Greenland's Forced Contraception Scandal Leaves Genocide Verdict Unsettled

Sun Sep 06 2026 00:20:55 GMT+0000 (Coordinated Universal Time)

Greenland officials say new reports on 1960s–70s forced IUDs offer conflicting conclusions, leaving the question of genocide unresolved.

Greenland’s justice minister announced that the government cannot decide whether the forced insertion of intra‑uterine devices during the 1960s and 1970s crossed the line into genocide. Two expert panels released polarised reports: one acknowledges rights violations but stops short of calling it genocide, while the other dismisses the claim entirely. Denmark has already issued an apology and pay compensation of 300,000 crowns to each affected woman. The controversy reignites debates over colonial policies, human rights, and the legal definition of genocide. Victims and politicians stress the need for coordinated reconciliation efforts.

Greenland’s justice minister has told reporters that the government cannot confirm if the 1960s and 1970s government‑led programme that fitted intra‑uterine devices in thousands of women and girls constitutes genocide. The answer remains open for debate.

The debate stems from two separate reports released on Friday, a year after Denmark formally apologized for the treatment of Inuit women and girls in the autonomous territory. The former government in Greenland said it would set up a “reconciliation commission” while the Danish prime minister pledged to work together across both governments.

The History of the Forced Contraception Programme

National archives uncover that from 1966 to 1970, roughly 4,500 Greenlandic women and girls—some as young as 13—received intra‑uterine devices under a birth‑control programme run by Danish doctors. Many victims now say the devices were installed without their knowledge or consent.

The programme was launched to curb population growth; fertility rates plummeted from seven children per woman in 1966 to 2.3 by 1974, a trend that slowed the island’s population boom.

Two Poles of Findings

The panel of four experts tasked by Greenland split into two reports. A majority led by Alaskan lawyer Dalee Sambo Dorough and University of Copenhagen law professor Miriam Cullen acknowledged a violation of Inuit women’s rights. They concluded, however, that the evidence “on the basis of contraceptive practices alone” was insufficient to label the practice genocide. They noted that a court could assess genocidal intent if evidence about other actions, such as the removal of Inuit children for upbringing by Danish families, were presented.

The minority report, compiled by former head of the Danish Institute for Human Rights Jonas Christoffersen and psychologist Jensine Nedergaard, accepted the wrongdoing but found no proof that any authority or health professional intended to destroy the Greenlandic population.

The Human Cost

One victim, Henriette Berthelsen, said the studies were biased from the start because no Inuit experts were included. She stressed that the affair was about “my body, my life and my right to self‑determination.”

Inger Platou, 70, recalled waking up after a minor operation to discover an IUD had been inserted without her consent. She described this as “being treated like animals.” The complications left her unable to bear children, although she eventually adopted two children from Colombia.

Reactions from Leaders

Prime minister Jens‑Frederik Nielsen said a reconciliation commission would be formed. Denmark’s chief minister Mette Frederiksen promised to address the political process jointly with Greenland’s government and emphasised the importance of partnership toward a satisfactory solution.

Greenland was a Danish colony until 1953, gained self‑rule in 1979, and enjoyed full home‑rule only in 1992. The island’s population remains largely Inuit, about 90 % of 56,000 residents. The birth‑control plan was an extreme response to a rapidly growing population and teenage pregnancy rates of the era. The policy’s legacy continues to shape discussions about colonial impacts, gender discrimination and the enduring need for justice.