By: Caitlin Donahue On Wednesday, I attended a deliberation that focused primarily on the politics of the multi-dimensional and complex issue of women’s reproductive rights. I chose to attend this deliberation not only because the topic interested me and seemed very relevant for society today, but also because I wanted to participate in an open and honest discussion about this particular issue with people who may have varying or different perspectives from mine. I consider this issue to be a very pressing and important concern in our society today and something that affects many people, and as something that needs to be addressed and talked about in an effective way rather than focusing on the polarizing pro-life or pro-choice sides of the argument. I was excited to meet with other people to consider the different ways in which this issue could potentially be addressed. Attending this deliberation turned out to be a good decision, as the conversation was very open, productive, thought-provoking, and allowed me to think about women’s reproductive rights from many different sides of the issue, rather than viewing it simply from my own perspective and set of personal beliefs.
The deliberation opened with a shocking and personal story about an eleven-year-old girl who was on birth control who was the sister of one of the deliberation’s moderators. The moderator asked the audience what we initially thought of when we were told of such a young girl who was already on the pill. Some people expressed that they felt the girl was far too young to already be engaging in sexual intercourse and that she did not actually need to be on the pill, whereas others recognized the possibility that the girl may have been on the pill for other particular medical purposes. After the varying responses from the audience, one of the moderators informed us that the eleven-year-old girl in the story was actually her sister. She had to be placed on birth control after doctors discovered that she had a cyst on her ovary that could potentially affect her fertility in the future. The pill helps to keep the cyst under control so she does not have to live in pain, and is therefore is a necessary and vital aspect of her health and well-being. This was a very powerful and effective way to open the deliberation not only because it was a personal story, but also because it showed that there are many different situations that birth control pills are needed for, and that they are not just for used as a contraceptive in all cases. I believe that opening the deliberation in this manner allowed the deliberation attendees to have a more opened-mind during the remainder of the discussion rather than continuing to view this issue from a pro-choice or pro-life perspective. The deliberation next moved to their approaches for possible solutions to the ongoing issue of women’s reproductive rights. One of the main questions that was posed during the deliberation was whether women’s reproductive rights, including the procedure of abortion, birth control pills, and other forms of contraceptives should be decided by the federal government or by the individual states. While discussing this, my group decided that this is a very hard question to answer, and a definite solution is difficult to imagine, which is part of the reason why this issue still remains a significant societal concern. We found that it was important and seemingly necessary that the federal government had some form of involvement in this issue in order to ensure that the various options regarding reproductive rights that are currently in place remain in place. However, if this were in fact primarily a states’ issue, our group felt that more people in a particular state might be pleased with the decision that their individual state makes rather than the issue being regulated by the federal government or forced upon them. If this was a states’ issue, then each state’s decision may be more reflective of that state’s population which could potentially allow the topic of women’s reproductive rights to not be as significant of an issue in our society. Our group also discussed the different religious and moral implications that a person may have against the concept of abortion or even various forms of contraception. Some people who hold such religious beliefs may be uncomfortable with the fact that their tax dollars could potentially be going towards programs and other things regarding women’s reproductive rights that go against their moral convictions or beliefs. However, although it is important to respect differing religious and moral beliefs, our group discussed this and agreed that these services, especially the basic forms of birth control, are medically necessary and should be readily available to the women who need them. Our group felt that since there are so many different circumstances for why a woman may make the decision to have an abortion or why she chooses to be on birth control, so therefore it is extremely important for people to realize that it is a personal decision and cannot be made by others. This means that even if someone is personally against taking birth control or abortion, they should understand that they do not have to personally take birth control or have an abortion, but that the option should be available to those who need them. Overall, our group agreed on many of the topics that were raised throughout this deliberation. Every member of the group seemed to be very pro-choice from the beginning of the deliberation, so it was interesting to see as we all opened up and tried to view and critically think about this issue from a different perspective.
0 Comments
By: Hugo Robinson To captivate an audience it is not only incredibly important to have an interesting subject matter but also to present that subject matter in a compelling and enthralling way. On Wednesday, March 1st, at 7:00 pm I attended the deliberation titled The Nation, The State, and You: The Politics of Women’s Reproductive Rights. Women’s reproductive rights vary across a broad spectrum of health issues, but the ones most frequently discussed and hotly debated are the right to abortion and the right to birth control. As this is an issue it is difficult not to have an opinion on, I will do my best to keep mine out of this blog and focus mostly on the aspects and results of the deliberation itself.
I never considered myself an expert on this topic, but up until the day of this deliberation I had no idea quite how uninformed I really was. The deliberation began with an intriguing example of a twelve year-old girl who needs to be on birth control because she suffers extreme discomfort when she is, and transitioned nicely into a breakdown of the three main plateaus of women’s reproductive rights: the national level, the state level, and the personal level. Nationally, abortion was declared to be legal in the 1973 landmark decision of Roe v. Wade. However, this decision provided for the possibility of varying levels of control of abortion within each state — the states are free to make laws limiting or restricting abortion, and many have done so. The truth of the matter within the United States is that rules and legislation regarding women’s reproductive rights are composed primarily by those who cannot sympathize with the thousands of women who may need birth control or an abortion for any number of reasons — and with the new government administration and their proposed strategies, it seems as if major healthcare cuts are in the works. Women aren’t given enough power to make decisions regarding their own bodies, simply put. In terms of presentation, the deliberation was very well done, and was largely a success. I was very captured by the information, not only because of how interesting the topic was to me but because of the great job presenting done by the group. It was clear that they were all very certain on what information they needed to know/were each responsible for, and after minor tones of nervousness in the first few minutes the deliberation took off running. I left the cafe feeling satisfied and informed, and would have recommended such an interactive, informative demonstration to anyone. I think that the most important part of any deliberation is the discussion aspect, and in this circumstance the presenters were perfect in striking the right balance between offering factual, important statistical information, and leaving the floor open to the groups’ participants to express their own opinions, questions, or view regarding the subject. I was delighted to be a part of this deliberation, and think that the group did an exceedingly good job in creating it! By: Shannon Kaminski This next deliberation was one I was excited to attend because a lot of political talk is going on about Roe v. Wade and abortion rights currently, so I find it a relevant and significant topic to discuss.
In this deliberation, we were split into separate tables and went through each approach as a small group. After going through each discussion, we then collaborated as one big group to draw conclusions. The issue was framed based on who gets to decide about abortion and birth control, the nation, the state, or the individual. Approach #1- The Nation The first approach focuses on the nation’s involvement in reproductive/abortion rights. Currently, we have Roe v. Wade, which prohibits states from outlawing abortion- a constitutional right to every individual. We discussed how this is a very necessary law in place, because women have a right to decipher whether they can carry a baby, and then support a child when they are pregnant unplanned. Based on health conditions, circumstance (for example, sexual assault), and financial ability, it is not always an option for a woman to safely and healthily have a child-- and the government doesn’t, and shouldn’t have any say about the matter. With this said, federal funding for abortion is also prohibited, which is fair; as is the inclusion of contraceptives in health care plans. The prohibition of federal funding prevents those who don’t believe in abortion or the use of contraceptives from indirectly paying for other’s abortions or medications. We were adamant on the fact that contraceptives are a necessary medication for many people (not just for avoiding pregnancy) and should be treated as such in health care plans. Approach #2- The State The state level approach is a better option for local communities with different types of cultures and mindsets. We talked about the differences in beliefs that overpower certain areas, and realized that some places need more sex education at the teen level to make up for certain laws (for example, some places make it a lot harder to actually get an abortion)-- so there needs to be some sort of compromise in order to decrease the level of accidental pregnancies in the first place. Additionally, while some communities may find the use of contraceptives “taboo” and look down upon those who use contraceptives, there are other communities in which the use of contraceptives is almost universal. Overall, we decided that the sex ed in schools must be implemented so that teens know how to practice safe sex, and prevent accidental pregnancy. Parents who do not want their children learning about these things can choose to opt out of it, however it is very necessary for young adults to have the understanding and the acknowledgement that unplanned pregnancy can happen and how it can happen. I believe personally that the talk about the “birds and the bees,” is necessary for every highschooler to experience, as it is a natural part of becoming an adult. We also agreed with the majority of states having laws in place prohibiting abortion after a certain number of weeks of pregnancy, as this is for the safety of the mother, and for the morality-- a baby after 5-6 months is in a developed stage. State laws allow fine-tuned control of abortion access, which is necessary for different areas. Approach #3-- The Individual The final approach is what my group agreed was the only constitutional and fair approach at reproductive rights. Each person is different: each person has different health needs, different beliefs, different sex lives, different financial status’, and the list goes on. With this being said, everyone has their own reasons to either prevent or abort a pregnancy, and therefore has the right to decide for themselves. Conclusion At the end of this deliberation, we all agreed that it is only constitutionally fair if each person has a right to their beliefs and reasoning. While the national government can prohibit abortion after a certain amounts of time for safety precautions, it cannot take away a woman’s birth-given right. Thus, the only plausible approach to this issue is to give reproductive rights to the individual. By: Jessica Saganowich The third deliberation that I attended focused on women’s reproductive rights and how these rights should be enforced. The group structured their talks with open questions and then requested audience feedback. After the group discussed initial concerns, each table was assigned a moderator for the three approaches. Each approach lasted about twenty minutes; the large audience present that day made it easier to hold more discussions because everyone had different opinions. After the approaches concluded the group as a whole discussed the main topic points of the discussion and wrapped up the deliberation with a few closing remarks. One take away that I would like to implement in my deliberation was that the moderator in the group gave some of their opinions as well. As an audience member it was nice to know that my thoughts were being heard and thought about.
In regards to the topics discussed the first topic entailed how women’s reproductive rights are being implemented at a national level. The group talked about some health care policies that would require insurance companies to include birth control in their offered plans. There were two sides to this question. The for inclusion of birth control argued that it is a medication that people need to be healthy and that the medication is not just a contraceptive. The against argued that it was cost more money to include birth control in the plan. The group continued to discuss stigmas that surrounded birth control and decided that the public needs to be more educated about its uses such as hormone therapy. The concluding thought was that if medication will be offered to men through their insurance the same service should be offered to women no matter what the use. The second main topic was discussing possible solutions that could be implemented at the state level that would allow for more state wide control of insurance plans. Some members thought it is a right to have equal insurance for men and women and that states should not decide whether birth control is included. The other consensus was that if states could vote on this policy than more conservatives states could choose to not include the medication under religious circumstances. Personally I say that separation of church and state is an important feature of our government and should be remembered in this debate. The last topic that our group talked about was how to solve the stigmas associated with birth control and how people are treated who want an abortion. The most popular solution that came up was education. If younger children were truly informed of the uses and benefits of birth control less people will grow up with negative opinions of it and hopefully more people will be open minded to it. In regards to abortion the group discusses why women are forced to attend a counseling session before they go in to get an abortion. We all agreed that this service should be an option but not mandatory. The most inspiring moment of this deliberation was that one of the male group members said “Wow I didn’t know that birth control had all these other uses.” The fact that this deliberation was able to educate and reach someone brought this group one step closer to discussing women’s reproductive rights. By: Hugo Robinson To captivate an audience it is not only incredibly important to have an interesting subject matter but also to present that subject matter in a compelling and enthralling way. On Wednesday, March 1st, at 7:00 pm I attended the deliberation titled The Nation, The State, and You: The Politics of Women’s Reproductive Rights. Women’s reproductive rights vary across a broad spectrum of health issues, but the ones most frequently discussed and hotly debated are the right to abortion and the right to birth control. As this is an issue it is difficult not to have an opinion on, I will do my best to keep mine out of this blog and focus mostly on the aspects and results of the deliberation itself.
I never considered myself an expert on this topic, but up until the day of this deliberation I had no idea quite how uninformed I really was. The deliberation began with an intriguing example of a twelve year-old girl who needs to be on birth control because she suffers extreme discomfort when she is, and transitioned nicely into a breakdown of the three main plateaus of women’s reproductive rights: the national level, the state level, and the personal level. Nationally, abortion was declared to be legal in the 1973 landmark decision of Roe v. Wade. However, this decision provided for the possibility of varying levels of control of abortion within each state — the states are free to make laws limiting or restricting abortion, and many have done so. The truth of the matter within the United States is that rules and legislation regarding women’s reproductive rights are composed primarily by those who cannot sympathize with the thousands of women who may need birth control or an abortion for any number of reasons — and with the new government administration and their proposed strategies, it seems as if major healthcare cuts are in the works. Women aren’t given enough power to make decisions regarding their own bodies, simply put. In terms of presentation, the deliberation was very well done, and was largely a success. I was very captured by the information, not only because of how interesting the topic was to me but because of the great job presenting done by the group. It was clear that they were all very certain on what information they needed to know/were each responsible for, and after minor tones of nervousness in the first few minutes the deliberation took off running. I left the cafe feeling satisfied and informed, and would have recommended such an interactive, informative demonstration to anyone. I think that the most important part of any deliberation is the discussion aspect, and in this circumstance the presenters were perfect in striking the right balance between offering factual, important statistical information, and leaving the floor open to the groups’ participants to express their own opinions, questions, or view regarding the subject. I was delighted to be a part of this deliberation, and think that the group did an exceedingly good job in creating it! By: Duneshka Cruz On Wednesday (March 1, 2017), I attended “The Nation, The State, and You: The Politics of Women’s Reproductive Rights.” I really looked forward to this deliberation because with the recent events regarding women’s reproductive rights being decided for them, it was nice to be able to productively have a conversation about it.
The first approach we looked at was Control at the Federal Level. This discussion also merged with the state level approach. We compared both and we realized that although we didn’t love that women are basically losing their rights to their own bodies, we also didn’t want to have what is implemented now taken away. It could just be a whole lot worse. We also thought that there is good and bad with the state control because states vary in opinion. However, that’s also the very reason why it’s also bad because if we just leave it up to the states then the states that don’t believe in women having access to contraceptives will automatically be able to control that. It’s a very difficult topic to find a solution for. During the federal level conversation, I was able to learn about policies that I didn’t know were in place. For example, I didn’t know anything about the Hyde Amendment, which basically is a legislative provision excepting the use of federal funds to pay for abortion except to save the life of a woman, or if the pregnancy arises from incest or rape. It has blocked federal Medicaid funding for abortion services. Although I do agree with the exceptions, I also think that the decision should be left to the woman, her doctor, and her family. Politicians, especially a group of men, shouldn’t be deciding what is best for all women. The last approach we looked at was at the community level. Something we all agreed upon was that many people aren’t really educated on contraceptives and what their options are. Therefore, it should be discussed in health or sexual education in order for people to make decisions with knowledge behind it. It would be beneficial to have people learn about this as they’re learning about sex. Many people brought up the fact that sexual education sometimes just works to try and fear teens into becoming abstinent, which is not a bad thing. However, it is wishful thinking to assume that all teens will just wait. Some are more curious than others and they will engage in intercourse at a young age. This is why it’s important for girls to know about what is out there in order for them to be safe. If we just keep it quiet and not acknowledge it, that won’t help anyone. The final consensus of our group was that even though there are many disagreements as to how women’s reproductive rights are being handled right now, we also wouldn’t want it to completely go away because then we would lose the little bit of rights that we do have right now. There’s more to be discussed on the issue but I liked that the deliberation provided us with a sample email to write to our senators or a sample phone call. It’s important to have resources and ways in which to contact authorities if we want to make a change in what is happening. By: Carly Lassa On March 1st, 2017, I walked into Webster’s Bookstore and Café at 6:45. As I walked down the stairs, I saw there were many people crowded by the stage, which I knew meant that they were there for the deliberation. Because the group presenting their deliberation was only four people, I offered my assistance to them. I helped point people in the right direction to the sign in sheet and also helped pass out name tags. Once everyone got all seated in their individual tables, the team leader started the introduction.
I was seated at the table on the stage. The team leader introduced the topic of Women’s Reproductive Rights and spoke to all the groups together. Then we separated into smaller groups to talk about their different approaches. The first approach was talking about the United States as a country should do about Women’s Reproductive Rights. It did get a little sticky with differing political beliefs especially when talking about abortion, but the conversation remained well mannered. My group talked about how there is a federal law stating that no state can make abortion illegal. However, that being said, states can still make it so hard to get that it is nearly impossible. Then this could potentially lead to women trying to get an abortion in a “back alley” way that could end up hurting the women as well. We spoke about different ways that this could try to be reformed. We thought it would be effective for the federal government to set a minimum amount of money that each state must put towards women’s health needs. Then each state could determine how much money to put towards women’s health as an individual. Personally, I thought that was a great conclusion that has the potential to be very effective. The second approach was talking about the state level. The whole point of the deliberation was to try to come to a conclusion to who should have control of women’s reproductive rights. An idea we talked about with the state approach was the fact that businesses are able to have women’s rights included in their insurance policies. With that being said, is that right or wrong and should states remain to have that right or not? While there was discrepancy between some people in the group, there was very nice conversation on both sides of the issue. One of the most interesting things I heard was that before an abortion, the state requires the women to get counseling. However, after the abortion the counseling is not required. Most women need counseling after they have an abortion so if the state funded a therapist both before and after, it could help women with the emotional burden of getting an abortion. The last approach we talked about was each individual having their reproduction rights custom to their bodies. Most people agreed that each person should be able to control what happens to their own body and they just need the resources available to them. After about an hour and fifteen minutes of conversation, the smaller groups were brought back together into one big group to discuss their findings. Each group contributed a few ideas to be written down for each approach. The final thoughts were suggesting that if we felt strong about the issue, we should go out into the community and do something about it. They gave information like phone numbers of senators and other information of clubs on campus that are related to the issue. It was a successful deliberation and really got people talking. By: Billy Gault On Wednesday, March 1 I attended a deliberation on a subject that I was not very familiar with. This subject was women’s reproductive rights. Titled “The Nation, The State, and You: How do we handle women’s reproductive rights?”, this deliberation taught me a great deal about something that I was not overly familiar with. The deliberation group began with a very captivating introduction. One of the group members told a story about how her eleven year old sister was already on birth control. When asked what this made us think, many of the audience members replied by saying that eleven is very young to have sex. It turns out, however, that her sister was not on birth control to prevent pregnancy. She was on birth control because of her ovarian cysts that needed to be hormonally regulated with the pill. This introduction was extremely effective in getting the audience involved in the discussion. We then broke up into smaller groups to discuss the three approaches: the nation’s view on reproductive rights, the state’s view on reproductive rights, and how the individual handles reproductive rights. This deliberation format allowed for many people to share their ideas simultaneously, and then collaborate with the larger group.
National regulation reproductive rights is a very controversial topic which lead to some great discussion. Almost every state in the US has different rules regarding women’s reproductive rights. I know that in New Jersey, if you are above the age of 16, you do not need a parents consent to get an abortion. In fact, you do not even have to tell your parents. However, in other states, if you do not want your parents to know, you have to go before a judge and plead your case. My group felt that national regulation would be unfair to women in the US. This is because if a woman desperately needs an abortion, all states would have the same laws. If the states controlled it, a women could travel and have whatever procedure she needs to get done. One solution to this issue was the federal government could set a minimum, and then the states can decide how much further the want to go. Another issue we talked about was the availability of birth control. While men can buy condoms, at any age, over the counter, women need a prescription to purchase the pill. This seems to be very unfair We could not come up with a solution, however, since the pill is a chemical that is entering the body, while a condom is and external contraceptive. We also discussed state funding. Some people may not want to pay taxes for another person’s contraceptives, but isn’t a baby on child support and food stamps more expensive than the pill? This is an extreme gray area that needs to be addressed by the government. The discussion of national and state kind of mixed together, but the individual discussion was separate. One of the biggest individual controversies was how late is too late to get an abortion. While many conservatives say that the baby is a “person” at the moment of fertilization, others say that it is not a human yet. This is another topic that doesn’t seem to have a correct answer and how can it? Individuals also see almost a sexist approach to reproductive rights. It is the woman’s job to buy birth control, but why? Isn’t it unfair how expensive it is? One way to address this problem would be to tax. As I said before, taxing people on birth control would be a much cheaper alternative than taxing people on food stamps to support a child. This topic seemed to have the most questions with the least answers. While it was interesting and enlightening to discuss, it seems very difficult to come up with a solution to this problem. By: Adam Schultz This past Wednesday I attended a deliberation regarding contraceptives, abortion, and the role of the government and the individual in whose should decide the laws regarding these two issues. The group opened up with a person anecdote about an eleven-year-old girl who was taking birth control. The first thing that came to mind for many of us was, this girl is way too young to be having sex. Yet, following this brief time to contemplate why such a young girl would be taking birth control, one of the group members revealed that the eleven-year old girl was in fact her sister; and that she was taking birth control in order to prevent a cist from continuing to grow on her ovaries, which could lead to infertility. Following this short introduction, we broke into small groups and the discussion really picked up. Our group discussed our beliefs regarding the topic of who should subsidizes contraceptives and allow abortions. Everyone at my table agreed that the individual should be the one who decides whether or not to have an abortion or to take contraceptives. We also believed that the government should help subsidize the costs of contraceptives, such as the birth control pill. We discussed past laws/court cases such as Roe vs Wade and the Affordable Care Act. We believed despite other’s religious, moral, or other reasons for being against contraceptives and abortion, that companies/businesses and the government should be required to fund them under their healthcare plan for their workers. We believed this because we thought that the individual should have the choice of these options no matter what. We discussed that if you were someone with moral, religious or other objections to said laws that gave the choice to Americans, that you could choose not to use contraceptives or have an abortion. We agreed that it was our right to have these choices available to us as Americans. Another thing that came up during this discussion was that fact that this topic regarded women and not men. Most of my group was female and they discussed how if this had been a man’s issue it would have already been taken care of, no questions asked. For example, one woman brought up how Viagra for men is covered. The women in my group believed if there was greater women representation in government and congress that their perspectives would allow the right to choice to come to fruition. This was very interesting to listen to, and it really opened my eyes to the discontent of many women who believe our governmental system is biased to older white men. Yes, I do know that majority of our government is mainly white men, and that is something that needs to change, but hearing them discuss the issue really opened my eyes to the change that needs to take place. Not only do I believe that women should and have the right to choice, but this discussion opened my eyes to the fact that we need new faces in Washington. Our moderator throughout asked us great questions that kept our minds thinking, while providing background information that we might not know in order for us to adequately discuss the issues. I was glad to see that many in the group, including other men believed that women should have the right of choice, and that the government should help subsidize contraceptives. The deliberation ended with possible solutions and a call to action, which I believe is a top priority for us as Americans right now, as the Affordable Care Act which covers expensive contraceptives for all women is being threatened.
By: Adam Kleiber On March 1, 2017, I attended a public deliberation titled: “The Nation, The State, and You: How Do We Handle Women’s Reproductive Rights?” This deliberation took place from 7:00 to 8:30 pm at Webster’s Bookstore, 133 E. Beaver Avenue. The event was hosted and moderated by Penn State students named Amanda, Anna, Kerri, and Leila.
The deliberation began with Amanda giving a monologue about her younger sister and the reason she was on birth control at the young age of 11. As I had already seen this speech given in our RCL class, the dramatic effect of revealing that this 11 year-old was actually Amanda’s sister was somewhat lost on me, but it looked like it had the intended effect on other members of the deliberation. After this introduction concluded, we were then broken up into smaller groups that were each moderated by one of the aforementioned hosts of the deliberation. The first approach for addressing women’s reproductive rights was “control at the Federal level.” My group’s moderator, Anna, talked about some important federal court cases and laws pertaining to reproductive rights including Roe v. Wade, the Affordable Care Act, and the Hyde Amendment. One of the main talking points at the federal level pertained to the burden placed on employers to provide their employees with birth control, as well as tax dollars going towards abortions. The main argument presented against this was that if you let people choose where their tax dollars go, based on religious or any other moral objection, what’s to stop people from saying that they don’t want their tax dollars to go to schools since they don’t have children (or another similar analogy). In my opinion, this argument is kind of close to being an example of the “slippery slope fallacy,” but I agree with the general point that people shouldn’t be able to choose where their tax dollars go. The second approach for tackling the issue of women’s reproductive rights was “control at the State level.” Our moderator talked about the laws in Pennsylvania surrounding abortion. For example, women cannot terminate a pregnancy after 24 weeks and must undergo a state-sponsored counseling session before undergoing the procedure. Our group talked about how disgusting it is that women were required to get counseling before exercising their right to choose. However, a compromise that our group brought up was leaving the counseling as an option for women who wanted (or needed) it. The third approach for dealing with women’s reproductive rights was “control at the community and individual level.” This approach tied back into the federal level approach as we again discussed Roe v. Wade and the right of an individual to privacy. A major point that our group brought up is that, while we believed that abortion should be the mother’s choice, it was dangerous to remove any and all regulation surrounding abortion because it may lead to clinic conditions that could potentially endanger the mother. In general, however, we agreed that the government should not interfere with an individual’s decisions surrounding his/her body. In conclusion, I thought this deliberation offered a lot of valuable insight into the issues surrounding women’s reproductive rights. It was especially valuable to me, as a man, to be exposed to the perspective of all the women at the deliberation. In fact, I think the ratio was something like 3:1; girls:guys. I definitely feel more informed on the issue and feel like I have a better understanding of the different perspectives on said issue. |
Categories
All
|