Today’s guest author is Molly Harry, an assistant professor at the University of Arkansas.
On June 24, 2022, the United States Supreme Court used Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization to overturn Roe v. Wade, the case that established abortion as a federally protected right in 1973.
In the wake of this upheaval, many stakeholders weighed in on how undoing this landmark decision would alter women’s experiences and opportunities for decades to come. However, a piece about NCAA athletes and abortion by The Washington Post caught my attention and my University of Arkansas colleagues’ attention.
We wondered if athletes’ growing interests in social justice extends to a topic as contentious as abortion. Are athletes more pro-choice or pro-life? How do college athletes understand what Roe’s reversal means for their participation in sports? Would any of them reconsider enrolling at the university based on the state of Arkansas’ restrictive abortion laws?
To answer these questions, we interviewed a sample of 18 athletes, five men and 13 women, on non-revenue sport teams who volunteered to participate in our study in the spring 2023 semester.
Athletes in this sample were evenly split, with nine expressing pro-choice and nine noting pro-life beliefs. The pro-choice athletes at Arkansas came from a host of different home states and countries. These athletes ranged in their religious affiliations from atheist to Christian and generally noted aligning with the Democratic Party or no political party.
On the other hand, athletes with a pro-life lens were either from the state of Arkansas or came to Arkansas from states with similarly restrictive abortion laws, such as Missouri and Texas. They offered statements like, “It’s not that different from Texas” or “I have the same laws here as I would at home.” Pro-life athletes predominantly identified as Christian, but there were weaker connections between their stance on abortion and political party affiliation.
Still, many athletes holding pro-life beliefs struggled to support portions of the state laws prohibiting abortions stemming from rape or incest.
In answering the second question about connections between Roe’s reversal and participation in their sport, most athletes, regardless of how they felt about abortion, said that they did not see how Roe’s reversal influenced athletics. This stance was especially prevalent among athletes interviewed from men’s teams. For example, one man said: “It doesn’t limit me personally at all. If I were a woman, that would probably be a little different.”
Further, all men interviewed failed to reflect on their potential role in pregnancies and abortions, highlighting the gendered understandings of—and connections with—pregnancy and abortion.
Similarly, many women athletes with pro-life beliefs based in their Christian faith expressed that waiting until marriage to have sex would “protect” them from the need for an abortion. These athletes, even those who were more lenient when it came to abortion access after instances of rape, did not conceive of a situation in which women may want or need an abortion despite taking the necessary precautions of “protecting” themselves.
Other athletes stated they did not know anyone who has had an abortion or that they would never get one themselves, and thus, could not draw a connection between sports and the Dobbs decision.
Finally, no athlete interviewed, even those who were “saddened,” “disappointed” or “scared” by the state laws, said they would choose a different institution or transfer based on Arkansas’ strict laws concerning abortion. Such findings further solidify the importance of athletics and the significance of athletic identity for many college athletes.
When reflecting on this question about enrollment at the university or transferring to another institution, all athletes expressed the strength of the athletics program (including the facilities, coaches and support staff) as the main draw to Arkansas. In fact, many women athletes, both in pro-choice and pro-life camps, expressed that Arkansas was their “dream school” and that almost no state law would cause them to transfer.
International athletes, despite being mostly against Arkansas’ laws, noted they were relatively unimpacted by the policies because they could navigate the stringent laws for a few years and then “just go back home.”
Still, a handful of athletes did note that the Court’s abortion decision made them “nervous for the future.” In fact, one athlete specifically questioned whether Title IX, which provides sport opportunities for women, could be undone by the Court, too. If women can be stripped of rights in this area, athletes wondered, “what’s next?”
While the potential ripple effects of Dobbs made some of athletes nervous, the only athlete who expressed an interest in activism on abortion rights said she was hesitant to engage given the contentious nature of the topic. So, the trend toward athlete activism in other social justice arenas does not—yet—appear to extend to the issue of abortion rights.
Molly Harry is an Assistant Professor of Recreation and Sport Management at the University of Arkansas. She received her bachelor’s from the University of Florida in applied physiology and kinesiology, her master’s in sport administration from the University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill and her doctorate in higher education from the University of Virginia. Her research centers the intersection of higher education and intercollegiate athletics, focusing on ways to improve college athletes’ rights and experiences.
