Thank you all for your continued warm support.

On January 29, 2025, the fourth oral argument in the "My Body Is Not a Mother's Body" lawsuit was held.
Prior to the same date, the defendant country submitted a rebuttal brief ( Defendant's Second Preparatory Brief ).

The contents were as follows:
The right to receive sterilization is not guaranteed by the latter part of Article 13 of the Constitution. The regulatory objective of "protecting the life and health of mothers" is legitimate and the regulatory means (prohibition of sterilization) are also reasonable. All of the requirements set out in Article 3, Paragraph 1 of the Maternal Health Act are reasonable. There is no issue of violation of Article 24, Paragraph 2 of the Constitution.

However, there were many points in the government's arguments that were unclear. For example, the government has long argued that Article 3, paragraph 1 of the Maternal Protection Act "is a requirement to permit sterilization, and therefore does not restrict the rights of the plaintiffs," but has not provided a clear reason for this. In addition, it has not clarified what "protecting the life and health of mothers" specifically means, and there has been no explanation as to why the requirements of endangering life and reducing health due to multiple births are necessary in relation to the purpose of the law, or why sterilization can be said to be a reasonable measure. Therefore, we believe that a major problem is that important assumptions for discussion are not shared, resulting in a situation where arguments do not mesh.

Even though we asked for an explanation in court, no explanation was given, and we were able to confirm that the judge was also aware of the problem that our arguments were not aligned. Therefore, at the next hearing, we plan to clarify the points of discrepancy in our discussions with the government and then refute the defendant's arguments.

The next oral argument hearing will be held on Wednesday, April 23rd at 2:00 p.m. in Courtroom 803 of the Tokyo District Court.
We would appreciate your continued support.

Thank you all for your continued warm support.

On November 1, 2024, the third oral argument in the "My Body Is Not a Mother's Body" lawsuit was held.
Prior to this, I had submitted a written rebuttal to the government stating that "the right to sterilization is not guaranteed by the Constitution," and I gave an oral outline of that statement.

Our argument has three key points:
-The right to receive sterilization surgery is a right to self-determination that combines two aspects: "self-determination as to whether or not to have children" and "self-determination regarding one's own life and body," and is guaranteed by Article 13 of the Constitution.
- The "freedom to use contraception" is a pre-national natural right, and the right to receive sterilization surgery is one such right guaranteed by Article 13 of the Constitution.
- Sterilization surgery is "a matter involving the choice of whether or not to have children" and falls under "matters relating to the family" in Article 24, Paragraph 2 of the Constitution.

The presiding judge then distributed a document illustrating the requirements of Article 3, Paragraph 1 of the Maternal Protection Act, and after confirming the parts that the plaintiff claimed were unconstitutional and invalid, he instructed the defendant (the government) to refute these points.
In fact, the government has deliberately excluded this point from the discussion, arguing that "because it is a requirement for permitting sterilization, it does not restrict the rights of the plaintiffs." We have argued that this provision is the core of the regulation, and is the subject of our argument for unconstitutionality and invalidity.
Through the management of this litigation, we were able to confirm that the judge correctly understood our concerns.
*The documents submitted by the plaintiff ( Preparatory Document 2 , Preparatory Document 3 , Summary of Preparatory Document 3 ) and the documents distributed by the court can be viewed here.

The next oral argument hearing will be held on Wednesday, January 29th at 2:00 p.m. in Courtroom 803 of the Tokyo District Court.
We would appreciate your continued support.

Thank you all for your continued warm support.

The third hearing will be held on Friday, November 1st from 2:00 p.m. in Courtroom 803 of the Tokyo District Court.

At the second hearing held on Wednesday, August 28, the defendant submitted a written rebuttal ( first preparatory brief ) to the contents of the complaint filed by the plaintiff. The government's main rebuttal was that the provisions of the Maternal Health Act, which the plaintiff claims are unconstitutional, do not violate the second paragraph of Article 13 or paragraph 2 of Article 24 of the Constitution.

Therefore, at this third hearing, the plaintiffs plan to refute the government's response to the preconditions and the first preparatory brief submitted last time. On the day of the hearing, the plaintiffs' attorneys will make a presentation on the contents of the documents submitted in advance by the plaintiffs.

In addition, on the day of the hearing, we plan to post any documents submitted by the plaintiffs on this website.

We hope that many people will come.

Thank you all for your continued warm support.
 I am late in reporting this, but on February 26th of this year, I filed a “Maternity is not my body’s purpose” Lawsuit in the Tokyo District Court. 

 The first session will be held on Wednesday, June 12th at 11am!

“Maternity is not my body’s purpose” Lawsuit First Oral Argument Date 

Date: Wed. July 12, from 11:00 am (about 30 min.)
Venue: Tokyo District Court, Room No. 803, Grand Courtroom

The hearing is a notable occasion that will include statements of opinion (courtroom speeches) by the plaintiffs and their legal counsel.
Please come and observe the hearing so that we can create a society in which each individual can make their own decisions about sexuality and their health.Let's all support the plaintiff's courage.