無強制即無壓迫？——障礙女性生育權的臺灣法律史探尋（1970-2021）

Abstract

臺灣從過去到現在不曾以法律明文對障礙者進行強制結紮與墮胎，是否就可謂臺灣沒有對障礙者實施生育壓迫的歷史？是否代表臺灣沒有受到優生學浪潮的影響，想方設法避免障礙女性生育子女？為了回答此一研究提問，本論文援用障礙女性主義理論（feminist theory of disability）的批判與生育正義（reproductive justice）觀點考察障礙女性生育子女權利受剝奪的歷史。障礙女性主義指出，障礙女性受到障礙者運動與婦女運動的「雙重排除」，使她們始終處在社會運動的邊緣位置，障礙女性的生育議題因此亦一直未受重視；生育正義的概念則避免將對生育權的保障等同於對女性墮胎權的維護，忽略了少數族裔女性、中下階層女性、以及障礙女性等群體生下子女的權利正在被限制。 本論文藉由探究1970年代起障礙與生育的立法與社會運動，指出立法者、障礙者權利運動與墮胎權運動如何肯定或默許「避免障礙者出生」的優生觀念，並彰顯障礙女性在兩個運動中的邊緣地位如何阻礙且傷害了障礙女性生育權的實踐。上述對障礙女性生育權的否定，一直到2001年後兩個運動有了交流的機會才催生了障礙女性生育權論述，然而在少子化與人工生殖科技的發展下，優生的持續與轉化仍阻礙了障礙女性的生育自主決定。 首先，本論文考察1979年至2000年障礙者權利運動在殘障福利法制定與修正行動中，對優生保健法與「殘障預防」所內嵌優生思想的支持，以及對障礙女性議題與權利的排除。藉此指出障礙女性生育子女的權利即是在此背景之下被否定，她們的生育權不僅不被國家承認，也因優生與保護等理由不被障礙者家長團體認可。同時，父母、監護人、醫師及其他專業人員也時常代為決定或干預障礙女性生育子女的決定，從而使得1984年優生保健法所規範的「自願」墮胎與結紮，適用於障礙女性身上卻產生「非自願」的結果。 本論文接著考察同時期墮胎合法化的過程，包含官方的優生保健法草案、刑法修正草案中墮胎罪章的修正以及民間婦運在推動墮胎合法化上的努力。本論文發現，不僅行政機關及立法者對優生保健法草案與刑法草案中的優生內涵具有高度共識，1970年代的新女性主義運動也忽略階級與障礙身分對生育自主的影響，將避免殘障者出生作為贊同墮胎合法化的理由之一。1980年代以婦女新知為首的墮胎合法化運動，更是因為其行動上相對激進、主張上保守的特性，對優生採取默許的態度。最後，優生保健法在1984年順利通過，以侵害障礙女性生育權為代價，成為1990年代的新家庭計畫的法源依據，產生「人口素質」轉向的政策，並針對障礙族群進行補助節育與結紮措施。 直到2001年後才出現改變的契機。由於障礙者運動與婦女運動之間的密切合作，他們相互參照對方的主張，使得對優生的批判以及障礙女性生育子女權利的論述得以產生。越來越多障礙女性也開始書寫自己的生命故事並出版自傳，有助於障礙女性的意識覺醒，並進一步在2017年組成以障礙女性為主體的倡議團體進行行政與立法遊說，她們的集體現身對社會運動帶來了不可忽視的影響。但是，本論文同時也欲提醒，不應過於樂觀看待障礙女性生育權論述的形成，因為少子化趨勢下國家更加強調提升人口品質的重要性，人工生殖科技的發展僅只是允許障礙女性生下不障礙的子女，優生的持續存在與轉化仍阻礙障礙女性生育正義的實現。 因此，透過對障礙與生育之立法與社會運動的比較與再考察，本論文發現即使臺灣沒有法律明文規範障礙者必須墮胎或結紮，1970年代之後優生論述的盛行以及障礙女性在社會運動中的邊緣地位，仍導致實際上障礙女性生育子女的決定受到國家鼓勵性措施、專業團體的干預、以及家長代為決定所左右。從而，本論文希冀能尋回那些被人們所遺忘的生育壓迫歷史：臺灣並非沒有對障礙女性的生育壓迫，優生也並非僅只是納粹德國與美國的「他者之惡」，而是對在地歷史的失憶導致我們遺忘了過去的壓迫及壓迫在當代透過轉化而保存的可能。

Just because there has never been a law that obliges the disabled to be sterilized or undergo abortion in Taiwan, does it mean that there is no history of oppression of the reproductive rights of the disabled in Taiwan? Does it mean that Taiwan was wholly unaffected by the wave of eugenics that has tried everything it can to prevent disabled women from giving birth? In order to answer this research question, this thesis utilizes the perspective of reproductive justice and feminist theory of disability to investigate the history of denying disabled women the right to give birth to and nurture children. Feminist theory of disability advocates point out that disabled women are “doubly excluded”, such that they are always marginalized in social movements, and the issue of their reproductive rights has never been the focus of social movements. The concept of reproductive justice avoids treating the right to abortion as equivalent to the protection of reproductive rights, since the abortion rights movements neglect the fact that the minority, lower-middle class, and disabled women’s right to give birth is being restricted. This thesis unveils how legislators, disability rights movements and abortion movements have affirmed or acquiesced to the eugenics concept of “preventing the disabled from being born,” and sheds light on how the marginalized status of disabled women in both movements have blocked and hurt the fulfillment of reproductive rights of disabled women. The aforementioned denial of reproductive rights for disabled women was not realized until the opportunity for the two movements to interact came by in 2001. However, with dipping birth rates and the development of artificial reproductive technology, the sustaining and transforming eugenics still obstructs disabled women’s autonomous reproductive decision-making. This thesis first examines the role of disability rights movements in drafting and amending the Welfare Law for Handicapped Persons from 1979 to 2000, describing how the movement supported the embedded ideas of eugenics within the Genetic Health Act (literally translated as the “Eugenics and Health Act”) and “handicap prevention,” and rejected the issue and rights of disabled women. Under this backdrop, it is revealed that disabled women were denied the right to give birth to and nurture children. Not only does the state reject disabled women’s reproductive rights, but parent organizations also refuse to recognize this right on the grounds of eugenics and protection of their disabled children. At the same time, parents, guardians, doctors, and other professionals often act on disabled women’s behalf or interfere with their decision to give birth to and nurture children, such that “voluntary abortion and sterilization” under the 1984 Genetic Health Act became “involuntary abortion and sterilization.” Secondly, this thesis investigates the legalization of abortion that took place at about the same time, by looking into the government draft of the Genetic Health Act, amendments to the abortion chapter in the Criminal Code, and the efforts of the nongovernmental women’s movement in legalizing abortion. This thesis discovers that apart from great consensus among the administrative branch and legislators regarding the eugenics connotation of the Genetic Health Act draft and the Criminal Code draft amendment, but the New Feminism movement of the 1970s also forsake the effect of class and disability on reproductive autonomy by agreeing to “preventing the disabled from being born” as a reason to support legalizing abortion. The 1980s abortion legalization movement headed by the Awakening Foundation, featured as radical in action but conservative in proposition, also went along with the eugenic concepts. Finally, when the Genetic Health Act ultimately passed in 1984, it became the legal authority for the 1990s New Family Planning by sacrificing the reproductive rights of disabled women. Based on the Genetic Health Act, policies to upgrade “the quality of the population” were born, in addition to subsidies for family planning and sterilization directed at disabled populations. It was not until 2001 that a turning point came into sight. Close cooperation between the disability movement and women’s movement led them to take a page out of each other’s positions, thus giving rise to criticism directed at eugenics, and support for the right of disabled women to give birth to and nurture children. More and more disabled women began to write their own life stories and publish autobiographies, helping to awaken more disabled women. Disabled women further organized a disabled people’s organization in 2017 to lobby in both the administrative branches and the legislature. Their appearance as a group brought undeniable impact to social movements. On the other hand, this thesis is also wary of being overly optimistic about the formation of the reproductive rights for disabled women discourse. This is because the state is putting more emphasis on improving the quality of the population under the immense pressure of low birth rates, and the development of artificial reproductive technology only allows disabled women to bear “non-disabled” children, while the persisted existence and transformation of eugenics continues to hinder the fulfillment of disabled women’s reproductive rights. Therefore, through comparing and rewriting the social movements for disability and reproduction related law, this thesis has shown that even though there is no law obligating the disabled to undergo abortion or sterilization, the prevalence of eugenics and the marginalized status of disabled women in social movements still resulted in the impingement of disabled women’s rights to give birth to and nurture children through incentives provided by the state, the interference of professional organizations, and parents that try to take over decision-making. Thus, it is this thesis’ meager hope that the forgotten history of oppression of reproductive rights could be polished: It is not that there has not been oppression of the reproduction of disabled women in Taiwan, and eugenics was not a “foreign evil” from the Nazis Germany and the United States. It is that we have been so amnesic to local history that we have forgotten the oppression in the past, and neglected the possibility that oppression was preserved in transformation.