The human rights impact of gender stereotyping in the context of reproductive health care.

Abstract

Gender stereotypes surrounding women's reproductive health impede women's access to essential reproductive healthcare and contribute to inequality more generally. Stereotyping in healthcare settings impedes women's access to contraceptive information, services, and induced abortion, and lead to involuntary interventions in the context of sterilization. Decisions by human rights monitoring bodies, such as the Inter-American Court of Human Rights' case, IV v. Bolivia, which was a case concerned with the involuntary sterilization of a woman during childbirth, highlight how stereotypes in the context of providing health care can operate to strip women of their agency and decision-making authority, deny them their right to informed consent, reinforce gender hierarchies and violate their reproductive rights. In the present article, IV v. Bolivia is examined as a case study with the objective being to highlight how, in the context of coercive sterilization, human rights law has been used to advance legal and ethical guidelines, including the International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics' (FIGO) own guidelines, on gender stereotyping and reproductive healthcare. The Inter-American Court's judgment in IV v. Bolivia illustrates the important role FIGO's guidance can play in shaping human rights standards and provides guidance on the service provider's role and responsibility in eliminating gender stereotypes and upholding and fulfilling human rights.