I can start, and maybe my colleagues will want to add to it. I think the history, such as has been documented, is that certain women might be more vulnerable: women of very limited economic means, women who suffer moderate to severe mental health issues, women who suffer addictions and, women who, to a provider, might seem to be in a dire situation—and in reality might indeed be so, in all objective terms. It just stands to reason that when a provider says, in the event of, let's say, an unwanted pregnancy.... You can imagine a situation where a provider might offer to an individual that he or she has a solution to deal with this kind of situation so that it won't recur, and maybe there's a conversation about contraception or sterilization, or whatever it might be.
The circumstances under which that conversation occurs might, on the one hand, not take proper consideration of the circumstances of the individual in question and how that might play into her giving what appears to be consent, but consent that's heavily influenced by her circumstances.
If you add into the situation some bias—you can imagine someone with a severe mental health condition or an addiction issue who is not really able to communicate very well, or circumstances where there is racial bias, whether it's related to indigenous status or other racialized individuals—you can kind of see how these circumstances can compound themselves. Certainly even the anecdotal as well as the better-documented history indicates that, in fact, sterilization has occurred in cases where these kinds of individuals are the subject of the situation.