This June 24, the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade in a surprising 6-3 ruling upholding an abortion ban in Mississippi. When it reached the mainstream news, everyone in Huang Fellows found themselves amidst heated yet saddened discussion as to what this meant for women in the United States.

At today’s July 28th seminar, Buz led deep and intriguing discussions pertaining to who or what players make science policy. We were asked to read 2 court cases that made interesting comparisons in terms of the political environment and resulting decisions. The first was Oregon v Gonzales 2006, a case about the first historical instance of legalization of assisted suicide in the state of Oregon, which established ODWDA (Death with dignity act). The administration at the time was Democratic under Bill Clinton, from which the attorney general said state decided the legitimacy of medical practice, not the federal government. The second court case we read was the recent Dobbs v Jackson Women’s Health Organization, in which the Republican majority gave rights to the states as the right to abortion was not listed in the constitution.

By observation, it is apparent that the understanding of states rights is not consistent with political party. We as a group observed how power was given to the state when the minority group would be entrenched by things like gerrymandering. Suddenly the arguing of the federal vs state government relationship is not so easy, as there has been little consistency in political philosophies.

This now begs the question as to whether it makes sense for the regulation of a doctor’s medical practice to be dependent on where you live. The answer suddenly is not merely based solely on political affiliation. Many Huang fellows brought up different concerns such as: a) a widening socioeconomic gap because access to different medical practices or treatments is limited and b) potential exploitment of patients due to limited availability of the practice. In terms of the recent Supreme Court decision, many fellows brought up concerns as to who are those in power to make these choices, how they are informed, if there is fair representation, and political motives. Some also questioned the rigidity vs fluidity in interpretation of the Constitution and rights listed in it (or lack thereof), a historical document that has been referenced many times in court decisions as a deciding factor. Was it meant to be followed strictly or constantly evolving and changing, and why is it the center of focus in many major cases like science / medical practice policy? As we left the Bullpen this Thursday afternoon, we brought with us many new perspectives and questions to think about as we continue our pursuits of science, medicine, and policy.

Grace Zhang, Huang Fellow ’25

Grace is a rising sophomore from Cary, NC, planning to major in Statistics with an Environmental Science minor.