Chinese Victim of Forced Birth Control Deserves Asylum
In 1991, the Chinese government forced Mei Fen Wong to get an intrauterine device (IUD) implanted in her uterus as a state-mandated form of population control. Wong found the device "unbearably" painful and, in accordance with what would seem like her individual rights, had it removed by a private doctor. But soon after, in a mandatory state-ordered pelvic exam, the government doctor found that Mei Fen Wong's IUD was missing.
Mei Fen Wong was detained for three days until she gave up her personal rights and allowed the reinsertion of an IUD. Traumatized and scared for her health, she fled to the United States and applied for asylum in 2000. Her claim was rejected by an immigration judge and then again, in 2008, by the Board of Immigration Appeals. But now, with wisdom somehow lacking in the BIA, the 2nd Court of Appeals has found this case compelling enough to have another look.
Because the IUD is not permanent, the original rulings found that mandatory IUD insertion does not qualify as grounds for persecution under U.S. asylum law. The question that the 2nd Circuit is now reviewing is whether imprisonment for refusing the IUD elevates the government control of Mei Fen Wong's body to the level of persecution.
I'd say so.
Like all women living under China's "one child policy," Mei Fen Wong's decisions about childbirth were made for her by government law. But the fact that she was forced to implant a device into her uterus that turned out to be extremely painful for her, only to be jailed for removing it and and threatened with further harm if she did not have it reinserted, is indeed a legitimate form of persecution.
And it should also be noted that prison guards complicit in forcing internal contraception on women like Mei Fen Wong have applied for U.S. asylum in the past — but were rejected. Why? Because the courts found that they had persecuted women in China by holding them hostage until they complied with barbaric government law.
Let's hope the 2nd circuit finds the clear sense — and legal precedent — in this case, and grants Mei Fen Wong protection so that she can choose how her body is used, and what comes in or out of it, on her own.
Photo Credit: Larsa







COMMENTS (3)