Policy & Female Leadership

A Case Study of Roe Vs Wade

With the nomination and confirmation of Justice Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court of the United States and the resultant conservative majority on the bench, this seems as good a time as any to delve into one of my interests: what women in leadership look like. As it stands, women make up far less than half of the key decision-making roles at the highest levels of all industries. As far as the Female voice being allowed to speak and being heard, perhaps there is no more important place for it to be heard than when it comes to the control of their own bodies. Therein lies the crux of Justice Barrett’s nomination. In 2006, on record, she signed an advertisement sponsored by St. Joseph County Right to Life which said: “We, the following citizens of Michiana, oppose abortion on demand and defend the right to life from fertilization to natural death. Please continue to pray to end abortion.”

We all know the name of the pro-choice legislation Roe vs Wade and that given the make-up of our current Supreme Court bench we can expect new challenges to its legitimacy. But what brought this legislation into place? As I ventured to answer this question, the answer was much more disturbing than I had anticipated.

Thalidomide and the FDA

In the 1960’s there was a fancy new drug that was prescribed as a “mild sedative” all around the world including to around 20,000 patients in the United States. The drug, Thalodimide, marketed by US pharmaceutical company Merrell, was originally synthesized unsuccessfully as an anticonvulsive agent in Switzerland and subsequently identified as an allegedly unharmful sleeping aid by a company in West Germany. At the time in the United States, the FDA medical officer on the thalidomide case was Dr. Frances Oldham Kelsey, a Canadian-American woman, who questioned the safety of thalidomide despite pressure from Merrell to pass its approval. To say that Dr. Kelsey’s unbiased judgment was being challenged by a system that favored the pharmaceutical corporation would be an understatement. Reports that the drug may be the cause of an epidemic of limbless babies in West Germany were kept from her by her superiors. Despite this, she persisted in her demand for more research into the drug’s effects. Dr. Kelsey and her team were the only barrier that prevented a wider spread of this negative impact of thalidomide on mothers and their unborn children and her heroics led to the development of future FDA regulation of pharmaceuticals. Unfortunately, it was too late to keep Thalidomide off US shores.

I See Sherri Chessen

In 1960, Sherri Chessen was the host of the Romper Room. Yes, this is the show that most millennials born before 1994 will remember as the one with the host looking through a magic mirror at the end of every episode before saying the names of the children that she “saw” watching. All of us kids hoped against hope that we would hear our names on that list. At any rate, Chessen, a pregnant mom-to-be had taken thalidomide uninformed of the risks. Once told about the risks she quickly became one of the most vocal victims of the lack of regulation on pharmaceutical companies at the time. Merrell manufacturing, despite not having explicit FDA approval, had already sent 1,100 doctors in the US samples of thalidomide and only 10% of those doctors received a warning concerning the drug’s implications.

Chessen’s physician eventually recommended her what was then legally called a therapeutic abortion in Arizona and, in an attempt to prevent this horror from happening to other expectant mothers, tried to share her story anonymously with the media. Sadly, her anonymity was not respected by the newspaper editors and the story received so much publicity and controversy that the hospital where it was planned was successfully pressured to cancel a legal procedure. Chessen’s privilege allowed her the resources to travel to Sweden to have an abortion for which the fetus was indeed deformed and poisoned. She used her story and her voice to advance the abortion debate in a time, not unlike today, where the issues are dominated by religious dogma and not medical ethics.

This story lays one piece of the foundation for Roe vs Wade. In it, we have two female leaders. Through Dr. Kelsey, we learn of how the power in adherence to science can stand in the way of badly regulated systems and save lives. Sherri Chessen’s experience is an example of how a victim’s bravery in telling their story is essential to put a face to the issue, but also how that bravery can be punished in the short-term. These two women opened doors and built shields that protected women for generations to come. As we venture into an uncertain time with the judiciary I am taking stock of that.