Britney Spears Alleges Conservatorship Prevents Her from Removing IUD: Is It Legal?
Pop star Britney Spears made shocking claims during a recent court appearance, where she spoke out against her controversial 13-year conservatorship.
In a passionate speech, Spears accused her father and other individuals involved in the conservatorship of subjecting her to nonstop work, incapacitating medication, excessive blood draws, and intense psychological evaluations.
She revealed that these actions have left her feeling angry, depressed, and traumatized.
Towards the end of her emotional testimony, Spears dropped another bombshell accusation.
She claimed that her “so-called team” has prevented her from removing the intrauterine contraceptive device (IUD) implanted in her body, effectively denying her the ability to have more children.
Despite already having two teenage boys with her ex-husband Kevin Federline and being in a relationship with personal trainer Sam Asghari, Spears expressed her desire to start trying for another baby and argued that the conservatorship is causing more harm than good in her life.
This final allegation has sparked widespread conversations about reproductive justice and raised questions about its legality.
Jodi Hicks, president and CEO of Planned Parenthood Affiliates of California, described Spears' account of forced contraception as deeply troubling.
Hicks emphasized the importance of individuals having the right to make informed choices about their s**ual and reproductive health, free from coercion and exploitation.
She called for stronger protections for individuals under conservatorship to ensure their reproductive decision-making rights are safeguarded.
The Los Angeles Times also reached out to Khiara M. Bridges, a law professor and faculty director of the Center on Reproductive Rights and Justice at UC Berkeley, to discuss the legal implications of Spears' testimony and its connection to historical reproductive-rights violations.
Bridges expressed outrage at Spears' revelations, highlighting the long-standing history of denying marginalized individuals, such as women, poor women, people of color, disabled people, and incarcerated people, the autonomy to make decisions about their own bodies and reproductive choices.
While conservators have the authority to make financial and medical decisions for the person under conservatorship, Bridges argued that controlling someone's reproductive choices should only be legal if it directly impacts their financial well-being or is deemed a medical decision.
She viewed the extent of control exerted by Spears' conservators as an overreach of their power.
Furthermore, Bridges discussed how Spears' case reflects broader reproductive-rights violations experienced by disabled individuals and marginalized groups.
She emphasized the importance of recognizing not only the right not to have a child but also the right to have a child and parent with dignity.
Historically, marginalized communities have been disproportionately affected by the denial of these rights.
Bridges highlighted the ongoing discrimination against disabled individuals in their desire to become parents, citing coerced sterilization and forced contraception as present-day examples.
The attention surrounding Spears' case has the potential to influence future policy.
Bridges drew parallels between Spears' situation and other instances of reproductive-rights violations, such as coerced sterilizations in ICE detention centers and prisons.
She urged people to be equally outraged by these cases and encouraged judges to be more vigilant in monitoring the powers of conservators.
To bring about change for those whose reproductive rights have been violated, Bridges stressed the importance of voting, especially considering the conservative leanings of the current Supreme Court.
She emphasized that protecting access to both the decision not to have a child and the decision to have a child relies on voting for representatives who prioritize reproductive rights.
Spears' case also highlights the connection between state-imposed limitations on reproductive freedom and conservatorships.
The conservatorship itself is a result of her disability, with a private actor controlling her reproductive decisions based on her disability.
This parallels other cases in which state actors or private individuals restrict reproductive decision-making due to disabilities.
These comparisons shed light on the constraints placed on individuals' reproductive autonomy.
For laws surrounding reproductive rights under conservatorships to change, Bridges emphasized the need for cultural shifts that value and empathize with people with disabilities.
She argued that the country must recognize and support the reproductive desires of disabled individuals and other marginalized groups.
Only through changes in societal attitudes can legal protections be put in place to safeguard the rights of disabled individuals to have children and parent them on their terms.
