Send message to Author

Paper short abstract

This paper examines the trajectory of the Japan Association for Maternal Welfare (JAMW), an organization designated under the Eugenic Protection Law, and argues that JAMW is indispensable for understanding both old and new eugenics in Japan.

Paper long abstract

This paper examines the trajectory of the Japan Association for Maternal Welfare (JAMW), an organization designated under the Eugenic Protection Law, and argues that JAMW is indispensable for understanding both old and new eugenics in Japan.

JAMW was founded in 1949 under Article 12 of the 1948 law, with Taniguchi Yasaburō, a gynecologist and member of the House of Councilors, as its first president. In 1952, Taniguchi led a major revision of the law, incorporating input from JAMW’s regional branches and its Tokyo headquarters. A key change was the introduction of a provision allowing sterilization for non-hereditary mental disorders with guardian consent. This revision aimed to address psychiatrists’ reluctance, which JAMW viewed as limiting the number of psychiatrists available. Throughout the 1950s, Taniguchi repeatedly pressed the Ministry of Health and Welfare during parliamentary sessions to enforce sterilization on individuals with intellectual disabilities, citing JAMW’s position. Other JAMW executives criticized psychiatrists and prison doctors for their passive stance and supported increasing the number of sterilizations.

From the 1960s onward, religious groups such as Seichō no Ie began calling for revisions to the law’s abortion provisions. In the 1970s and the 1980s, parliamentary efforts to restrict abortions intensified. JAMW opposed these moves, arguing that the law was both an abortion law and a eugenics law. In 1972, the JAMW attempted to introduce a fetal provision permitting abortion for disability, but strong opposition from women’s and disability rights groups blocked it. Nevertheless, the JAMW successfully lobbied the Liberal Democratic Party to prevent revisions.

Despite its central role in promoting sterilization and shaping policy, JAMW’s influence remains underexplored, even after lawsuits and historical inquiries in 2018. This paper challenges interpretations of the Eugenic Protection Law system that omit the JAMW.