Many protested on June 24, after the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade. // Photo courtesy of Ted Eytan.

On June 24, the United States Supreme Court overturned the nearly 50-year-old ruling of Roe v. Wade, which protected the right of a pregnant person to receive an abortion.

Previously, the Supreme Court argued that a person’s right to bodily autonomy is implicit in the right to privacy under the 14th Amendment. However, in 2018, Jackson Women’s Health Organization challenged the constitutionality of the Mississippi state law prohibiting abortions past 15 weeks, or about three and a half months. The case was brought to the Supreme Court in December 2021, and seven months later, the court overturned Roe v. Wade.

Already, 26 states have a nearly total ban on abortions, and 11 of those states do not allow an exception in cases of rape or incest. The ruling has caused a public outcry and sparked protests across the United States – including right outside the White House – since the opinion was announced.

On Monday, Sept. 26, the pre-professional communications honor society, Lambda Pi Eta, hosted an open student discussion panel with advisor Phillip Dalton, professor of writing studies and rhetoric. All Hofstra students and faculty were invited to share their thoughts and experiences regarding the controversial issue.

Sage Wenninghoff, a junior philosophy and rhetoric and public advocacy double major and president of Lambada Pi Eta, opened the discussion with her reaction to the ruling.

Over the summer, Wenninghoff worked as a counselor for a technology-free overnight camp for girls ranging from 6 to 14 years old. One of her campers approached Wenninghoff with a letter from her parents informing her of the decision.

“She just looked at me terrified and said, ‘Is this true?’” Wenninghoff said. “To have to comfort a child that was terrified because she knew the consequences of this decision at such a young age truly saddened me to another level.”

Wenninghoff also expressed her thoughts on states that only allow abortions in cases of rape or incest.

“Allowing abortions only after a woman is raped grants her autonomy only after she has already had it taken away by her rapist,” she said.

The hour-long panel discussed many issues, such as the already overcrowded and flawed foster care system and the lack of sex education which focuses on the use of contraceptives – rather than just encouraging abstinence – in schools was also discussed.

Questions such as, “Is the Supreme Court the only group that should be held responsible for the ban?” and, “Is life defined as the fetus developing or at birth?” were discussed.

Mary Anne Trasciatti, director of labor studies and professor of rhetoric and public advocacy, called into question what the end goal of banning abortions is, bringing about further debate among the students.

Jake Temkin, a junior political science major, argued that this Supreme Court decision is just the beginning.

“The end goal in overturning Roe v. Wade is to take away other liberties currently granted to the American people,” Temkin said. “In his concurring opinion, Justice Thomas cited other cases, such as Griswold v. Connecticut, Obergefell v. Hodges and Lawrence v. Texas. While it seems unlikely now that these cases get overturned, the same was felt at one time for the security of Roe v. Wade.”

The cases Temkin mentioned refer to the right for married couples to obtain contraceptives without government restrictions and the right for same-sex couples to marry and to engage in intimate relationships.

“At this point in our nation’s history, anything is possible, and it seems like only the beginning of an attempt to return our society to antiquated ideals of the past,” Temkin said.

However, students also said that they were not in fear about their reproductive rights, since New York, a historically Democratic state, protects abortion access.

“I don’t think young people in New York will feel any consequences in the short-term,” Trasciatti said. “But here and elsewhere, the decision may encourage students to become more politically active and militant in their activism.”

Wenninghoff, who is from Arizona, acknowledged her home state’s decision to enact a nearly total banning of abortions, which is drastically different from New York’s decision.

“While I live in New York for most of the year and retain my right to an abortion while I am here, my home state is Arizona, where I am not afforded the same rights,” she said.

The panel encouraged students to share not only their reactions to Roe v. Wade being overturned but also how the issue affects them and their future.

Furthermore, Trasciatti reflected on how she would react if she was a college student when Roe v. Wade was overturned.

“I would think myself lucky to be living in a state like New York, where the law acknowledges reproductive rights,” she said. “At the same time, I would be fearful of efforts to extend the criminalization of abortion to New York and other states. I would also be angry, and I would want to fight back to claim reproductive rights for [people] nationwide.”

Trasciatti said that these types of discussions were one of her top priorities.

“We plan to host three more discussions by the end of the semester with the next one taking place on Monday, October 24, and the topic being the 2022 election.”