Compulsory female sterilisation in Brazil: reproductive rights for whom?

Family planning programmes have been implemented throughout the world since the mid-20th century. In Brazil, the act governing family planning has been law for 25 years. However, the concept does not seem to be well known, being understood as contraceptives distribution. This article discusses Brazi...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Critical and radical social work Jg. 10; H. 1; S. 23 - 39
Hauptverfasser: Menandro, Leila Marchezi Tavares, Barrett, Hazel Rose
Format: Journal Article
Sprache:Englisch
Veröffentlicht: Bristol Policy Press 01.03.2022
The Policy Press
Schlagworte:
20th century
Birth control
Brazil
Coercion
Conservatism
Content analysis
Contraceptives
Families & family life
Family law
Family Planning
Female Sterilisation
Gender-Based Violence
Judiciary
Law
Litigation
Planning law
Program implementation
Reproductive Rights
Sterilization
Women
Womens rights
Brazil
Brazil
family planning
female sterilisation
reproductive rights
gender-based violence
ISSN:2049-8608, 2049-8675
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:Family planning programmes have been implemented throughout the world since the mid-20th century. In Brazil, the act governing family planning has been law for 25 years. However, the concept does not seem to be well known, being understood as contraceptives distribution. This article discusses Brazilian family planning policies, using a compulsory sterilisation lawsuit – reported by the media – to illustrate one of the many facets of gender-based violence in Brazil. This article is based on documentary research and uses a qualitative approach, applying content analysis to three selected texts. Only the news report that made the case public directly mentions the Family Planning Law and questions the suppression of reproductive rights. It was clear that conservatism was present in the actions of the judiciary, which appeared to be selective when choosing whose rights should be protected, denying poor women’s reproductive rights and upholding coercive birth control for the most deprived groups in the population.
Bibliographie:ObjectType-Article-1
SourceType-Scholarly Journals-1
ObjectType-Feature-2
content type line 14
ISSN:2049-8608
2049-8675
DOI:10.1332/204986021X16279107777662