Mathematicians’ Case for Preserving the Right to Abortion
By Karen Saxe, former MAA Vice President; Associate Executive Director, and Director of Government Relations, American Mathematical Society
Karen Saxe
When I heard about the leak of the Supreme Court’s decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, I was not surprised. That Roe v Wade would be overturned felt like a done deal when Amy Coney Barrett took her seat on the Court in 2020. The news was leaked in early May by Politico, a news source that I read daily, in my job as Director of the American Mathematical Society Office of Government Relations. The opinions were released on June 24, and I was ready.
It seems a no-brainer that this decision will affect the education trajectory of women and therefore harm mathematics and other STEM fields. Losing women in the education pipeline and STEM workforce is a serious problem if the United States is to stay globally competitive.
The decision has the potential to change the face of mathematics and this is one reason it is our business to care. The percentage of women in our fields with PhDs is already low and this could lead to even lower rates of women climbing through the ranks of academia or pursuing other interesting jobs that require advanced degrees in the mathematical sciences.
I am simply gutted by this decision. I know that my own career would have looked quite different had I been in my 20s and 30s now. I received the horrific news late in a pregnancy that my child would, if born alive, only live a short time. Even if she made it to delivery, the delivery would likely kill her. It was an awful “choice” to have to make, to let her go pre-delivery. I have not yet–after more than three decades–“gotten over it.” I believe I never will. I entered the hospital approached by anti-abortion activists, questioning my choice (that is describing their actions nicely). I have come to live with this loss, and have been able to pursue the career I wanted. I know how fortunate I am—I have had a very satisfying career and have three children, all born after that pregnancy. I also now more than ever appreciate how fortunate I was to be able to make the choice I did. I was a young teenager when Roe v Wade was decided, but was old enough to know peers who had abortions shortly thereafter, and also to remember friends’ moms traveling outside of the country for abortions in the years preceding that decision.
Women who are forced to give birth before their education is completed (to whatever their desired level) may well find it challenging to achieve their goals. And, we know that women are not the only people who will be affected by the Supreme Court decision. Women are not the only ones who can get pregnant and carry children. As well, partners of pregnant people who seek and are denied abortions may get derailed in their own education and career trajectory. Access to safe abortion is an important part of good health care. And, we know that lack of good health care is even more prevalent for black and brown people. Getting a PhD in mathematics is hard, and unarguably even more difficult as a parent.
This is the basis of one argument that mathematicians can make in favor of access to safe abortions. The “education derailed” argument is not unique to mathematics; achieving a PhD or indeed any college degree in any field is harder for parents.
But why are mathematicians especially called on to stand up in the face of the Dobbs decision?
As advances in fundamental research and the technology built from them change society and the way we live, we scientists must consider the ethical and social aspects of our work. This is certainly not new—scientists whose innovations are used in applications including to advance warfare, genetically modified plants, and stem cell research are perhaps more often considering their ethical responsibility than we are as mathematical scientists. But we are far from immune and we too have a history in this context.
Mathematicians have a special responsibility now because fundamental research in our field has enabled technological advances that make it possible to collect personal data that might now be used to incriminate women for having an illegal abortion. We must stand up when data are—or are in danger of—being misused, or used with ill intent.
What can you do as a mathematician? What can professional societies do?
The AMS work in Washington, DC is a two-way effort. We provide support and advice to AMS leadership, its members, and the larger mathematical sciences community about federal government actions and opportunities. On the flip side, we work with Congress on a (short list) of legislative topics affecting mathematics, mathematicians in their work, and our students. Our advocacy priorities include making the case for increased federal funding for mathematics research, promoting federal education programs that increase the number of math teachers, and urging the government to implement immigration and visa policies that support a strong global math community.
Our advocacy efforts now also include taking a stance on safe abortion access. I have written a document on the Dobbs decision, offering data points to make the case that curtailing the right to abortion directly affects the ability of women to pursue advanced education and participate fully in the research ecosystem. The document also points to some bills recently introduced in Congress that would protect personal data and limit the ability of bad actors to collect these data and use it to incriminate women and their allies. These bills seem consistent with the recently adopted UNESCO agreement on the Ethics of Artificial Intelligence.
The AMS advocacy document on abortion is intended to be presented to Congress. It is what is referred to as a “one-pager” (though it is two pages!), or a “leave-behind.” These provide a brief background and recommendation on a specific policy issue. The AMS annual NSF appropriations request is a typical example of one of these—it urges increased and sustained federal funding for research and education in the mathematical sciences and gives a specific recommended level of funding.
In the AMS abortion document, you will see the bills referred to by #—these are assigned in each of the Senate (“S” bills) and House (“HR” bills). The numbers are included on the document for Congressional staff usage. If you are enthusiastic, you can use the numbers to follow their progress in Congress online. You will be able to see, for example, if your delegation members have signed on.
Here are a few ways to help:
Support all your colleagues and students, and reach out when you need help. You know this but both are often easier said than done. I appreciate that this will be perhaps more difficult and probably delicately done for those of you who work in the states where abortion is illegal or limited. Stay safe, and do what you can.
Use the AMS leave-behind. How? Communicate directly with your Congressional delegation. You can start by calling or emailing and, if you are inclined, set an appointment to discuss this issue. Pre-COVID, appointments were in-person; they are now available virtually. Your members of Congress will each have a website, providing contact information for local and Washington, DC offices. Here is how to find your representative, and your senators.
Work within your professional society for change. Professional societies can play a role in many ways—political advocacy is just one way. Setting policies about where society meetings can be held is another way. Putting out statements about freedom to work, and academic freedom, on tenure and promotion processes, hiring, and family leave are relevant as well.
More information can be found at the AMS Office of Government Relations website.
Disclaimer: The views expressed here are those of the author. They do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the American Mathematical Society.
In 2017, and after almost three decades on the Macalester College faculty, Karen Saxe joined the AMS to direct the Office of Government Relations. In this work, she represents the mathematical sciences in science policy discussions at the federal level.