Ahead of the 115th International Women’s Day, Perempuan Mahardhika [1] and Amnesty International Indonesia held a public discussion on 24 February 2026 in Jakarta, entitled “Resisting State Control over Reproductive Health Rights”. This article reports on the discussion, which brought together perspectives from the women’s movement, human rights organisations, and sexual and reproductive health advocacy to expose the political logic behind regulations that control bodies and sexuality. The discussion was moderated by Audrey Kartisha from the Institute for Criminal Justice Reform (ICJR). [2]
The discussion affirmed that restrictions on reproductive health rights do not merely affect women’s health — they are intimately connected to democratic regression, the rise of authoritarianism, and human rights violations under a militaristic regime. Criminalisation and control over bodies create fear, narrow the space for civil liberties, and weaken social movements fighting for justice. [3]
The politics of bodily subjugation and the militaristic regime
In her opening remarks, Mutiara Ika Pratiwi, Chair of Perempuan Mahardhika, stated:
“We chose this theme looking at how our country is heading more and more towards a government with a militaristic character, where economic and political policy is designed to strengthen the military and, beyond that, to strengthen the militaristic ideology we now see in the Prabowo government.” [4]
She added that for this year’s International Women’s Day, Perempuan Mahardhika was focusing on resistance to the politics of women’s subjugation:
“We’re focusing on resisting the politics of women’s subjugation because we want to mainstream the idea that the oppression of bodies is absolutely central to the system that’s collapsing around us — its democracy, its economy, poverty, exploitation — all going hand in hand with violence against women.” [5]
According to Ika, sexual and reproductive health rights (SRHR) are rarely positioned as a central issue in reading the decay of the system:
“Why does this discussion focus on sexual and reproductive health rights? Because this issue is almost never treated as central to understanding how rotten the system is. We want to bring an intersectional feminist perspective to building a movement. The liberation of bodies is vital to building a better Indonesia.” [6]
Women’s bodies have always been controlled
Sarah from Perempuan Mahardhika Jakarta highlighted how control over bodies begins from infancy:
“From the time we’re babies, women’s bodies are always controlled. We don’t have authority over our own bodies.” [7]
She explained that gender roles are instilled from childhood: “Women are emotional, men are rational, men are the breadwinners — since we were little, this has always been the understanding that’s accepted as truth to keep life going.” [8]
Control over bodies, she argued, is neither singular nor reducible to individual choice alone:
“State control over bodies through SRHR isn’t singular, it’s not an individual choice. It’s not just about the absence of disease — it’s also about fulfilment, about who you want to have sex with, how you want to define your sexuality.” [9]
Sarah emphasised that the body holds a strategic position within the economic-political system:
“It’s about maintaining the accumulation of capital. Our bodies are powerful — our bodies sustain the system of social reproduction that exists in this world. So the state wants to control them to keep the profits and the dominant power of the status quo intact — to sustain capitalism and patriarchy, the gender binary and heteronormativity.” [10]
She also stressed the existence of marginalised bodies: “There are queer bodies, disabled bodies, bodies far from any access.” [11]
Connecting to history, she recalled the New Order period: [12]
“The New Order has a history of pushing forced family planning that was monitored and overseen by the military, depoliticising the women’s movement, keeping women in the household. It’s striking when you connect it to today — the Prabowo regime is doing the same thing.” [13]
Control over women, she said, is considered a key strategy of power: “Controlling women is seen as an important strategy. They hit us from every side. The moment we have autonomy, we’re stigmatised, labelled immoral.” [14]
This stigma is present in everyday life: “In daily life, in private spaces — come home late, wear a crop top, shorts — immoral, just like that, in everyday life.” [15]
She also addressed the current political situation: “In 2026, right now, we see a situation where thinking critically gets you thrown in prison. Especially for young people — we face challenges that are getting more and more chaotic. How are we supposed to deal with this?” [16] [17]
In the context of work and capitalism, Sarah added:
“From Perempuan Mahardhika’s research in Morowali with 16 women workers, only 4 of them had ever accessed menstrual leave. Violence is everywhere now. Flexible contract work. The reality of where capitalism intersects with our total lack of bodily autonomy has gone completely mad. The methods are getting more and more cunning. We have no autonomy. Capitalism and how it works to keep perpetuating itself.” [18]
Abortion should be a health right, not a crime
Ika Ayu from Samsara [19] affirmed that abortion is the most marginalised SRHR issue:
“Abortion as an SRHR issue is really pushed to the margins. It’s constantly linked to morality, economics, regulation and everything else. Abortion is the most concrete manifestation of state control over women’s bodies — or to expand that, over the bodies of anyone with the capacity to become pregnant.” [20]
She referred to the exceptions for abortion in regulations since 2009: “Exceptions for rape and medical emergencies have been there since 2009. But all this time there’s been no actual access to abortion like the exceptions in the Health Law promised. It’s like an empty promise.” [21]
According to her, the extremely restrictive regulations make access impossible: “With regulations that restrictive — connect the articles across the Health Law, the implementing regulations, the Criminal Code — there’s nothing there. We can’t access abortion. The state wants to criminalise more and more women.” [22] [23]
She questioned the logic of forced pregnancy: “Does everyone with the capacity to get pregnant have to get pregnant? No. Do they have to continue the pregnancy? No. But if we’re forced and obligated to — one pregnancy won’t be enough.” [24]
She continued: “Regulations should be making sure people can access services. What is the state so afraid of that every SRHR issue ends up being criminalised? Why are all the accusations aimed at women’s bodies, queer bodies?” [25]
She also highlighted the absence of comprehensive sexuality education: “Do we get comprehensive sexuality education? The ministry’s website has the modules but they can’t actually be used — it’s just a formality. Morally, sex education is considered dangerous for children, criminal for children. What should be our right becomes a criminal offence. It becomes terror.” [26]
This situation makes people afraid to seek healthcare: “If you can’t continue a pregnancy, would you dare speak openly about it at the hospital, to your neighbour?” [27]
Ika Ayu stated: “Pushing people away from healthcare access — that’s the most blatant discrimination there is. Married, unmarried. Contraception is limited. Control through regulation, criminalisation — it pushes people away from healthcare. It becomes a way of slowly killing people, slowly killing women.” [28]
She also warned: “The terror is structured — just giving someone information can get you criminalised. Abortion, which should be part of our rights, which should improve our health, gets classified as criminal instead. The state forces this on us.” [29]
Citing global guidance: “The WHO has a whole series of abortion guidelines, updated every year, including on self-managed abortion. But it’s cut off — in Indonesia that’s not possible. What you get instead is reckless practices that endanger lives — like overconsumption of quinine pills that leads to death.” [30]
The denial of access leads to death and class inequality: “Refusing abortion access leads to death — there are plenty of cases. If not death, then discrimination. The ones who can access it are the ones with money. The abortion issue isn’t just about contraception failure — it’s a class issue.” [31]
Bodily autonomy is a human right
Nurina Savitri from Amnesty International Indonesia affirmed: “Abortion should be seen as bodily autonomy. But the fact is, it’s still a privilege for some, not for most people. And yet at its core, it’s our bodily autonomy.” [32]
She explained that bodily autonomy encompasses more than abortion: “Bodily autonomy is very closely linked to SRHR. Beyond abortion, the right not to have children, consensual sex, gender choice — all of that is part of it.” [33]
In the global context, she highlighted the trend of authoritarianism: “Globally, the rise of authoritarian practices is very keen on control — including control of bodily autonomy. It’s a policy tool, a control tool, an ideological tool.” [34]
She gave examples of how reproductive policy is used as an instrument: “China used to have a one-child policy. Singapore has policies giving incentives to people who have children. Reproduction has already been turned into a tool, not autonomy. So the state doesn’t want to grant absolute bodily autonomy. The more autonomous we are, the harder we are to control.” [35]
Yet Indonesia has ratified various international human rights instruments: “Our rights should be fully guaranteed — so why are they never put into practice, never used as a fundamental basis?” [36]
She affirmed: “This is not a sensitive issue — it is a fundamental right.” [37]
Rejecting the politics of fear
The discussion affirmed that the right to sexual and reproductive health is an inseparable part of the human rights inherent to every person, and no circumstance can justify its reduction. The state has no legitimacy to revoke, restrict, or narrow these rights in the name of morality, public order, or any singular interpretation of social values.
Abortion is part of safe, legal and dignified reproductive healthcare. Criminalising abortion is not a solution — it is structural violence that drives up the risk of death, impoverishment and suffering for women, above all for poor women, survivors of sexual violence, and vulnerable groups whose access to healthcare has been unequal from the start.
The state has no right to control bodies, reproductive choices, and the private lives of citizens under the pretext of morality. Substantive democracy is only possible when every person has full sovereignty over their body — without fear, without intimidation, without the threat of criminalisation.
The discussion therefore rejected the politics of subjugation and the destruction of bodies. It rejected state control that governs wombs, surveils intimate relationships, and punishes the life choices of citizens. It rejected the use of law as a tool for moral disciplining. The struggle for bodily sovereignty is the struggle to free society from the grip of patriarchy and authoritarianism, and to ensure that human dignity stands above the interests of power.
Notes
[1] Perempuan Mahardhika is a feminist organisation founded in Jakarta in 2003, fighting to end all forms of discrimination and gender-based violence against women. On their activities, see Perempuan Mahardhika, “Indonesia: Perempuan Mahardhika and its activities”, Europe Solidaire Sans Frontières. Available at: https://europe-solidaire.org/spip.php?article42996
[2] The Institute for Criminal Justice Reform (ICJR) is a Jakarta-based research and advocacy organisation working on criminal justice reform in Indonesia.
[3] This discussion was one of two public discussions organised by Perempuan Mahardhika ahead of International Women’s Day 2026. For a report on the earlier discussion, see Perempuan Mahardhika, “I Want to Reclaim My Freedom: Resisting the Politics of Women’s Subordination in Indonesia”, Europe Solidaire Sans Frontières. Available at: https://europe-solidaire.org/spip.php?article77995
[4] « Tema ini kami ambil melihat bagaimana situasi negara kita yang semakin menunjukkan karakter pemerintahan yang militeristik, arah ekonomi politik dan kebijakan dirancang untuk memperkuat militer dan lebih jauh lagi memperkuat ideologi militeristik yang saat ini kita lihat dalam pemerintahan Prabowo. »
[5] « Kami dalam IWD ini berfokus pada tema melawan politik penundukan perempuan karena kami ingin megarusutamakan penindasan tubuh sangat sentral pada sistem di dunia yang sedang runtuh baik itu demokrasinya, ekonominya, kemiskinan, eksploitasi beriringan dengan kekerasan terhadap perempuan. »
[6] « Mengapa diskusi kali ini berfokus pada hak kesehatan seksual reproduksi karena jarang sekali isu ini dianggap sebagai isu sentral dalam melihat bobroknya sistem, kami ingin menghadirkan perspektif feminis interseksional dalam upaya membangun pergerakan. Pembebasan atas tubuh sangat penting untuk membangun Indonesia yang lebih baik. »
[7] « Dari bayi tubuh perempuan selalu dikontrol. Kita tidak punya otoritas atas tubuh. »
[8] « Peran gender perempuan emosional, laki-laki rasional, breadwinner, dari kita kecil selalu jadi pemahaman yang benar agar hidup ini terus berjalan. »
[9] « Kontrol atas tubuh dari negara atas HKSR tidak tunggal, bukan pilihan individu. Tidak hanya tentang tidak ada penyakit, tapi juga terpenuhi, mau seks dengan siapa, mau mendefinisikan seksualitas bagaimana. »
[10] « Upaya mempertahankan akumulasi modal. Tubuh kita powerful, tubuh kita menopang sistem reproduksi yang ada di dunia. Sehingga negara ingin mengontrol agar keuntungan dan kuasa yang dominan tetap status quo-nya, mempertahankan kapitalisme dan patriarki, kebineran dan heteronormativitas. »
[11] « Ada tubuh queer, tubuh disabilitas, tubuh yang jauh dari akses. »
[12] The New Order (Orde Baru) was the authoritarian regime of President Suharto (1966–1998). For analysis of how the New Order imposed its ideology of kodrat wanita (“feminine nature”) and destroyed the feminist movement Gerwani, see Adam Novak and Pierre Rousset, “Indonesia 1965-2025: when past and present collide”, Europe Solidaire Sans Frontières. Available at: https://europe-solidaire.org/spip.php?article77339
[13] « Orba punya sejarah menggencarkan KB yang dipaksa dan dipantau, diawasi militer, mendepolitisasi gerakan perempuan, mengurus rumah tangga. Menarik untuk dikaitkan dengan konteks hari ini rezim Prabowo juga melakukan hal yang sama. »
[14] « Dianggap sebagai strategi yang penting mengontrol perempuan. Dibenturkan dari banyak sisi. Ketika kita punya otonomi, distigma, dicap amoral. »
[15] « Keseharian dari ruang privat, pulang malam, crop top, celana pendek, amoral, di keseharian. »
[16] « 2026 di masa ini kita melihat situasi yang menindas dengan kritis dipenjara. Khususnya orang muda kita punya banyak tantangan yang makin kacau. Gimana seharusnya kita bisa menghadapi ini. »
[17] On the mass criminalisation of young protesters in 2025, see Youth Movement Against Criminalisation (GMLK), “Indonesian Youth are Fed Up!”, Europe Solidaire Sans Frontières. Available at: https://europe-solidaire.org/spip.php?article77724
[18] « Dari penelitian Mahardhika di Morowali terhadap 16 orang buruh perempuan, hanya 4 orang di antaranya yang pernah akses cuti haid. Kekerasan sekarang luas. Kerja kontrak fleksibel. Realita persinggungan kapitalisme dan kita gak punya otonomi atas tubuh makin gila sekarang. Cara-caranya makin licik. Gak punya otonomi. Kapitalisme dan bagaimana ia bekerja untuk dipakai terus melanggengkan. »
[19] Samsara is an Indonesian organisation that advocates for sexual and reproductive health and rights, with particular focus on safe abortion access.
[20] « Aborsi sebagai isu HKSR dipinggirkan banget, sering dikaitkan dengan moral, ekonomi, regulasi dan hal-hal lain. Aborsi itu wujud paling nyata kontrol negara ke tubuh perempuan atau dikembangkan lagi ke orang yang punya kapasitas untuk hamil. »
[21] « Perkosaan dan darurat medis udah ada pengecualian dari 2009. Tapi sepanjang itu tidak ada akses aborsi seperti dijanjikan pengecualian aborsi di UU Kesehatan. Kayak harapan kosong. »
[22] « Regulasi serestriktif itu, hubungkan pasal-pasal di UU Kesehatan, UU pelaksana, KUHP itu gak ada. Kita gak bisa punya akses aborsi. Negara ingin kriminalisasi lebih banyak perempuan. »
[23] Indonesia’s new Criminal Code (Kitab Undang-Undang Hukum Pidana, KUHP) came into force on 2 January 2026. On the broader implications of the new criminal laws, see Rudi Hartono (interview), “Indonesia’s frightening new criminal laws”, Europe Solidaire Sans Frontières. Available at: https://europe-solidaire.org/spip.php?article77647
[24] « Apa semua perempuan yang punya kapasitas untuk hamil wajib hamil? Tidak. Apakah wajib melanjutkan kehamilannya? Tidak. Tapi kalau kita diwajibkan dan wajib, hamil gak cukup satu. »
[25] « Regulasi harusnya memastikan orang bisa mengakses. Kira-kira negara takut apa sehingga semua HKSR jatuhnya mengkriminalisasi? Kenapa semua tuduhan ke tubuh perempuan, tubuh queer? »
[26] « Apakah kita dapat pendidikan seksual yang komprehensif? Di website kementerian ada modulnya tapi itu gak bisa dipakai, hanya formalitas. Secara moral pendidikan seks dianggap berbahaya bagi anak, pidana bagi anak. Yang harusnya jadi hak kita itu jadi pidana. Jadi teror. »
[27] « Kalau gak mampu melanjutkan kehamilan apakah berani orang bicara terbuka ke RS, ke tetangganya? »
[28] « Meminggirkan orang dari akses kesehatan itu diskriminasi paling nyata. Menikah, tidak menikah. Kontrasepsinya terbatas. Kontrol ke regulasi, kriminalisasi itu menjauhkan orang dari akses kesehatan. Itu jadi upaya membunuh orang, perempuan perlahan-lahan. »
[29] « Terornya terstruktur, memberi info saja kita dipidana. Aborsi yang seharusnya jadi bagian dari hak, memperbaiki situasi kesehatan kita, malah masuk di kriminal. Negara memaksa. »
[30] « WHO punya panduan aborsi berderet diperbarui tiap tahun, bahkan self-manage abortion. Tapi diputus, di Indo gak bisa. Akan serampangan yang membahayakan, misal konsumsi pil kina kebanyakan meninggal. »
[31] « Penolakan aborsi berujung kematian ada banyak. Kalau gak ya berujung diskriminasi. Yang bisa akses ya yang punya uang. Isu aborsi bukan cuma isu gagal kontrasepsi, ini isu kelas. »
[32] « Aborsi seharusnya dilihat sebagai otonomi tubuh. Tetapi faktanya masih menjadi privilege bagi sebagian orang, tidak bagi banyak orang. Padahal mendasar otonomi tubuh kita. »
[33] « Otonomi tubuh sangat berkaitan erat dengan HKSR. Selain aborsi, hak gak punya anak, seks konsensual, pilihan gender juga termasuk di dalamnya. »
[34] « Di global kenaikan praktik otoritarianisme sangat gemar mengontrol, termasuk kontrol otonomi tubuh. Alat kebijakan, alat kontrol, alat ideologis. »
[35] « China dahulu punya kebijakan satu anak. Singapura punya kebijakan yang punya anak dikasih insentif. Reproduksi sudah jadi alat, bukan otonomi. Sehingga negara gak mau beri otonomi tubuh absolut. Semakin kita otonom semakin sulit diraih. »
[36] « Harusnya dijamin penuh hak kita, tapi kenapa gak pernah dipraktikkan dan dijadikan acuan mendasar? »
[37] « Ini bukan isu sensitif, ini hak dasar. »
The Indonesian original of this article was first published on the website of Perempuan Mahardhika. This English translation, by Wendy Lim, was first published on the website of Europe Solidaire Sans Frontières.
More content from this blog
- Left Renewal Blog Seeking Co-editors
- Peru: Second weekend of mass protests and repression, by ANRed – 28 September 2025
- Between Discourse and Reality: 8M in Venezuela, by Colectiva Mujeres, Cuerpos y Territorios – 3 April 2025
- On the Concept of the Pluriverse in Walter Mignolo and the European New Right, by Miri Davidson – 19 September 2024
- Myanmar and the Perils of Prediction, by Andrew Selth – 5 September 2025
- Were the Muslim Arab Conquerors of the Seventh-Century Middle East Colonialists?, by Robert Hoyland – 17 April 2021