In honor of Women’s History Month, Hopkins Feminists and Voice for Choice co-sponsored the event, “Liberty, Justice, and Reproductive Rights for All,” which explored controversies surrounding reproductive rights.
The event, which took place on Wednesday evening at the Mattin Center, opened up a discussion that included accurately defining certain terms about reproductive rights, explaining the different types of state and national legislation and offering practical advice on reproductive health in the current politically charged climate.
Voice For Choice members senior Vinitha Kumar, junior Emeline Armitage and sophomore Karen Sheng began with a presentation that defined the terms associated with reproductive rights.
Armitage distinguished between two types of abortions: medical abortion and surgical abortion. She explained that medical abortions are typically performed within the first trimester and do not affect fertility. According to her, the more controversial type of abortion is surgical, which is when a doctor or clinician removes the fetus surgically from the uterus. This type of abortion may be performed later in the pregnancy than medical abortions.
“90 percent of abortions in the United States are medical and are done by taking pills. Statistically, they are safer than childbirth,” Armitage said. “Only 0.17 percent of abortions performed in the United States are surgical.”
The presenters then went on to discuss the state and federal legislation that has been passed on reproductive health. Hopkins Feminists Co-President Alizay Jalisi expounded on the landmark case of Roe v. Wade and how it somewhat clumsily set the stage for how access to abortions could and could not be restricted.
“Standards aren’t exactly consistent across the country, which is quite problematic,” Jalisi said.
Since the ruling of Roe v. Wade, many different states across the country have passed restrictions on abortion access. Just in the last five years from 2011 to 2015, 288 restrictions were passed, which is more than a quarter of all restrictions passed since Roe v. Wade. Armitage elaborated on the harmful impact that these laws can have.
“These restrictions are in places where people don’t necessarily have easy access to abortion clinics,” Armitage said. “In Montana, the closest clinic may be 400 miles away, and to get an abortion you have to drive all that way and spend money on gas. You are also losing money because you have to take time of off work.”
The presentation also addressed the status of reproductive healthcare in Maryland. Armitage said that although Maryland is a liberal state, there are downsides to its reproductive legislation.
“One restriction in Maryland is that your parents must be notified before you have an abortion, but consent from the parents is not required,” she said.
The presentation also provided practical advice for women about reproductive healthcare, including how to get access to different types of contraceptives.
Shen talked about how Planned Parenthood uses a “sliding scale” when certain groups of people, such as students who don’t have a steady source of income, have to pay for their services that can range from birth control to abortion.
During the discussion, students discussed the Student Health and Wellness Center’s (HelWell) role in offering students contraceptives and referring them to different healthcare places while remaining discrete.
One major point that came up during the discussion is the different groups of people who are often ignored in the discussion of reproductive rights: trans women and low-income women. Armitage explained how the marginalization of these groups has traditionally led to a lack of access.
“Because people who aren’t cis-women are sometimes turned away by places like Planned Parenthood, there are major problems getting statistics on how restricting access to reproductive healthcare affects them,” she said. “An abortion typically costs around $300, and thus [they] are de-facto [inaccessible] for people who cannot come up with that money.”
Graduate student Jay Kosturko attended the event, and as a more conservative student from Tennessee, he explained that the ideas presented differed from how he was raised.
“I’m a little older; I have a family,” he said. “I come from a different place culturally and haven’t spoken with lot of ardent pro-choice advocates [before].”
Regardless, Kosturko attended the event in hopes that he could learn more about the topic and expose himself to different viewpoints.
“I want to be a voice that listens more than he speaks,” he said. “But if someone wants to put someone they disagree with in a box, I want to be that voice that says something I want. Mostly, I wanted to be there to listen.”
Kosturko explained, that despite his views, there were parts of the event that he liked and respected.
“There were kind of two parts: One was the informational aspect,” he said. “I liked that they were putting that information out there. There seemed to be a lot of practical guidance. I can imagine for a young woman who is leaving home for the first time, she would want to learn... all these different options,” Kosturko said.
Jalisi agreed with Kosturko and also spoke positively about the diverse range of opinions that were expressed during the event.
“It looks like people really came to learn, and they were really enthusiastic, and I felt like a variety of people participated who we haven’t necessarily seen at Hopkins Feminists meetings, so it was nice to get a different group and different sets of perspectives,” she said.
Jalisi highlighted one of the arguments made during the discussion about the distinction between pro-life advocates and pro-choice advocates.
“Somebody mentioned that people who are pro-life are not necessarily anti-women, and I vehemently disagree with that,” she said. “We collaborated with Voice for Choice... because we do believe in the power of people, and women who are cis and trans and non-binary... That empowerment that comes from making your own choice about what to do with your own body is paramount to the feminist movement.”
Jalisi also outlined the main purpose of the event.
“One of our goals is to bring more topics that are hot in the media, or on a national scale and a state level scale, to campus,” she said. “With the recent attempts of the GOP to repeal Obamacare and the heat that Planned Parenthood has been getting from the current administration... It [is] a very relevant topic to talk about reproductive rights on this campus, and that’s why we decided to collaborate with Voice for Choice.”
Hopkins Feminists Programming Chair junior Bhavitha Kotha believes in the significance of having such events not only to inform people about the importance of reproductive healthcare, but also to incite respectful and productive discussion on such a topic.
“Meetings like this are one of the biggest parts for creating a space where people can come and talk about this — establishing that we are here to be respectful and we’re not here to have fights or not listen, making sure that there are these clear guidelines and spaces where that can happen,” Kotha said.
Editor’s Note: Emeline Armitage is a frequent contributor to The News-Letter Opinion section. She was not involved in the process of reporting, writing or editing the article in any way.
