Untold rights. Sexuality and reproductive rights of girls and women with disabilities.

Author/s Sara Carnovali
Publishing Year 2022 Issue 2021/2 Language Italian
Pages 17 P. 132-148 File size 192 KB
DOI 10.3280/SD2021-002007
DOI is like a bar code for intellectual property: to have more infomation click here

Below, you can see the article first page

If you want to buy this article in PDF format, you can do it, following the instructions to buy download credits

Article preview

FrancoAngeli is member of Publishers International Linking Association, Inc (PILA), a not-for-profit association which run the CrossRef service enabling links to and from online scholarly content.

Girls and women with disabilities are victims of multiple discrimination on the ground of the intersection between gender and disability, which prevents them from fully enjoying their fundamental rights to sexuality and reproduction in much of the world. This circumstance depends on the stigma generated by two different "myths" in this area: on the one side, accord-ing to the "asexuality myth", women with disabilities are perceived of as lacking of their own sexual and reproductive life, a perspective that denies their adulthood, sexual education and access to health services dedicated to female health; on the other side, on the basis of the "hy-persexuality myth" the sexuality of women with disabilities - in particular intellectual or mental - is perceived as "out-of-control", to be "dominated". This latter perspective legitimizes practices which seriously infringe upon their human rights, such as forced contraception, abortion and sterilization. This contribution investigates the importance of combating multiple discrimination in order to safeguard the human rights of women and girls with disabilities, with particular reference to the rights on the body and of the body.

Keywords: Girls - Women - Disabilities - Rights - Sexuality - Reproduction

  1. Powell, Robyn M., & Michael Ashley Stein, 2016. Persons with Disabilities and their Sexual, Reproductive and Parenting Rights: An International and Comparative Analysis. Frontiers of Law in China, 11, 1: 53-85.
  2. Robertson, Gerald B., 1993. Sterilization, Mental Disability, and Re Eve: Affirmative Discrimination? In W.S. Tarnopolsky et al. (eds.), Discrimination in the Law and the Administration of Justice. Montréal: Les Éditions Thémis.
  3. Rodotà, Stefano, 2012. Il diritto di avere dei diritti, Bari: Editori Laterza.
  4. Rossi, Stefano, 2017. Forme della vulnerabilità e attuazione del programma costituzionale. Rivista AIC, 2: 1-61.
  5. Schianchi, Matteo, 2012. Storia della disabilità. Dal castigo degli dèi alla crisi del welfare. Roma: Carocci.
  6. Stein, Michael Ashley, 1994. Mommy Has a Blue Wheelchair: Recognizing the Parental Rights of Individuals with Disabilities. Brooklyn Law Review, 60, 3: 1069-1099.
  7. UN Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, 2016. Concluding observations on the initial report of Italy, -- https://digitallibrary.un.org/record/131065 0#record-files-collapse-header (visitato il 31 gennaio 2021).
  8. UN Special Rapporteur on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, 2017. Report on sexual and reproductive health and rights of girls and young women with disabilities, -- https://www.ohchr.org/EN/Issues/Disability/SRDisabilities/Pages/ReprodutveHeal thRights.aspx (visitato il 31 gennaio 2021).
  9. Vadalà, Velia, 2009. La tutela delle disabilità. Milano: Giuffrè.
  10. Volz, Vanessa, 2006. A matter of choice: women with disabilities, sterilization, and reproductive autonomy in the twenty–first century. Women’s Rights Law Reporter, 27: 203-216.
  11. Waddington, Lisa, 2005. Implementing the Disability Provisions of the Framework employment Directive: Room for Exercising National Discretion. In A. Lawson et al., eds., Disability Rights in Europe. Portland: Bloomsbury Collections.
  12. Women With Disabilities Australia (WWDA), 2013. Dehumanised. The forced sterilisation of women and girls with disabilities in Australia, -- https://tbinternet.ohc hr.org/Treaties/CAT/Shared%20Docments/AUS/INT_CAT_NGO_AUS_1867 3_E.pdf (visitato il 31 gennaio 2021).
  13. World Health Organization (WHO), 2010. Developing sexual health programmes. A framework for action, -- https://www.who.int/reproductivehealth/publications/s exual_health/rhr_hrp_10_22/en/ (visitato il 31 gennaio 2021).
  14. Zatti, Paolo, 2009. Maschere del diritto, volti della vita. Milano: Giuffrè.
  15. Bernardini, Maria Giulia, 2016. Disabilità, giustizia, diritto. Itinerari tra filosofia del diritto e Disability Studies. Torino: Giappichelli.
  16. Boiano, Ilaria, 2019. Criminalizzazione delle scelte delle donne in materia di salute sessuale e riproduttiva: il caso dell’aborto come guerra contro le donne. Studi sulla questione criminale, 1, 2: 131-150.
  17. Carey Michael P., Kate B. Carey, Lance S. Weinhardt & Christopher M. Gordon, 1997. Behavioral Risk for HIV Infection Among Adults with a Severe and Persistent Mental Illness: Patterns and Psychological Antecedents. Community Mental Health Journal, 32, 2: 133-142. DOI: 10.1023/A:102242341730
  18. Crenshaw, Kimberlé, 1989. Demarginalizing the Intersection of Race and Sex: A Black Feminist Critique of Antidiscrimination Doctrine, Feminist Theory and Antiracist Politics. University of Chicago Legal Forum, 1: 139-167.
  19. D’Amico, Marilisa, 2016. I diritti contesi. Problematiche attuali del costituzionalismo. Milano: FrancoAngeli.
  20. EIDD-Design for All Europe, 2004. EIDD Stockholm, -- https://dfaeurope.eu/what-is-dfa/dfa-documents/the-eidd-stockholm-declaration-2004 (visitato il 31 gennaio 2021).
  21. Girmania, Enrico, 2016. L’eutanasia nazista. Lo sterminio dei disabili nella Germania di Hitler. Roma: Armando.
  22. Gruppo Donne UILDM, 2013. L’accessibilità dei servizi di ginecologia e ostetricia alle donne con disabilità. Rapporto di ricerca, -- http://www.condicio.it/allegati/100/ServiziSanitariDonneDisabiliRapporto2013.pdf (visitato il 31 gennaio 2021).
  23. Liberali, Benedetta, 2017. Problematiche costituzionali nelle scelte procreative. Riflessioni intorno alla fecondazione medicalmente assistita e all’interruzione volontaria di gravidanza. Milano: Giuffrè.
  24. Lombardo, Paul A., 1996. Medicine, Eugenics, and the Supreme Court: From Coercive Sterilization to Reproductive Freedom. Journal of Contemporary Health Law and Policy, 13, 1: 1-25.
  25. —, 2008. Three Generations, No Imbeciles: Eugenics, the Supreme Court and Buck vs Bell. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press.
  26. Makkonen, Timo, 2002. Compound and Intersectional Discrimination: Bringing the Experiences of the Most Marginalized to the Fore, -- https://www.abo.fi/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/2002-Makkonen-Multiple-compound-and-intersectional-discrimination.pdf (visitato il 31 gennaio 2021).
  27. Montenegro Canencio, Martin Javier, 2019. La esterilización de menores de edad en situación de discapacidad intelectual. Revista de Derecho Privado, 37: 85-117.

Sara Carnovali, I diritti innominati. Sessualità e diritti riproduttivi di bambine e donne con disabilità in "SOCIOLOGIA DEL DIRITTO " 2/2021, pp 132-148, DOI: 10.3280/SD2021-002007