In the spring of her sophomore year, Hyerim Bianca Nam ‘24 encountered a tabling event on Yale’s Cross Campus. The students at the table invited passersby to engage in conversations about abortion ethics and fetal personhood. Images of sonograms and fetal diagrams sprawled across the poster board.
These student volunteers belonged to an organization called Choose Life at Yale (CLAY), a pro-life student group dedicated to “upholding the dignity of human life through […] meetings, discussions, events, and support of policies to ease the difficulties of pregnancy on campus.”
The event took place during Yale’s Bulldog Days for admitted students in April 2022, just before the leak of the draft decision of Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, which ruled that the Constitution does not confer a right to abortion.
In an interview with The Politic, Nam recalled beginning a conversation with the CLAY advocates despite disagreeing with their message. She found that the student representatives were courteous and spoke carefully. However, throughout the discussion, which lasted approximately 5-10 minutes, she recounted, “The more I tried to speak, they refused to address what I had said. Instead, [they] suggested that we start talking about something else. I felt silenced and ignored.” By the end of their exchange, Nam felt that the representatives had purposely driven a strong emotional response out of her. She resigned in anger.
Nam found this “constant redirection” one of the most frustrating aspects of their conversation. For example, Nam remembers challenging members of CLAY, asking, “Where does a woman’s right to choose come into this? Why do you think that the government has the right to tell a woman what to do and what not to do with her body?” The answer she received from the members was a question in response. They would ask her, “What do you think makes a human in the first place? What do you think makes a person?”
A year later, Nam conducted an admissions interview as an alumna for the high school Telluride Association Summer Program (TASS). The student she interviewed expressed hope and excitement that they would engage in conversations with people holding different perspectives. Nam was reminded of her own experience with CLAY.
While she knew the interview was not the right setting for a political discussion, she reflected on what the high schooler had expressed. Then in her third year, she realized how widespread this desire for “open dialogue” was among young people—particularly at Yale, where debate is widely encouraged.
Nam was brought back to her interaction with CLAY and remembered her exasperation. Slowly, she came to realize that she disagreed with the view of conversation for conversation’s sake. “When it comes to highly divisive issues, especially like abortion, [the] conversation can impede communication, and all it does is further alienate people who are on opposite sides of the debate,” she said.
On April 11, 2023, Nam published an opinion piece in The Yale Daily News (YDN) titled “Abort the Conversation.” She concluded her article by writing, “We can’t all be saviors. Some people are only interested in pulling us below the surface of the water. Let go of the line of thinking. Abort the conversation.”
Shortly after her piece was published, Nam received support and criticism from her peers and others beyond Yale. In addition to being sent emails, others made more public comments. Michael Samaritano ‘24 wrote a response article in the YDN, titled “A conversation we should not kill,” arguing that the “larger risk is to be found in uncritically accepting beliefs about the most important questions of human existence.” Meanwhile, Nam’s article circulated multiple blogs, such as Ethics Alarms, and readers left comments about her, her family, and her background.
One commenter wrote, “The biatch has already spent three years at Yale, why not broaden her educational experience and wrap it all up in North Korea?”
***
Nam maintains that abortion debates threaten human rights and should not take place at all. But it is inevitable that the broader dispute about abortion—how it should be discussed, if at all—will continue to persist.
Abortion remains a central issue in American politics and a focal point in the nation’s culture wars. In 2023, Tom Bonier, a Democratic political strategist, wrote for The New York Times that “abortion rights are the dominant issue in American politics.” In recent exit polls, abortion was the second most important issue to Harris voters, and abortion rights referendums passed across seven states, four of which were traditionally conservative. Opinions on abortion often transcend strict party lines, differing along gender, race, and religion, and vary in terms of the level of restrictions people support.
At Yale, a campus that trends liberal, most students and faculty are in favor of individuals having access to abortions. While no official “pro-choice” organization exists, being pro-choice is often seen as a norm. “Not everyone on this campus is pro-choice—sometimes that alone surprises students,” wrote Kylyn Smith ‘26, CLAY’s Summer Logistics Coordinator, in an email to The Politic. Still, Yale students hold diverse perspectives on the issue of abortion itself and vary on how such conversations should be approached.
For CLAY, hosting tabling events like the one Nam experienced during Bulldog Days “[inputs] an often under-voiced point of view into campus dialogue dominated by the pro-choice perspective,” wrote Emma Ventresca ‘26, President of CLAY, in an email to The Politic. While Nam had multiple peers confide in her that if they saw the table as an admitted student, they would reconsider committing, CLAY advocates asserted the opposite. Ventresca said, “I remember one student […] who said he didn’t know Yale had people like us, and it made him want to attend. The CLAY table not only stood for the pro-life cause for him but also for a campus open to free speech and open exchange.”
These tabling events are not a practice exclusive to Bulldog Days—CLAY hosts them monthly in addition to engaging in service projects, holding candlelit vigils, and organizing an annual pro-life conference, Vita et Veritas. CLAY hosts training to prepare volunteers for these events “based upon concrete facts and a developed understanding of this complex issue,” Ventresca said. “During our programming, we discuss how to have compassionate, enlightening discussions with strangers and friends alike and develop a greater understanding of important pro-life talking points through statistics and testimonies.”
Like Nam, many members of the Yale community have expressed overt discontent toward CLAY’s tabling events. Ventresca noted that students occasionally approach the table and crumple their flyers or take photos of their displays to send to their friends. “It is hard for people, even intelligent people at Yale, to learn that there are equally intelligent people who have a different opinion on a controversial topic,” wrote Smith. “It should be easy for people, however —especially intelligent people at Yale—to react with decency when faced with polite opposition.”
Ventresca also recalled feeling “unsettled” by some of the conversations that she had herself. She remembered when a student came to the table “cynically.” When Ventresca asked the student what an abortion was, the student replied that it was a woman’s right to choose. Ventresca had hoped to talk about the medical procedure of abortion but felt that the student needed to “come to the table with a clear understanding of what abortion is,” and people who approach them should be “willing to hear out each other’s understandings, [and] not just a vague abstraction of the topic.”
Despite this, Ventresca stressed the importance of these events, since, “[a]bortion is an issue that affects college communities and having honest, open discussions is the best way to foster a culture of life on campuses.” She recounted when a friend saw her tabling event and spoke to her for nearly half an hour. Even though he did not have experience with either side of the argument, and felt like he did not have a say because he was not a woman, he willingly embraced her perspective. “My friend could have pretended he didn’t recognize me. But instead, he decided to come over and engage in a very difficult discussion. I gave him a hug at the end of our talk,” said Ventresca.
***
While CLAY tries to make its presence visible on campus, writing the organization’s name in chalk in front of the central Sterling Memorial Library, other student groups also work to add to the discussion. Among undergraduates, the Planned Parenthood Student-Advocates at Yale facilitate internship opportunities at the New Haven chapter and advocate for reproductive rights within the community. Their mission statement states they “strive to engage in open and respectful conversations at Yale and in the greater New Haven community to challenge stigma misconceptions around reproductive health, rights, and access.”
Beyond the College, the School of Public Health hosts the activism group Reproductive Health Equity Now (RHEN), which promotes access to reproductive health care, including maternal health, abortion, and contraception. Their mission is to emphasize a public health perspective, highlighting the dangers of abortion bans and the importance of safe, accessible reproductive health services. |
RHEN’s leadership noted that as an organization, they approach the conversation from a healthcare standpoint. “We do not engage with any sort of opposition,” said co-leader Amelia Apgar YSPH ‘25. “However, we equip our members with the tools and strategies that they need to be effective advocates in the face of opposition.”
Apgar added that from this lens, the discussion surrounding abortion should be private. “Any moral or legal considerations are just null in the face of healthcare,” she said. To Apgar, all reproductive health decisions should be made solely between a person and their doctor.
Nevertheless, there is an understanding that it can be difficult for individuals to separate the moral aspect of the conversation, according to Co-Leader Kaustubha Gajjala YSPH ‘25. “A good way to connect with people on moral issues is by giving them the facts and using public health-focused initiatives,” she noted.
However, Apgar noted that in her personal life, she engages in conversations with those who disagree with her view on reproductive health. “I take it very seriously, and [I] respect others’ opinions and see what work we can still do, although we disagree. There’s a lot of room, I think, for positive advocacy and change, even when people might not be 100% on your side.”
***
In late October, CLAY hosted its annual Vita et Veritas conference, “Dispelling the Myths of the Abortion Narrative,” and presented an array of speakers including activists, an attorney, and an OB-GYN.
One of the speakers, Dr. Catherine Wheeler, an OB-GYN with 24 years of experience, spoke in a “raw and real [way] that many students have probably not been exposed to before,” according to Ventresca. At the conference, she spoke mostly about abortion procedures, including the use of instruments and the emotional toll on providers. Not only did she come from a healthcare perspective, but she had also been exposed to two vastly different sides of the spectrum—from performing abortions to advocating against them.
After attending the conference, Dr. Wheeler spoke to The Politic. She shared that she underwent cognitive dissonance while performing abortions for fifteen years, which ultimately led her to question and reject her beliefs.
Dr. Wheeler also shared her personal experiences as a mother, emphasizing the need to broaden the conversation beyond abortion to include how to support pregnancies better. She recounted her own challenges with unexpected and high-risk pregnancies, including a ruptured membrane before viability and multiple miscarriages. She also spoke about overcoming extreme poverty during her first two pregnancies. “In my first unplanned pregnancy, I heard the narrative from the media, ‘You can’t do this,’” she remembered. “But my best friend stood with me and said, ‘You’re going to be a great mom.’”
As someone who previously performed abortions, Dr. Wheeler feels she understands pro-choice advocates. “I honestly believe most people, like me, think they’re helping women. Most people care deeply about women and the harms that are being done to women, especially women [who] get abandoned when they’re pregnant,” she said. “I get it, but our job as a society is to stand beside them and to help them, not tell them your best option is to take the life of your baby.”
More than anything, Dr. Wheeler advises approaching conversations with grace. “People believe things for a reason. We’ve got to get back to open dialogue, trying to understand each other as human beings, and being willing to have conversations even when they’re hard, even when they bring up something difficult,” she said.
Like Ventresca and Apgar, Dr. Wheeler suggested examining official research studies from both sides to make informed arguments. “Look for things that are true, not what makes me feel good about it,” she said. “We’re not here to win conversations. We’re here to try to come to the truth.”
***
Nam’s perspective—that of denouncing conversations about abortion entirely—is unpopular. Jack Marshall, an ethicist who runs the blog Ethics Alarms, published a post in April 2023 responding to Nam’s article. Marshall wrote, “That is where her Yale education has brought her in less than three years. She won’t swerve from that one-way world view in the time remaining, because she has learned that arguments that might change her mind—anyone else’s, presumably, are dangerous. She is a young, emerging totalitarian.”
Despite the harsh criticism, Nam holds fast to her original stance. She understands that people hold a right to free speech, but, to her, the ideas that pro-lifers espouse create an unsafe and threatening space. She argues that sharing these thoughts is, in fact, antithetical to the idea of open speech. In her experience, “by refusing to engage with the questions of human rights and bodily autonomy that are central to this debate,” they are suppressing free expression. “I fully embrace every single word that I wrote,” said Nam.
The conversation surrounding abortion will live on. Ultimately, it is up to Yale students, and the rest of the country, to decide how—and if—they want to engage.