Britney Spears’ Reproductive Freedom is a Disability Rights Issue
By Zoe Brennan-Krohn and Rebecca McCray,
ACLU
| 06. 25. 2021
There were many shocking moments in Britney Spears’ 24-minute statement calling for an end to her conservatorship, delivered Wednesday to a Los Angeles probate judge by phone. The pop star, who has lived under a conservatorship chiefly overseen by her father for 13 years, described grueling labor demands, constant surveillance, being cut off from friends, and being confined against her will. As Spears made her case for the judge, one startling detail stood out amidst the laundry list of abuses: Although she would like to have children and be married, her conservators refuse to allow her to have her intrauterine device (IUD) removed, she said, “because they don’t want me to be able to have children.”
Fans, onlookers, and the media seized on this revelation, many expressing shock and dismay that a conservator could require a 39-year-old woman to use birth control against her will. “Britney HAS to keep an IUD in under her conservatorship?” asked one horrified Twitter user. “How is any of this legal/okay?”
Unfortunately, losing your reproductive freedom because you are in a conservatorship is very often...
Related Articles
By Oscar Lopez, The Guardian | 07.19.2026
Diogo Amaro met his future husband, Loup, in Paris and from the first date, he made one thing clear: he wanted to have children.
“Right off the bat, I was like: ‘If I’m going to be in a relationship with...
By Emily Packard Dawson and Lainie Friedman Ross , The Hastings Center for Bioethics | 07.16.2026
Major news outlets recently reported – based on a bioRxiv preprint – that scientists had edited genes in human embryos with “startling precision.” The scientists’ decision to release this work ahead of peer review, coupled with the extensive media coverage...
Media coverage of recent developments in embryo gene editing might seem to suggest that gene-edited babies are close to becoming a reality. As tech billionaires eager to profit off of techno-eugenics invest in “designer baby” technologies, attempts to normalize heritable genome editing – which remains unsafe and raises significant ethical and societal concerns – are especially dangerous. It’s worth taking a closer look at these developments and what they mean, in a way that pushes back on narratives normalizing the...
The title of this book is clever, not least because it is borrowed from a very secret society of a dozen Stanford students. Theo Baker, a gregarious computer science freshman, was interviewed by the hyper-rich anonymous entrepreneur who quietly assembled the members. The unspoken suggestion was that he might consider hiring some of the members in service of acquiring his next billion. (Either Baker was not offered a place or he is not admitting it.) Such are the ways of...
