Hot Take Series: Roe v Wade on campus

America is up in arms because of the recent leaked document about Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Roe v. Wade. TLDR for those not caught up on it: Roe, a pregnant single mother, sued Wade, a Texas attorney, to reclaim her reproductive rights, which then successfully legalised abortion. Overturning this means that abortion will now be banned in many states. It seems crazy to me how we are living in some strange times trying to reverse any progress we have made thus far.

I am sure there are many more passionate and intelligent people who can give the issue its well deserved analysis, so my attention is more focused on the effects of social polarisation in our society, as extrapolated from what I can see on campus. The way the American society has chosen to react to the hotly contended debate is one which, I think, illustrates even deeper problems than the drafting of a new reproductive health landscape.

The photo of student protests held on campus we see here, on the steps of our main library, depicts two groups championing both sides of the debate. First of all, I was surprised by how no one on the pro-life side of the protest tried hiding their identity, especially since Harvard is a pretty liberal-leaning campus and there will be severe social repercussions on these students. If nothing, I respect their willingness to stake so much behind their beliefs, even if I think those are beliefs that will fall on the wrong side of history. Second, and most important of all, the pro-life protestors were just…there, standing nervously save an occasional belting of the national anthem, whereas the pro-choice protestors were chanting their refrains “abortion is healthcare” or “my body my choice”. Who were they shouting to, I had wondered? Us, the fence-sitting crowd who watch on with strange fascination? The Supreme Court justices who were miles away sitting in Washington DC? The pro-life protestors?

See, the reason why this scene has a quality of being a strange spectacle is because both sides of the debate are there, and there’s just so may voices but so little conversation. In another world, where I wasn’t rushing off to pack my bags for my flight to DC, or where I am brave enough to not make these excuses for myself, I would have gone up to them and asked them why aren’t they turning to each other and asking questions? Why are they talking or shouting at, rather than to each other? Quite bizarrely, the pro-life people don’t even bat an eye to all the rallying chants; they are barely listening to anything. I don’t think the pro-choice protestors can even fathom why the pro-life people are there, what their motivations are, and why the heck are they supporting something that seems to morally offensive to them. I for one have no idea why the pro-life people go to protest, and I would at least like to find out.

To simply reduce the pro-life protestor’s argument to “religion” seems unfair, especially knowing the robustness and diversity of arguments supporting pro-choice. Not only is it bewilderingly offensive to think that we are struggling against such lowly unthinking opponents, it also does not help us in productive debates that could allow its eventual result to be conclusive – sooner or later some unconvinced person is going to question and try to overturn the legal outcome again. Furthermore, when I try to research for myself, no amount of googling helped clarify why people are in support of overturning Roe v Wade. I must be stuck in the liberal side of the algorithm. The most I could come up with was because 6 of 9 Supreme Court justices hold more conservative views on reproductive rights issues.

Surely that cannot be right! What is a legal system if it can be changes by the whims of what is trendy or in vogue with the incumbent justices? It also seemed like half-hearted attempts at a proper debate, especially if the pro-life argument becomes so deeply rooted in the rhetoric of “oh, it’s just a person opinion”. Our polarized debates have gotten so bad that it is a shabby prop of a debate, only emulating the intensity and volume of shouting matches in form but not substance.

Even more deserving of our attention is the composition of the two groups student protestors. It might just be the sliver I witnessed, but the pro-life group has a surprising number of female supporters which the supporters have tactically used to line the most visible first row (and I had thought to myself: really? And where is our sisterhood on this issue that affects all women). Sure, most of the voices from that side are an octave lower, but this isn’t just a movement of misogynistic men telling women what to do with our bodies. In comparison, the pro-choice side was almost all women, with maybe one or two male allies. That is indicative of such a huge problem, because firstly, the homogeneity of the protestors speaks to some form of extremism that alienates other participants, and secondly, it means that our conversations have gotten so bad that people see a high barrier to enter that discussion, thus pro-choice has become a gendered issue (which it should not be)! This is a topic regarding reproductive rights, which affects every American citizen regardless of gender (we don’t just rely on mothers to raise children!) so why is that the pro-choice protests have not been able to gather more representation, falling behind the pro-life protestors?

All these make me think back on the Yale-NUS course on protest that got banned in Singapore. It is a pity that it got banned, and an even greater shame that the whole school is closed. This is not because we can create a whole army of revolutionaries, or sow social discord. Rather, I think it is more important to use that channel to engage us in more thoughtful conversations about protesting and the rhetorics of mobilization. How can we engage in healthier and more productive conversations around controversial topics? When can we stop getting angry at each other long enough to figure out how to reconcile a polarized society?

And here’s the hot take: is diversity of opinion and freedom of speech worth anything at all without a proper facilitating medium?