The Asia-Pacific Journal | Japan Focus Volume 18 | Issue 7 | Number 2 | Article ID 5384 | Apr 01, 2020

1

The Testimony of a Victim of Forced Sterilization in Japan:Kita Saburō

Astghik Hovhannisyan

Abstract: About 16,500 people were sterilizedunder the now-defunct Eugenic Protection Law(1948-1996) of Japan, whose aim was to“prevent the birth of eugenically inferioroffspring, and to protect maternal health andlife”. Kita Saburō (pseudonym), was one of thevictims. He was sterilized in 1957, at the age offourteen, while residing at a facility fortroubled youths called Shūyō Gakuen in Sendai.This article introduces Kita’s testimony abouthis steri l ization, and offers possibleexplanations of why Kita, who had no disability,was forcibly sterilized.

The interview was conducted on September 12,2019 in Kita’s house in Nerima ward, Tokyo.Interview and translation by AstghikHovhannisyan.

Introduction

It is a warm autumn day. I met Kita Saburō at atrain station in Nerima ward of Tokyo, and wetook a short bus ride to his house, where helives alone. Kita’s wife passed away six yearsago, and he has no children. At the age of 14 hewas sterilized without his knowledge under thenow-defunct Eugenic Protection Law(1948-1996). Kita is an energetic, friendly andlikeable person, who has worked hard hiswhole life. He is also talented at crafts,especially at making paper flowers. Kita wasborn in Sendai in 1943. When he was 13, hewas expelled from school and taken to ShūyōGakuen, a facility for delinquent youths, wherehe was sterilized. He is now one of almost twodozen people fighting for damages against the

Japanese government over forced sterilizations.“I thought I was sterilized by my family and thefacility. Only recently I found out that I wassterilized by the state,” said Kita.

In recent years, a number of journalists andresearchers (e. g. Mainichi shinbun shuzaihan2019, Toshimitsu 2016) have introducedtestimonies of victims of forced sterilization,but the topic is underrepresented in English,with Nagase’s (2019) work being the only oneto introduce the voices of several victims.

This article briefly introduces the EugenicProtection Law, and Kita Saburō’s reflectionsabout his life, the facility for delinquent youthswhere he spent his early teens, and his forcedsterilization. The article also attempts toexplain the possible reasons why Kita – who hasno disability – could have been targeted forforced sterilization.

The Eugenic Protection Law (1948-1996)

As mentioned above, Kita was sterilized underthe Eugenic Protection Law (Yūsei hogohō),whose aim was to “prevent the birth ofeugenically inferior offspring, and to protectmaternal health and life” (Norgren 2001, 145).The bill was first introduced in the Diet in1947, by socialists Ōta Tenrei, Katō Shizue andFukuda Masako, amid fears of overpopulationand “reverse selection”, i.e. the fear thatpopulation “quality” would deteriorate if “unfit”people procreated uncontrollably (Matsubara1998). The Socialists’ bill was shelved, but itwas rewritten and reintroduced to the Diet in

APJ | JF 18 | 7 | 2

2

1948, and Taniguchi Yasaburō, a physician,parliament member, and an influential figure inpopulation policies since the prewar periodbecame one of the main proponents of the law.In presenting the bill to the Diet, he insistedthat Japan needed to promote family planning,but in order to prevent the “reverse selection”(gyaku tōta) caused by uncontrol ledreproduction of the “unfit,” it also needed totake eugenic measures (Proceedings of theHouse of Councilors, June 23 1948).

The bill passed without much discussion thesame year, and it allowed 1) abortion undercertain circumstances – such as poor health,numerous children in the family, and economicreasons, and 2) voluntary and involuntaryeugenic operations (sterilizations) of peoplehaving various genetic and non-geneticailments and conditions.

This was not Japan’s first eugenics law. Thefirst – the National Eugenics Law – was enactedin 1940. However, unlike the EugenicProtection Law, it did not aim to constrainpopulation growth, but instead encouraged it.Faced with issues such as overpopulation,economic hardship, health risks from“backyard” abortions after the war, Japaneselawmakers made a decision to authorizeabortion (although without abolishing theCriminal Abortion Law of 1907). At the sametime, fearful that Japan was facing “reversese l ec t i on” o r degenera t i on due t ouncontrollable reproduction of the “unfit,” theystrengthened eugenic provisions as well(Matsubara 1997, Matsubara 1998).

In the Eugenic Protection Law, eugenicoperations were authorized by Articles 4 and12. Article 4 stated that in case a physicianconfirmed that the patient suffered from one ofthe hereditary conditions listed in the appendix,he or she could apply for a eugenic operation.The illnesses listed included hereditary mentaldeficiency, schizophrenia, manic-depression,progressive muscular dystrophy, hemophilia,

and others. Article 12, which was amended in1952, stated that in cases when the physicianhad the permission of the patient’s guardian,he or she could apply for permission to performa eugenic operation on people having non-hereditary mental i l lness and mentalretardation.

The law authorized physicians to apply forsterilization to prefectural Eugenic ProtectionCommissions, when they recognized that it wasnecessary. The Commissions, organized byprefectures and consisting of about tenmembers of various professions - physicians,social workers, scholars - would evaluate theapplications together with family and medicalhistories of the patient, and make a decisionabout the necessity of forced sterilization(Hovhannisyan 2020). The Ministry of Healthand Welfare authorized use of methods such asanesthesia, physical restraint, and deception, incase the patient opposed the operation (Yūseishujutsu ni taisuru shazai o motomeru kai2018, 268-269). It should be noted that fromthe inception of the law the Ministry of Healthand Welfare was concerned that forcedsterilizations might constitute a violation ofhuman r ights as guaranteed by theconstitution. The Ministry of Justice gaveassurances, however, that if the sterilizationwas in the public interest, the law would by nomeans violate the spirit of the constitution(Hōmu sōsai iken nenpō 1949). From 1949 to1996, about 16,500 people were forciblysterilized, with most operations performed inthe 1950s and 1960s. 70% of those operated onwere women, the majority of whom had mentalillness or intellectual disability (Toshimitsu2016, 11-12). Most operations took place inHokkaido and Miyagi Prefecture, which may beexplained by a relatively large number ofmental health care institutions in theseprefectures and regional policies promotingeugenic programs.

The law was abolished, or, to be more precise,replaced with the Maternal Body Protection

APJ | JF 18 | 7 | 2

3

Law (botai hogohō) only in 1996, afterdisability rights activist Asaka Yūho’s speech atthe International Conference on Population andDevelopment in Cairo (1994) sparkedinternational criticism. Immediately after that,a group of activists and scholars demanded thatthe Ministry of Health and Welfare investigateforced sterilizations and compensate thevictims. The Ministry, however, refused to doso, stating that the operations were legal at thetime they were performed (Ichinokawa 1998).

The issue was practically neglected for twodecades, but in 2017 several victims started tospeak out. It would be no exaggeration to statethat the massacre of disabled persons inSagamihara in 2016 had an impact on this, asthe tragedy prompted discussions aboutdisability discrimination and eugenics. Afterwatching learning about the Eugenic ProtectionLaw on the internet, Sato Michiko (pseudonym)from Miyagi Prefecture contacted the hotline toconsult about her sister-in-law, Yumi(pseudonym), who was forcibly sterilized whenshe was 15. Sato Yumi became the first personto sue the Japanese government over forcedsterilization in January 2018. Several othersfollowed suit, and currently 24 people,including spouses of victims, have broughtactions against the government.1

Lawsuits, and the public outcry that followedthem, prompted the authorities to investigatethe documents of forced sterilizations, andcreate a compensation law, which was enactedin April 2019 and allows victims to seekcompensation of 3.2 million yen. It left,however, many of the victims and supportersunsatisfied, as it does not specify the state asthe main perpetrator. Also, in May 2019 theSendai District Court ruled the EugenicProtection Law unconstitutional, but refusedplaintiffs Sato Yumi and Iizuka Junko’s(pseudonym) claim for compensation, statingthat the twenty-year statute of limitation hadexpired. However, it is important to add thatmost victims were not in a position to file

lawsuits, for instance, twenty years ago, asmany of them simply did not know that eugenicsterilizations were state-sanctioned, or wereafraid of the stigma of being associated withthem.

Kita Saburō was among 1,406 people sterilizedin Miyagi Prefecture. It was in 1957, when Kitawas a 14-year old student in a facility for“delinquent youths” called Shūyō Gakuen. Hehad none of the ailments or disabilities listed inthe Eugenic Protection Law.

Shūyō Gakuen

Shūyō Gakuen was a facility for “delinquentyouths” in Miyagi Prefecture. The history ofinstitutions nowadays known as children’s self-reliance support facilities (jidō jiritsu shienshisetsu) can be traced to the Meiji period,when, with the perceived increase in thenumber of delinquent youths, Japan enactedthe Reformatory Law (kanka hō) in 1900,according to which each prefecture was toestablish a reformatory (kankain) (Ambaras2005). The law was later replaced by theJuvenile Training and Education Law (shōnenkyōgo hō, 1933) and the Child Welfare Law(jidō fukushi hō, 1948). The facilities weresubsequently renamed as juvenile training andeducation schools (shōnen kyōgoin) andchildren’s self-reliance support facilities (jidōjiritsu shien shisetsu) (Ministry of Health,Labor and Welfare. 2014).

APJ | JF 18 | 7 | 2

4

Shūyō Gakuen in 1939 (Fuji shuppan 2009,190).

Shūyō Gakuen was established on KanokoShimizu-dor i in Sendai in 1909. TheReformatory Law was enforced in MiyagiPrefecture in 1908, and the following yearShūyō Gakuen was established as theprefecture’s first state-run reformatory. Duringits first year, it operated in a private house(minka), moving to its own building in 1910(Nihon tosho sentā 2003, 36). At that time, itcould accommodate only ten children, while by1939, when it celebrated its 30th anniversary,the total number of children (since itsestablishment) had reached 109, among which103 were male and 6 female. In the prewarperiod, the children’s typical day involvedwaking up at 5 or 6 a.m. (depending on thetime of the year), washing, cleaning, exercising,eating, reflecting on their behavior, studying(there was an individual plan for each student),learning practical skills such as farming orhandicrafts, doing sports, and helping withvarious activities. Children were not sparedsuch activities as hoisting the Hinomaru flagevery morning and singing the national anthemas well (Fuji shuppan 2009, 200-201). WhenKita Saburō was in Shūyō Gakuen in the 1950s,the everyday life of the facility was littledifferent from this, as it involved studying,farming, helping with various tasks, etc. Thenumber of children 34 at the time. There wereseveral dormitories for children and teachers, asports ground, a cookhouse, a workshop,

several fields for farming, and an apple garden.In 1964, the facility moved to a new locationand was renamed as Sawarabi Gakuen.

“Delinquent Youths” and EugenicSterilizations

Kita Saburō was sterilized in Shūyō Gakuen in1957, as were several other children, accordingto his testimony. Why did Shūyō Gakuensubject some of its students to eugenicoperation, if the Eugenic Protection Law clearlystated that only people having conditions listedin the Appendix, as well as those with non-hereditary mental conditions could be forciblysterilized?

In the absence of documentary evidence, onemay only speculate about possible reasons. Onep o s s i b l e a n s w e r m a y b e t h e b r o a dinterpretation of “inferior offspring” (furyō nashison), whose birth the Eugenic ProtectionLaw sought to prevent, to include delinquentsand criminals . In the prewar period,proponents of forced eugenic sterilizationsoften listed delinquency, alcoholism, andpauperism as “dysgenic” conditions (Fujino1998, 161-176), and although the EugenicProtection Law did not include any of these, inthe early postwar period such attitudes mighthave remained. Another possible answer maylie in the perceptions of juvenile delinquencyand its association with “low intellect” or“feeblemindedness.”

Discussions about the nature of juveniledelinquency and studies on that topic werefrequent in the early 20th century, as Japan’srapid industrialization and urbanizationbrought increased reports of crime and poverty(Ambaras 2005, 32-33). The existence ofdelinquent youths (furyō shōnen or hikōshōnen) was explained by many factors, such aspoverty, influence of the family and theenvironment, genetics, social status,occupation, and physical and mental health. It

APJ | JF 18 | 7 | 2

5

was also frequent ly associated with“feeblemindedness” or seishin hakujaku, a termthat inc luded both what we now cal lintellectual disability and developmentaldisability. As Sakuta demonstrates, influentialpsychiatrists such as Tokyo Imperial Universityprofessor Kure Shūzo (1865-1932), his discipleMiyake Kōichi (1876-1954) and several othersoften connected juvenile delinquency with“idiocy” (Sakuta 2018, 105-112). Legalprofessionals often expressed similar opinionsas well. For instance, bachelor of law GotsuShigeki wrote that criminals often hadfeeblemindedness (seishin no hakujaku) andwere of low intellect (chinō no teikaku) (Gotsu1922, 202-203). Judge Suzuki Kaichirō alsoclaimed that “mental abnormalities wereconnected with juvenile crimes” (Suzuki 1923,151).

It is probably not surprising that in 1932 ShūyōGakuen started to conduct psychiatricdiagnoses (seishin kanbetsu) of its students.Marui Kiyoyasu (1886-1953), professor ofTohoku Imperial University who was entrustedwith this, was also supportive of the theory thatjuvenile delinquents had defective intelligence.In The 30-year History of Shūyō Gakuen, helooked back on his medical practice at thefacility, writing: “I was entrusted as a physicianof psychiatric diagnosis for Shūyō Gakuenstudents in 1932, and since then I haveexamined forty students, which is the same asthe total number of students in this facilityduring that period. [......] Among those fortystudents , there were only three whodemonstrated normal or average intellect. Ihave to conclude that the others werecongenital imbeciles (sententeki teinōsha) .”(Fuji shuppan 2009, 193-194). Maruicomplained that society was insufficientlyinterested in this problem, adding that among100 million population of Japan there was asurprisingly large number of “congenitalimbeciles”, who could potentially become aburden for their families and for society (Fujishuppan 2009, 194).

In the postwar period, studies on juveniledelinquency often out the limitations ofintelligence tests and were more cautiousabout associations with mental disabilities, butmany studies presented data showing that acertain number of delinquent youths hadintellectual disability or mental illness (e. g.Higuchi 1953, 191-245). The intellectuallydisabled were the most likely targets of forcedsterilization, as they were perceived as “unableto look after themselves”, “unable to controltheir sexuality”, and so on (Hovhannisyan2020).

Victims’ Families

Kita Saburō’s testimony also reveals thecomplex nature of his relationship with hisfamily, particularly his father. Kita is hardly theonly victim of forced sterilization who showsresentment toward his family: Sora Hibari(pseudonym), Kobayashi Kimiko, and KojimaKikuo, all of whom started lawsuits against thegovernment, have also spoken about thedifficult relationship with their families. In fact,many of the victims, who did not even knowabout the existence of the Eugenic ProtectionLaw, blamed their families for their forcedsterilization, indeed, some families initiated thesterilization, or at least passively consented toit.

How can we explain this? Were families“agents” of the state (i.e. taking on the role ofdiscriminating against and excluding theirchildren from society (Yōda 1999, 77-78))? Or,overburdened and lacking financial resources,w e r e t h e y t h e m s e l v e s v i c t i m s o fcircumstances? This paper is unable to answerthis question, but research shows that familiesof disabled or unusual children ofteninternalize societal prejudices, and unless theyare conscious of it, they might becomeperpetrators of discrimination against theirown children (Yōda 1999, 35-36).

APJ | JF 18 | 7 | 2

6

Kita Saburō’s Reflections on his Life:Family, Child Support Facility, Inability toHave Children

Kita Saburō in his house (photo by theauthor).

Paper flowers made by Kita.

Family

I was three years old when my father cameback from the war. I saw an unfamiliar man,and I didn’t even think he was my father. I triedto be friendly, saying “Hi, uncle!”, but he justhit me. Then he looked into my face and said“I’m your father”. He said that and then hit meagain, and it hurt a lot. I wasn’t a crybaby, but Ithought “What a scary father”. After that Ialways thought that my father was scary. Mygrandmother saw that, she came up to me andsaid, “That must have hurt. This is your father”.I didn’t know anything about him before that.My mother died when I was eight months old,and my grandparents brought me up. I wasthree, and I was only starting to understandwhat was going on around me, when my fatherbeat me. He was scary. I couldn’t becomeattached to him.

When I was in the 3rd year of elementaryschool, my father got married. One year later,my brother was born. If it had been a girl, mylife might have been very different. A sisterwould marry into a family, and she would nottake over the house. I already had an eldersister. But with a brother, that was not the

APJ | JF 18 | 7 | 2

7

case. I only had one parent, while he had two,so it was assumed that he would be the one totake over our house.

When I was in the 6th year of elementaryschool, I started studying very hard in order tobe able to go to high school. There were nocram schools then, so I studied by myself. Iwould sometimes study till late at night. Onenight, my father came home and he asked,“What are you studying?” I said that I wasstudying to go to high school. But my fathersaid, “Compulsory education is till middleschool. The 3rd year of middle school. Youdon’t need to go to high school, stay at homeand help us with the shop.” I begged him to letme go to high school, but he said he did nothave money. I became rebellious after that.

Shūyō Gakuen and Sterilization

In middle school, I was quite strong. I wouldn’tlose if I got into fights. There was one studentin our class who could not walk properly, andsome bullies called him “a crippled turkey”.Once I got really angry and beat those bullies.But the teacher scolded me, saying, “Youalways cause problems.” Before I dropped outof school, I got into a fight again. I was withfriends, but they managed to run away, andonly I was caught. The teacher scolded meagain, and told me to bring my parents toschool. When they came, the principal toldthem, “He has done this a few times already”,and I was expelled from school. Then myteacher called the child consultation center,and told them I had been expelled from school.A few days later a teacher arrived from theconsultation center, and took me there. I spent2-3 days at the center, after which I was sent toShūyō Gakuen. To be honest, I was happy tohave been sent there. I wanted to leave myfamily home. My younger brother was to inheritthe shop, he had two parents, while I had one. Ithought it would be better if I left.

I recently returned to Shūyō Gakuen. I took ataxi, and got out of it near MukoyamaElementary School. Everything was gone,Shūyō Gakuen, the senior citizen’s home, theapple gardens. There was only grass growingeverywhere. Before we had apple gardens,flower beds with dahlias, lilies, sunflowers,chrysanthemums. Now everything was gone,buildings as well.

I used to live in Hikari dorm. There were threerooms, and three students lived in each ofthem. There was a small garden nearby, wherewe used to dry our clothes. Kitei-en, a facilityfor disabled children, was nearby. Once therewas a fire there, it burnt down, and Kitei-enpeople lived in our dormitories for a while, untiltheir new building was ready.

I was 14, just before the teacher took me tothe clinic and had me operated on, when mystepmother and my father came to visit. I thinkit was spring. I was surprised, trying to graspwhy they came. My mother was wearing akimono. I was afraid they came to take mehome, and I was prepared to escape if that wasthe case. But they only talked with theprincipal, I think they were talking about myoperation. Shortly after that, a teacher fromHikari dormitory took me to a clinic in Atago,where I was operated on. They didn’t tell mewhat surgery it was, the doctor just said he wasremoving something bad. It hurt a lot. Icouldn’t even walk properly for about a week. Ihad no idea what operation it was until I heardthat one of the seniors was sterilized, andrealized that my operation was that as well.Two students of Shūyō Gakuen were sterilizedbefore me, and three or four of them after. Kidsfrom nearby Kitei-en were sterilized as well. Ithink they [the social workers] had a quota andthey sterilized students indiscriminately. I wasvery healthy; I could do any physical work. Ididn’t know about the eugenics law, and Ithought my parents and social workers put meunder the knife.

APJ | JF 18 | 7 | 2

8

Life in Tokyo and Marriage

Kita at 55, holding the 7.5 kg Japanesebutterfish he caught (photo provided by

Kita Saburō).

When I graduated from Shūyō Gakuen, Iworked in Sendai for a while. I lived in thecompany dormitory on the 2nd floor of thebuilding. I got about 3000-6000 yen a month,and sent more than half of that to my father.Then one day my father demanded I returnhome. I didn’t want to, but I had no choice. Oneday I had an argument with my father, and hebeat me again. I decided I had had enough, andthat I needed to leave. I went to a few friends,borrowed 1000 yen from each of them. Ifigured if I had 3000 yen, I could go somewherefar away. I took a Joban line train. It was aSteam Locomotive, a steam train, can youimagine? I think it took about 12 hours. Theplace I arrived at was Tokyo. I was a stranger

in this city, I didn’t know where to go, and as Iwas wandering about, a policeman from Uenopolice department detained me. He told me togo to Ueno child consultation center, but Ididn’t go there. I walked to Kanda, where I sawa curry shop that was looking for staff. I askedthem to hire me, and they did. After that Iworked in many places. I’m skilled with myhands, I can do any kind of manual work.

When I was in my late twenties, I had a job inKitaharacho, which is not far away from thisplace [Nerima]. I was installing water pipesunderground, and living in an apartment whichwas only a five-minute walk from the office. Ihad decided that since I cannot father children,I shouldn’t get married, but my master’s wifewould always persuade me to do so. I wouldalways say I had no intention to get married,but once she convinced me to go out with awoman, who was the daughter of heracquaintance. We met at a coffee shop, thenwent to a sushi place. I told her she could eatas much sushi as she wanted. We talked a lot. Ihad decided to remain single, but I ended upgetting married. I was 27 then. I didn’t invitemy family to the wedding, only my companypresident and his wife. I hardly ever contactedmy family. Once my father asked me to sendhim 300,000 yen to send my younger brother tohigh school. I did, but hardly kept in touch afterthat.

My married life was fun for the first month,but people started bothering us with questions.Relatives, brothers and sisters would alwaysask, “When are you going to have children?” Ithought, “I shouldn’t have gotten married”. Mywife suffered a lot as well. Once I went to agynecologist and asked if it was possible torestore my reproductive ability. He said hecouldn't do anything, but told me to go to theclinic in Sendai where I was operated on, to seewhether they can do something. I never went toSendai though, as the doctor said reversing theoperation was probably impossible.

APJ | JF 18 | 7 | 2

9

I didn’t have the courage to tell my wife aboutmy sterilization until we were old. She gotseriously ill. As the illness was progressing, andshe was getting weaker and weaker, I decidedto tell her about it. “I have a secret to tell you.When I was a child, my parents made me havea surgery that wouldn’t let me have children. Iknew I couldn’t have children, but I marriedyou. I am really sorry. ” I told her everythingabout Shūyō Gakuen and the operation. Ithought she would scold me, but she just said,“Make sure you always eat well”. She died thenext morning, at 5:55.

The Lawsuit

Kita (second from the right) speaking at ameeting after court hearings on January

16, 2020 (photo by the author).

On January 31 (2018), I read about the lawsuit[Sato Yumi’s suit against the Japanesegovernment] in a newspaper. I was havinglunch, but when I read the article I froze. Ididn’t even know what a eugenic operationwas, but it turned out it was the one I wassubjected to as well. I contacted the hotline inSendai, and they introduced lawyers in Tokyo. Iwasn’t aware that sterilizations were beingperformed by the authorities. I had thought itwas my parents and Shūyō Gakuen who were toblame. I talked with lawyers, and decided to file

a lawsuit against the government.

To be honest, the compensation is not thatimportant to me, I just want the authorities toapologize for the injustice. There are thousandsof us, who were sterilized under this law. If weact alone, they can break us like disposablechopsticks. But if we unite, we will become alarge tree, and no one can break us.

References

Ambaras, David. 2005. Bad Youth: JuvenileDelinquency and the Politics of Everyday Life inModern Japan, University of California Press.

Fuji shuppan. 2009.” Shūyō Gakuen no sanjūnen” [The 30-Year History of Shūyō Gakuen]. InKodomo no jinken mondai shiryō shūsei: senzenhen [Collection of Materials Concerning HumanRights of Children: Prewar Period] Volume 6,Tokyo: Fuji shuppan, pp. 189-216.

Fujino, Yutaka. 1998. Nihon fashizumu to yūseishisō [Japanese Fascism and Eugenics]. Kyoto:Kamogawa shuppan.

Gotsu Shigeki. 1922. Furyō shōnen ni narumade [Becoming a Delinquent Youth]. Hyogo:Ganshodo.

Higuchi, Kōkichi. 1953. Sengo ni okeru hikōshōnen no seishin igakuteki kenkyū: Sengo hikōgenshō no tokushusei no bunseki [A PsychiatricResearch on Juvenule Delinquency in thePostwar Period: Analysis of Characteristics ofthe Postwar Delinquency Phenomenon]. Tokyo:Hōmu kenshūsho.

Hōmu sōsai iken nenpō. 1949. ‘Yūsei hogohō nikansuru gigi ni tsuite [Questions on theEugenic Protection Law].’ Hōmu sōsai ikennenpō 2, pp. 331-332.

APJ | JF 18 | 7 | 2

10

Hovhannisyan, Astghik. Forthcoming 2020.“Preventing the Birth of ‘Inferior Offspring’:Eugenic Sterilizations in Postwar Japan”.Upcoming in Japan Forum.

Ichinokawa, Yasutaka.1998. “Omei ni mamiretahitobito” [People Tainted with Dishonor].Misuzu 40 (8), pp.14-22.

Mainichi shinbun shuzaihan. 2019. Kyōseifunin: Kyū yūsei hogo hō o tou [ForcedSterilizations: Questioning the EugenicProtection Law]. Tokyo: Mainichi shinbunsha.

Matsubara, Yōko, 1997. “‘Bunka kokka’ noyūseihō: Yūsei hogohō to kokumin yūseihō nodansō” [The Eugenic Law of the ‘CulturalNation’: The Difference between the EugenicProtection Law and the National EugenicsLaw]. In Gendai shisō 25 (4), pp. 8-21.

Matsubara, Yōko. 1998. Nihon ni okeru yūseiseisaku no keisei: kokumin yūseihō to yūseihogohō no kentō [Formation of Eugenic Policiesin Japan: An Examination of the NationalEugenics Law and the Eugenic Protection Law].Doctoral dissertation: Ochanomizu Women’sUniversity.

Ministry of Health, Labor and Welfare. 2014.Jidō jiritsu shien shisetsu un’ei handobukku(https://www.mhlw.go.jp/file/06-Seisakujouhou-1 1 9 0 0 0 0 0 -Koyoukintoujidoukateikyoku/0000081178.pdf%20) [Management Handbook for Children’sSelf-reliance Support Facilities], pp.15-20.(accessed 17 November 2019)

Miyagi-ken Kitei-en. 1980. 30 nen no ayumi[30-year History of Kitei-en]. Kiyagi-ken Kitei-en.

Nagase, Osamu. 2019. “Voices from Survivorsof Forces Sterilizations in Japan: EugenicProtection Law 1948-1996”. In Maria Berghs,Tsitsi Chataika, Yahya El-Lahib, Kudakwashe

Dube (eds), The Routledge Handbook ofDisability Activism, Abington: Routledge, pp.182-189.

Nihon tosho sentā. 2003. Shakai fukushi jinmeishiryō jiten [Biographical Dictionary of SocialWelfare] Volume 2. Tokyo: Nihon tosho sentā.

Norgren, Tiana. 2001. Abortion Before BirthControl: The Politics of Reproduction inPostwar Japan. Princeton: Princeton UniversityPress.

Sakuta, Seiichirō. 2018. Kindai Nihon noshōnen hikōshi: “Furyō shōnen”kan ni kansururekishi shakaigakuteki kenkyū [A History ofJuvenile Delinquency in Modern Japan: A Socio-Historical Study of the Images of “BadYouths”]. Okayama: Gakubunsha.

Suzuki Kaichirō. 1923. Furyō shōnen no kenkyū[A Study of Juvenile Delinquency]. Tokyo:Daitokaku.

Toshimitsu, Keiko, 2016. Sengo Nihon ni okerujosei shōgaisha e no kyōseiteki na funinshujutsu [Forced Sterilizations of DisabledWomen in Postwar Japan]. Kyoto: ResearchCentre of Ars Vivendi, Ritsumeikan University.

Yamamoto, Tatsuichi. 1981. YamamotoTakeyoshi ikōshū [Posthumous Manuscripts ofYamamoto Takeyoshi]. Yamamoto Takeyoshiikōshū kankōkai.

Yōda, Hiroe. 1999. Shōgaisha sabetsu noshakaigaku: jendā, kazoku, kokka [TheSociology of Disability Discrimination: Gender,Family, the State]. Tokyo: Iwanami shoten.

Yūsei shujutsu ni taisuru shazai o motomeru kai(ed.). 2018. Yūsei hogohō ga okashita tsumi:Kodomo o motsu koto o ubawareta hitobito noshōgen [The Crime Committed by the EugenicProtection Law: Testimonies of People WhoWere Denied the Right to Have Children].Tokyo: Gendai shokan, pp. 268-269.

APJ | JF 18 | 7 | 2

11

Astghik Hovhannisyan is a Senior Lecturer at Russian-Armenian University (Armenia) and aVisiting Research Scholar at International Research Center for Japanese Studies (Kyoto). Herresearch interests include social history of medicine, the history of eugenics and birth controlmovement in Japan, and disability studies.

astghik.hovhannisyan@rau.am (https://apjjf.org/mailto:astghik.hovhannisyan@rau.am)

Notes1 Information about lawsuits and plaintiffs can we found on the Defense team’s homepage.http://yuseibengo.wpblog.jp/