Speakers discuss dimensions of reproductive health

On Thursday, Nov. 3, the Institute for Women’s Leadership (IWL) hosted a discussion titled “Reproductive Health is a Feminist Issue.”

The discussion focused on topics regarding the history of rights surrounding reproductive health and the political and social impact of the overturning of Roe v. Wade in 2022. This is the IWL’s second event of the semester in their “___ is a Feminist Issue” series, discussing the intersectionality and impact of society’s perceptions towards issues surrounding gender.

History professor Shannon Smith, political science professor Claire Haeg and advanced practice registered nurse Emily Rath were featured speakers, each presenting information and discussions surrounding the individual topics of history, politics and healthcare of women’s reproductive rights.

After an introduction and land acknowledgement, Smith began the discussion by presenting the background and history of reproductive rights before the overturning of Roe v. Wade and how views on abortion have changed over time.

Before the late 1800s, criminalization of abortion was rooted in nativism, religion and pushback against the women’s suffrage movement. The 1960s saw the biggest shift in attitude towards reproductive health, with the Republicans of the 1970s being supporters of abortion. President Richard Nixon supported anti-abortion views as a tactic to gain support and voters, making the issue more polarizing among Republican and Democratic parties and impacting the restrictions states made on laws after Roe v. Wade in 1973.

“Public opinion actually hasn’t varied that much for about 200 years…but the arguments have changed pretty substantially with new technology”, Smith said. “The key takeaway that I want all of you to have is that abortion was not always such a polarizing issue in the United States.”

Next, Haeg explained the political side of Roe v. Wade’s overturning and how that may affect future elections. The Roe v. Wade decision was also influenced by the 1965 decision of Griswold v. Connecticut, which protects the privacy and access to reproductive information and contraceptives. Haeg presented statistics on Americans’ views towards the legality of abortion and access to reproductive healthcare.

“Over time, it’s a really stable opinion about [abortion] being legal under various circumstances,” Haeg said.

Regardless of gender, religion or political party, Haeg said there is not a clear divide between distinct groups of people in their opinions of the morality and circumstances towards abortion. There are many disagreements regarding the safety of mothers and whether making abortions legal would reduce the number of abortions among states.

“There is a significant partisan difference in terms of some types of abortion,” Haeg said.

She also discussed whether this overturning would impact the midterm elections, as the decision impacted American’s trust in the Supreme Court. Haeg said only on a few occasions has the midterm elections not affect seats from the President’s party, and the Democrats are likely to lose around 40 seats because of this decision.

The last speaker to present was Rath, who shared her perspective as a nurse practitioner on the effects the Roe v. Wade decision has on state policies surrounding reproductive healthcare. Rath referred the website reproductiverights.org to gain updates and information on what each state’s current enforcements are regarding abortion laws.

Following the decision, states made independent decisions on abortion legality and access. Minnesota’s court recognized the right to abortion as constitutional this past summer, loosened previous restrictions and expanded access to telehealth services. Rath referred to Minnesota as an “island,” surrounded by states who have gone into trigger bans or remain hostile to abortion, such as South Dakota and Wisconsin. Clinics in Minnesota have increased staffing due to the expected demand from those neighboring states.

“What we know from data is that our women of the BIPOC community, those of lower socioeconomic status and that are younger tend to have more disparities with accessing abortion. Certainly this ruling increases that,” Rath said.

Travel expenses to other states in order to receive this healthcare increase barriers. Rath brought the discussion back to Griswold v. Connecticut and how there is great fear surrounding the potential decision to overturn protected access to contraception.

She expressed how her practice has not changed in the state of Minnesota, but the decision to overturn Roe v. Wade may impact the future of access to reproductive healthcare through other decisions. Students who attended the event were surprised at how much they didn’t know about the differing views and perspectives on reproductive healthcare from the past. CSB senior Kendyl Thompson, who came to the event for a Feminist Ethics class, was especially surprised by this knowledge.

“The most shocking thing was probably just learning about how the issue was politicized, especially how it was said that a lot of Republicans were really pro-abortion before it was a huge, politicized issue. It was used as a tool to gain voters,” Thompson said.

CSB senior Belle Scheffler thought the discussion was an important one for attendees to learn from looking towards the future.

“I attended the event because reproductive health is something that I think is really important, and I do think it’s a form of healthcare,” Scheffler said. “I was interested to hear the different perspectives and different information that they had.