The recent overturning of Roe v. Wade has made maternal and reproductive health care even more essential in places where it remains legalized such as within Harvard campus. Harvard University Health Services (HUHS) promises to provide reproductive care services for its students, but they fail to do so in an equitable fashion, creating burdens and stresses along gendered, geographic, and financial lines.
The Student Health Fee, required for all registered students, is intended to cover urgent care and specialty services. It does not cover maternal or reproductive care. Admittedly, under the Student Health Fee, students can appy for a $350 partial benefit after a receiving an abortion, but the cost is not fully subsidized.
HUHS only offers maternal and reproductive health care through the Harvard Insurance Plan. As of 2017, the HUHS director estimates that 60% of students waived this plan. Students may choose to opt-out of this plan because of existing parental health care coverage or concerns about the $4,080 cost. As a result, Harvard’s policy creates an unequal burden regarding access to abortions and maternal care, in which accessibility restrictions are potentially related to the financial background of the student.
The Harvard College Democrats, a student organization on campus, published an open letter on September 25, 2022, requesting that abortion be included in the Student Health Fee. Co-President of College Democrats Luke Alberts ’23 said, “It’s not equitable access, unless you have equitable financial access.” Harvard already partially subsidizes abortions, proving that Harvard recognizes the need for this coverage. “If Harvard already has the financial means to cover this charge to some extent, why can’t they do it fully?” said Alberts.
Moreover, the lack of reproductive coverage under the Student Health Fee generates inequality based on students’ home states. In the wake of the Dobbs Supreme Court case, eleven states have made it illegal for private insurance to cover abortions. As a result, students covered on insurance from these states face greater burdens and out-of-pocket costs in procuring reproductive health care services. And, due to the urgent nature of abortion care, any student covered by out-of-state insurance must navigate complex insurance claims in a short time frame. Professor Andrew Janiak, an expert in reproductive health care and an intermittent consultant to HUHS on these issues, said this process “will be a huge barrier for anyone who’s not on the Harvard insurance.”
Professor Janiak likewise noted that these barriers might lead Harvard students to seek assistance from charitable funds and organizations. He stated, “These resources really are not for privileged people like Harvard students.” Harvard’s failure to pay for its own students abortions is, in Professor Janiak’s words, “negligent,” as it potentially leads Harvard students to utilize funds intended for individuals under greater financial strain.
Moreover, although abortion has recently been the focus of national attention and student action on campus, the overall lack of women’s health care on the Student Health Fee is problematic. Students are currently not eligible for gynecological services, maternity care, or birth control devices under the Student Health Fee.
“I do think it’s a tremendous oversight that the student health fee does not cover birth control devices like IUDs, implants, etc. On the surface this may seem similar to not covering eye exams and glasses; not everyone uses these services, and they can be extremely expensive. In my opinion, the difference is that vision exams are not stigmatized,” said Professor Janiak.
Dr. Ana Langer, a worldwide leader in women’s health policy, was likewise at a loss as to why Harvard does not universally cover reproductive and maternal health care. Dr. Langer noted that, “not having those services available puts female students in an unequal position vis a vis their male counterparts, because these are issues which obviously particularly affect women.”
It is imperative that the university cover not just abortion services, but all reproductive and maternal care, Dr. Langer emphasized. Care is a “continuum,” and “you don’t want to stigmatize people for doing this or that; you want to give people full access to reproductive health services, and they should have access to whatever they need at that particular moment,” she said.
Tiffanie Green, a spokesperson from HUHS, declined to comment on the College Democrat’s push for expanded abortion access. However, the obvious gendered gaps and barriers created by Harvard’s current policies should spur swift action from the University. The current, nationwide assault on reproductive rights and the financial capability of the university simply make Harvard’s failure to universally provide this essential care all the more irresponsible.
Kate Kadyan ’26 (katekadyan@college.harvard.edu) has signed the College Democrats’ open letter and thinks you should too.