Background of the Controversy
Between 1966 and 1970, Denmark’s doctors implanted intra‑uterine devices (IUDs) into 4,500 Greenlandic women and girls—some as young as 13—without their knowledge or consent. The campaign aimed to curb the island’s booming population, achieving a sharp drop from an average of seven children per woman to 2.3. The interference has been widely described as “inhumane” and, for some, a form of systemic discrimination.
Expert Reports Divide Opinion
In late September, two reports were released, each following a panel of four experts tasked with assessing the persecution and any possible genocide. The panel of Dalee Sambo Dorough and Miriam Cullen concluded that Inuit women’s rights had been violated but could not, with information solely from contraceptive policies, declare genocide. They noted that genocidal intent by Denmark might be inferred from other acts, such as the removal of Inuit children to be raised by Danish families.
In contrast, Jonas Christoffersen and psychologist Jensine Nedergaard’s separate report acknowledged wrongs, yet found no evidence that any authority or health professional aimed to destroy the Greenlandic population. Their findings effectively deny any genocidal motive in the contraception programme itself.
Denmark’s Response and Compensation
Denmark’s Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen issued an apology last August for “systematic discrimination.” A compensation law now allows each affected woman to receive 300,000 Danish crowns, approximately 46,800 dollars. Julius‐Frederik Nielsen, Greenland’s prime minister, announced that a reconciliation commission would be set up to assist in defining next steps.
Voices of the Victims
Henriette Berthelsen, a 50‑year‑old victim, voiced her frustration that the investigations were “skewed from the start.” She said: “For me, this is not just about history or politics. It’s my body, my life and my right to self‑determination.”
Inger Platou, 70, recalled waking up after a minor procedure to find an IUD had been inserted on her—an act she described as treating “women like animals.” Her complications had left her unable to conceive, yet she later adopted two Colombian children.
Looking Ahead
With two divergent findings, the government continues to debate the extent of harm. Frederiksen emphasized cooperation with Greenland’s government to find an appropriate course. Greenland’s experience as a former Danish colony and its current home‑rule status add layers to the ongoing dialogue about colonial legacy and reproductive rights.
