Published: November 11, 2022
Written by: Hannah Wishart
On the 27th of October, the Law, Society and Vulnerable People Research Hub at the University of Sunderland hosted their first research event, ‘Differing perspectives on Roe v Wade; a wrong turn or opportunity for reform?’ This panel event drew together 85 registered law students, academics, midwives, medical students, and many others affiliated with the University of Sunderland.
The evening was designed to explore the legal, medical, ethical, and religious implications of the Supreme Court’s ruling in Dobbs v Jackson (United States of America), which criminalised a woman’s right to abortion. The event began with Chris Howson, University Chaplain, who explained the religious and fair-right political undertones that led to the reversal of the 1970 Roe v Wade decision that gave women abortion rights, more specifically, access to medical treatment to terminate a pregnancy and the autonomy to make freely informed decisions about their reproductive health. Chris expertly gave his opinions on the impact of Dobbs in the US, the UK and for years to come. Sadly, Chris could not join the event live in person, so he pre-recorded his introduction.
The remaining panel members were Dr. Chloe Romanis, Assistant Professor in Law at Durham University and Research Fellow at the Petrie-Flom Center for Health Law Policy and Biotechnology at Harvard University; Dr. Lynsey Mitchell, Senior Lecturer in Law from Strathclyde University and Zoe Tongue, Lecturer in Law at the University of Leeds. Each of our speakers shared unique insights into the impact of the Dobbs decision through different, albeit liberalist, research lenses and experiences.
Each speaker presented their position on the Dobbs ruling and its subsequent implications in the USA and globally, followed by questions from the audience. Dr. Romanis joined the event live via Teams from Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA. Her research interests focus on the provision of telemedicine, which has been deeply affected by the Dobbs decision. Indeed, Dr. Romanis began by saying she had written a book on the subject but that it had become outdated following the Dobbs decision. She highlighted the wider impact of the criminal sanctions in the USA now faced by women seeking an abortion. Many women are travelling across state lines to access medical treatment and fear being arrested in medical centres by staff or at state lines. Medical practitioners who wish to assist them are also frightened that they may be targeted by the police and prosecuted for providing medical treatment. Dr Romanis remarked that this had seen a dramatic increase in the number of men having a vasectomy, a surgical procedure for male sterilisation.
Dr. Mitchell examined the potential UK ramifications following Dobbs as a leading authority on abortion rights in Scotland who has strongly advocated for the decriminalisation of abortion in Scotland. Dr. Mitchell acknowledged that Scotland, England and Wales are not that different to the USA because abortion remains illegal in the UK and that many women who access telemedical services here in the UK are unaware this is a crime. Whilst she recognised that most citizens of the UK might feel that the Dobbs decision is far removed from their lives because it was a ruling across the Atlantic, the fact of the matter is that some of past Supreme Court decisions, which pertain to Northern Ireland are indeed quite conservative and antiliberal. Dr. Mitchell ended her talk by calling for the decriminalisation of abortion in the UK.
Last, we heard from Zoe Tongue, who examines the need to recognise abortion as an international human right for women. Like her panellists, Zoe discussed the impact of the Dobbs decision in the USA and, more specifically, explored the curtailing access of women to abortion medications such as misoprostol. Since the Dobbs decision, Zoe explained, there have been significant socioeconomic, racial and ethnic inequalities amongst women (in particular, African Americans) in the USA, and these divides will continue to grow without legal intervention. She disclosed that several pregnant women in Poland, which has also decriminalised abortion, are dying because they can only access an abortion as a life-saving measure. Zoe remarked that in the future, we would also see significant numbers of pregnant women in the USA dying because they might be prohibited from accessing an abortion during the earlier stages of pregnancy due to stringent laws.
Each speaker spoke eloquently and knowledgeably about the topic and was well received by the audience despite the inevitable tech issues of ‘dialling in’ one-panel member. The audience responded with intelligent and careful questions about the position of the European Court on Dobbs and the practical impact of teaching students about abortion rights. More questions were also posed about whether the decision would likely be overturned again and what would be next for the erosion of personal rights.
Afterwards, the Research hub hosted the in-person speakers and audience members for refreshments and drinks. During this element of the event, there was much ongoing discussion of issues exposed in the Q&A. Many networks were made, and the panel members were much sought after for their expertise. Overall, the event successfully presented and discussed this key development for women’s rights and launched the Research Hub and its activities.
The Law, Society and Vulnerable People Research Hub is based in Sunderland Law School and will be running similar discussions and external events in future. If you are interested in attending such an event, please watch this space for details. If you have an idea for an event or collaboration, please contact Hannah Wishart or Dr. Kat Langley directly.
Hannah Wishart & Kat Langley