doi.org/10.1086/343126

• Yuval-Davis, N. (2006). Intersectionality and feminist politics. European Journal of Women's Studies, 13(3), 193-209. https://doi.org/10.1177/1350506806065751

• Foucault, M. (1990). The history of sexuality: An introduction. Trans. Robert Hurley. New York: Vintage 95 Selection: Part Five: Right of Death and Power over Life)

• Hansen, L.  (2000) ‘The Little Mermaid’s Silent Security Dilemma and the Absence of Gender in the Copenhagen School’. Millennium 29 (2): 285–306. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/03058298000290020501