On June 24, 2022, Roe v. Wade was overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court, and the legal recognition of a constitutional right to an abortion in the United States was eliminated. After the news scrolled across my phone screen, I walked into my mostly female lab where it seemed all the oxygen had gone out of the room. No one was talking, and the anger was palpable. After 50 years marking much progress for women, the rules had changed. It was a punch in the gut, and it felt personal.
The impact of the decision, in addition to eliminating simple choice of whether to maintain a pregnancy, is amplified by the immediate effect of so-called “trigger laws” in many states, meaning that women will (and already have been) prosecuted for either attempting to end their own pregnancy or behaving in ways deemed dangerous to the fetus. Health care providers face prosecution for terminating a pregnancy, including when upholding their oath to save their patient in the face of life-threatening conditions. In some states a woman may be imprisoned if she flees her own state to seek treatment in another. She is, figuratively and legally, in the hands of the State.
Many of those affected by the Supreme Court ruling are members of the Biophysical Society, nearly one-third of whom are women or nonbinary- or transgender, and young STEM trainees we hope one day will join our ranks. Recognizing that healthcare choices are highly personal, and we are a diverse group, I posed the question via Twitter: “Why should the BPS take a stand on Roe v. Wade?” Three responded: “It shouldn’t.” In contrast, more than two dozen responses to the thread or via direct message were adamantly in favor. It wasn’t a warrior cry from only women: 42% were from men, most in passionate support of women’s rights. While respecting the range of opinions likely held by our membership, I want to share some of the respondents’ insights and consider the potential impact on the future of BPS.
Several comments asserted that BPS has a responsibility to speak out. “Because public organizations and societies have a privileged position that can be used to stand for good and meaningful causes for the community. As a scientific community, we cannot be silent.” A related comment stated, “Scientific societies should speak out when fundamental rights are breached, as they are in this case.” This was the same argument that led BPS to develop a statement in support of Ukrainian scientists (https://www.biophysics.org/news-room/ bps-condemns-the-invasion-of-ukraine-and-urges-support-for-ukrainian-scientists) and inspired my May 2022 BPS Bulletin column championing the contributions of refugees from many countries within our membership (https://www. biophysics.org/bps-bulletin/a-world-of-refugees).
Many comments, roughly paraphrased, argued women’s rights are human rights. “Because as long as women do not have control over their own bodies, they are not free; and if half of society are not free, then no one is,” was one member’s reply. Another wrote, “Science is inherently a human process, and so threats to human rights are threats to the scientific enterprise.” Unfortunately, traditions are hard to overcome. As Caroline Criado Perez writes in her book Invisible Women: Data Bias in a World Designed for Men, “The result of this deeply male-dominated culture is that the male experience, the male perspective, has come to be seen as universal, while the female experience—that of half the global population, after all—is seen as, well, niche.” It is heartening to hear the inclusive attitudes emerging from our membership, consistent with the values of BPS.
Other respondents emphasized the importance of diversity within BPS and pragmatic considerations: “Because pregnant people will choose whether to attend conferences based on whether they can access (hopefully not needed) emergency treatment at that location, choices by scientific societies will influence how welcome and valued their members will feel.” Another stated, simply, “If I had not had that choice, I would have had to give up my career.” One, citing scientific evidence, said lack of choice “1) puts our members lives in risk; 2) leads to discrimination in the workplace; 3) impacts career trajectories of women scientists; 4) worsens gender inequality in science careers.” Many supporting the right to choose take a practical view in which ethical considerations for the fetus are outweighed by concerns for the safety, rights, and liberty of women.
A recent Gordon Research Power Hour, described as a “forum for conversations about the barriers to inclusivity,” featured a discussion on the recent Supreme Court decision led by BPS member Cynthia Czajkowski. The group of about 60 expressed much uncertainty about current threats to women living in states restricting access to abortion, but also fears of future erosion of rights such as gay marriage and access to contraception. Maternal mortality is far higher in the United States than in other industrialized countries, and women are 14 times more likely to die in childbirth than from an abortion (Raymond, E. G., and D. A. Grimes. 2012. The comparative safety of legal induced abortion and childbirth in the United States. Obstet Gynecol 119:215-219.). Participants bemoaned these facts and expressed concerns that a constellation of related problems surrounding affordable healthcare and childcare may be diverting competitive trainees, especially those with families, from U.S. laboratories. Czajkowski offered, “Whether you agree or disagree with the recent Supreme Court decision, the ruling has and will have broad effects on our research communities. Openly discussing the consequences of the ruling with our colleagues, research teams, and institutions is an essential step for developing strategies to mitigate its effects.”
The economic benefits of reproductive freedom have been extensively documented. According to the Institute for Women’s Policy Research, eliminating state-wide abortion restrictions could return an estimated 505,000 more women aged 15 to 44 to the labor force, yielding over $3 billion annually and adding $101.8 billion more to the earnings of women already working (https://iwpr.org/media/ press-releases/scotus-overturns-roe-vwade/). Undoubtedly these numbers include scientists or future scientists whose discoveries and legacies are at odds with these efforts of the minority. The future of our field, and the strength inherent in its diversity, are at risk.
What can we do? We must act strategically. Although the Supreme Court’s decision to punt the issue of reproductive rights to the states is frequently assumed to mean certain criminalization of the pregnant and their healthcare providers, the situation remains fluid at both the state and national levels. In a stunning development in Kansas, an explicit campaign to ban abortion via an amendment to the state constitution was soundly defeated at the ballot box in August. The voting results on the referendum in this conservative state reflect national polls showing that a solid majority of people support the right to choose, and in Kansas, democracy prevailed over minority rule. At the federal level, an Executive Order signed by President Joe Biden on August 3 aims to protect access to contraception and emergency medical care, including abortion. In many states this tension will be resolved by the voters either immediately, by referendum, or eventually, through attrition of those in minority rule in statehouses. We can speak out against the Supreme Court ruling. (https://bit.ly/3CqfjvF). More importantly, we can play an active role by contacting our elected representatives and supporting agencies advocating for change. While we work to preserve and restore reproductive rights, let us remember to provide support for our trainees in whatever decisions they make, whether terminating a pregnancy or starting or expanding a family. Only if all options are supported will we be successful in creating a diverse workforce. —Gail Robertson, President