On Friday, April 11 the Hopkins Political Union held its second debate of the semester, tackling two of the most contested issues in American politics: health-care policy and abortion. There were two unresolved guiding questions: Should health care be left to the free market, and is abortion health care?
The debate featured speakers from the College Republicans at JHU and Hopkins Democrats. Sponsors included the Stavros Niarchos Foundation (SNF) Agora Institute and the Heterodox Academy at Johns Hopkins University.
In contrast to the first debate, this event featured a reimagined format aimed at fostering deeper engagement with the material. Previously, the format prevented students from making a rebuttal statement — the Political Union changed this in order to cultivate a “more dynamic, engaging, and intellectually rigorous debate.”
Moderating the debate was George Oppel, a member of the Heterodox Academy at Hopkins and professor in the University Writing Program. He opened the event by emphasizing the values of open inquiry, viewpoint diversity and constructive disagreement.
“I preach this gospel all the time,” Oppel said. “Disagreement is welcome because it makes everybody smarter. We don't go into this in an attitude of trying to destroy our opponents. We go into it in an attitude of trying to learn, while also maintaining our own position.”
The event also allowed students the opportunity to step outside usual academic realms and engage with peers who hold different beliefs.
In an interview with The News-Letter, Kelsey Miller, a sophomore double majoring in public health studies and environmental science, treasurer of the Political Union, and president of Hopkins Democrats, reflected on the importance of cross-disciplinary dialogue.
“We definitely want to change the stereotype that we’re just STEM students who stay in our dorms and talk to each other over Sidechat,” she said. “So we wanted to find a way to break out of that echo chamber and to really touch people who are different from us.”
In the first 30 minutes, individuals debated the contention: Should health care be left to the free market?
Proponents of a free-market approach argued that competition incentivizes innovation, efficiency and personal freedom. They highlighted the United States’ high cancer survival rates and pharmaceutical advancements as outcomes of a market-driven system. Government intervention, they claimed, inflates costs and impedes access. They advocated for local charity care, increased price transparency and decentralized competition.
Some students also added moral convictions underpinning their positions. Miller, arguing in opposition to health care being left to the free market and drawing on her background in public health, emphasized the ethical dimension of the debate in her interview with The News-Letter.
“I believe health care is a human right,“ she said. “I believe nobody should be put into debt because they get a cancer diagnosis or they are unable to afford health care. I believe the best way to do that is through the single-payer system, and other countries have done this.”
Opponents countered by highlighting the estimated 26 million uninsured Americans and a system that prioritizes profit over well-being. They called for universal health care as a moral and practical necessity, emphasizing the government’s role in ensuring equitable access to it. The debate underscored tensions between individual liberty and collective responsibility, with both sides acknowledging the need for continued dialogue and community-based solutions.
The second half of the event was spent debating the question: Is abortion health care?
Supporters of abortion as health care cited positions from leading medical organizations such as the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and the World Health Organization, both of which classify abortion as essential reproductive care. Debaters shared the story of a Texan woman who died after being denied a medically necessary abortion to highlight the dangers of restrictive laws. They noted that maternal mortality is seven percent higher in states with strict abortion bans and criticized the failure of such states to provide adequate postnatal support. Their argument emphasized the need for comprehensive reproductive care.
Opponents approached the question from a moral and philosophical lens, questioning whether abortion can be considered health care if it ends a human life. They argued that human life begins at conception and should be protected at every stage. They also referenced the mental health consequences of abortion, including increased anxiety and depression among women, and advocated for a broader ethic of life that includes both mother and child.
Students also reflected on the rhetorical and philosophical tensions within the abortion debate. Natalie Bernstein, a psychology and political science major who identifies as pro-choice, highlighted the contrasting value systems between both sides in an interview with The News-Letter.
“I think people in the pro-choice position, which I consider myself to hold, could care a lot about practical considerations and a lot about human well-being in a more holistic sense, whereas I think people on the pro-life side are more focused on a religious or moral foundational view,” she said.
She also questioned the strategic use of language in public discourse.
“I think a lot of the rhetoric that people use around abortion — like the question ‘Is abortion health care?’ — I don’t know how helpful it is,” she said. “I'm not sure that people who are pro-life necessarily care about whether it’s health care. I think they care more about the idea of life as a fundamental religious, moral, philosophical position. I think the kind of rhetoric around health care is really useful for mobilizing populations that are less religious.”
Founder of the Political Union and President of College Republicans at JHU Aneesh Swaminathan had a different take on the issue, which he described in an email to The News-Letter.
“I am a biology and political science major, and I wish to change the way we discuss deep and profound issues, like medical ethics or morality, in our political parlance,” he wrote. “Too often our debates on these topics are superficial and reductionist ... and too often we delude ourselves into thinking 'oh, we just disagree on what life is,' when it's really about, 'how do we respect life.' They don't get to the roots of our actual philosophical disagreements and, so, we never really get to advance our debate beyond the usual refrains. I want to change that.”
Swaminathan highlighted why engaging college students in these discussions is so important.
“There is no better demographic, in my mind, to discuss these issues than college students,” he wrote. “Not only are they voters, they are also the largest stakeholders ... they will be the ones shaping the conversation on these issues in the future.”
