Our first major election:
First-time voters look toward election day
TANVI GORRE | NEWS EDITOR
Thousands of newly-minted voters at WashU will cast their ballots in one of their first major elections in November. With presidential candidates who are nearly neck-and-neck according to recent polls and contentious state issues such as abortion and sports gambling on Missouri’s ballot, how are WashU’s newest voters feeling about the upcoming 2024 election?
Sophomore Lauren Ferrari, originally from Oklahoma and voting for the first time in November, said this election is a momentous occasion for the nation but also for herself.
“It’s a token of adulthood,” Ferrari said.
First-year and first-time voter, Hayden Jingst, while excited to vote, was worried about registering to vote for the first time.
“It was kind of nerve-racking because I didn’t want to mess anything up,” Jingst said.
With registration out of the way, first-year Kelly Quick is excited to have her voice heard despite not feeling set on one candidate.
“I feel like there’s not really an option where I’m like 100%, but I think that’s just the nature of how things are,” Quick said. “If I didn’t participate, then I think that would be a lot worse.”
To sophomore Josef Westberg, who is originally from Missouri and previously voted in Missouri’s 1st District Democratic primary, voting is a direct way to impact our governments.
“Part of what makes this country profound is that we influence what it is,” Westberg said. “The ability to directly influence the way in which your life is governed is something that’s not taken seriously, and it ought to be.”
Quick said her vote in this upcoming election will allow her and many new voters on campus to make an impact on issues that they care about.
“You spend so much time in high school and just like in your personal life researching these issues and coming up with your own stance, and now you can finally have a little bit of an impact on the world,” Quick said.
Voting Guide
Learn more about what is on Missouri’s ballot. pg. 3
Bears & Ballots
Learn what WashU students think about this election. pg. 4-5
Before Election Day,
WashU students reflect on candidates and civic engagement
ISAAC SEILER & ELIZABETH STUMP | STAFF WRITER & NEWS EDITOR
Ahead of the 2024 presidential election, Student Life spoke to a few WashU students about who they are supporting and what political issues are motivating them to engage.
As Generation Z becomes a larger voting group, how young voters engage with politics – and who they support – is increasingly influential in the outcomes of local, state, and federal elections. WashU students expressed a range of different opinions on candidates, amendments, and proposals leading them to vote.
Senior Mason Letteau Stallings, a Missour Voter who is originally from California, is supporting former President Donald Trump. Foreign policy and abortion are the key issues driving him to the polls.
“I think that [Trump] will be able to negotiate an end to the war in the Ukraine…Even in the Middle East, he will be much more restrained and much less likely to get involved in a conflict abroad,” Letteau Stallings said. “I am Catholic, I am pro-life, and I will be voting no on [Amendment 3]…I do not believe that one can separate when life begins from when personhood begins.”
Senior Ella Urton, who is also motivated by her opinion on abortion, supports Vice President Kamala Harris for president.
Reproductive rights, LGBTQ+ issues, and access to healthcare are all key issues for Urton, who is registered in Missouri. However, Urton, who is from California, wishes more St. Louis transplants like herself would engage with local elections.
“Especially when we’re transplanted in St. Louis, it’s important to be engaged in local politics, in addition to the national sphere that usually takes up a lot of our
attention,” she said.
Some students like senior Tamara Martinez, who is from Florida, and senior Gus Gerlach, who is from Minnesota, have already cast their ballots in their home states through mail-in voting.
Martinez said multiple issues influenced her vote, such as Trump’s stance on immigration.
“Reproductive health is the biggest one … immigration too,” Martinez said. “I think what he said about [immigrants] eating cats in Ohio is just really crazy. And being an immigrant myself, it’s just kind of like scary rhetoric.”
Since he already cast his ballot, Gerlach is now focused on making sure that his family votes in the election.
Many WashU students will be first-time voters this Election Day, such as first-year Ben Hoette, who just turned 18 this year. He is choosing to support Harris for president because he values her accountability.
“It’s accountability and character at the end of the day,” Hoette said, referencing Trump’s decision to skip his “60 Minutes” interview on CBS, which Hoette did not approve of. “I value character integrity more than specific policies.”
For students who feel like their vote doesn’t matter, senior Clarissa Worthington explained the importance of voting, irrespective of location. Worthington is originally from Kentucky and mentioned Kentucky’s 2022 constitutional amendment on abortion as an example.
“It’s easy to be like, ‘my vote means nothing,’ because like Trump is going to win in Kentucky,” Worthington said. “[However], abortion was on the ballot in Kentucky, and despite the fact that Trump won the state by over 60%, abortion went 52% to 48% in favor of protecting abortion. Your vote is important no matter where you are.”
Conservatism on campus on the eve of the election
MASON LETTEAU
STALLINGS PRESIDENT OF WASHU COLLEGE REPUBLICANS; CLASS OF 2025
As president of WashU’s College Republicans, I have found that WashU, though possessing a similar left-liberal monoculture as most other universities, is fairly tolerant and generally open to ideas. Maybe it is just that people on campus think of conservatives and conservatism as quaint, rare, and nonthreatening, but I’d like to think this is due to a greater commitment to free dialogue on the part of the University and its students.
If anything, WashU’s culture serves our club greatly, as it is liberal but not censorious. Due to the pro-free-speech position of the administration, we do not face the many undue administrative hurdles faced by conservative groups on other campuses, including that of nearby St. Louis University. At the same time, many otherwise apolitical students join the club to escape WashU’s overwhelmingly left-wing culture, and to explore a different intellectual and political tradition. Due to these factors, we have good attendance at our meetings for a WashU club, averaging around 20-30 people at any given meeting, and at times, even more. As a club, we have found that open discussions aid us in having interesting and engaging meetings. At every meeting, we discuss a handful of current-events subjects and leave the floor open for discussion, allowing anyone to participate. One will hear a variety of viewpoints, whether from different stripes of conservatives or from liberal students who attend to hear the other side and share their views. At the club level and as a whole, we are unashamedly conservative
and provide a space for right-of-center students to share their views without fear of penalty.
Just as politics is about coalition-building, College Republicans finds itself with a very diverse membership roster, particularly in terms of ideology. We have everyone from dyed-in-thewool conservatives from several intellectual streams — including Chestertonian Distributists and social conservatives and Libertarians — to liberals who join the club simply for open discussions and to hear new viewpoints.
On any subject, one will find club members with a variety of views. I believe that this ideological diversity is our strength, as open discussion allows for intellectual growth. Just as iron sharpens iron, encountering new ideas can help prepare one to defend their own. The philosophical and ideological paths of many of our members further diverge, with many people coming to a variety of conservative viewpoints through a variety of means, whether through family, religion, personal journey, or finding the left-liberal monoculture of the University to be intellectually stifling.
I became a conservative due to a confluence of factors throughout high school. The most notable of these was the journey that culminated in my conversion to Catholicism from atheism as a freshman at WashU.
In this journey, I read and engaged with the writings of many thinkers throughout Church history, from Augustine to Benedict XVI, which both convinced me of the claims of the Catholic Church (including on issues such as the dignity of human life) and showed me the importance of tradition (both in the Church and in society).
On this latter point, my conversion fundamentally
reshaped my relationship with the past and helped me to feel the weight of history.
I came to see that what is inherited by us and passed down to us is not something to be discarded in the name of novelty and “progress,” but is instead something that defines who we are and gives us a firm foundation to understand the world. I found this complementary to many conservative authors that I began reading around the same time, whether contemporary, such as Roger Scruton and Patrick Deneen, or historical, such as Edmund Burke and Joseph de Maistre.
Lastly, as someone who grew up in the aftermath of the Global War on Terror, I personally found liberal internationalism, be it in its left-liberal form of Obama’s support for regime change in Libya and Syria or in its pseudoconservative form of Bush’s invasion of Iraq, to have failed. Thus, I found myself gravitating towards the realism and restraintoriented foreign policy of politicians such as former President Donald Trump, vice presidential candidate JD Vance, and historical figures such as Robert Taft.
Because of these factors, I decided to join WashU’s College Republicans as a freshman in 2021. I then served as vice president of the club last year, and am currently serving as president of the club and Chairman of the State Federation. I am aware that many other club members have had very different paths into conservatism and into the club, and I welcome this diversity of experiences as something that greatly strengthens our chapter. I would like to invite those reading this to consider different viewpoints, including conservative ones. Perhaps you, too, will find that you might be a conservative.
Vote Harris, stop fascism
SAISH SATYAL PRESIDENT OF WASHU COLLEGE DEMOCRATS; CLASS OF 2025
In a 2018 on-campus poll, Student Life found that 73% of WashU’s student body identified as “liberal” or “somewhat liberal.” Polls from external college-ranking websites seem to align with the paper’s findings, and it’s reasonable to assume that campus politics haven’t taken a seismic shift rightward over the past six years. Yet, despite students’ tendency to lean liberal, I have observed a growing split within left-leaning spaces on campus between ideology and a willingness to engage.
As President of the College Democrats, I’ve found that a few students on campus and in College Democrats are committed to engaging with the political process and doing the work of canvassing, doorknocking, or anything needed to win an election. However, increasingly over the past four years, I’ve observed a tendency of left-leaning students to see themselves as unimportant or unheard and to disengage from the electoral process. Some of these tendencies make sense. As students, many may feel that it makes more sense to focus on the changes we can make on campus, especially since we comprise a distinct constituency for the school.
But this problem of disengagement isn’t confined to our campus. Since 2008, less than 25% of Americans have consistently believed that the government is a trustworthy institution that can help them with their problems or lives. These beliefs are reasonable; since 2008, our political parties have grown increasingly polarized and hard-line, and the rise of social media and digital advertising has allowed for our political messaging to become insular and targeted. Presidential candidates no longer have to appeal to a broad swath of Americans, but rather to their base and a bizarre mix of 120,000 or so infrequent voters in Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Michigan, and Georgia who are largely unplugged from the political sphere.
If we’re being entirely honest, our two-party system is outdated, pisses a lot of people off, and has created a
government that isn’t always representative of the preferences of their constituencies.
Why vote then? Why participate in a broken political process in which both parties seem unable to get corporate money out of politics, seem complicit in foreign genocides and atrocities, and seem largely uncaring about the preferences of large swaths of their constituencies? My short answer is that it can get a lot worse for a lot of people over the next four years.
Harm reduction is, rightfully, an unpopular argument to convince people to vote. It’s not exciting to vote for someone who doesn’t inspire you and give you a bold, radical new vision for the world. However, the choice this time isn’t between two unexciting candidates or between the lesser of two evils. That implies that they are somehow playing on the same field or could want some kind of comparable vision for our nation. This time, the choice is between someone who wants to dismantle large chunks of our current government, including the Department of Education, and someone who believes that government can be used to make Americans’ lives better.
The impacts of these electoral outcomes aren’t theoretical, nor are they far from home.
Nearly 125 people in North Carolina have died after Hurricane Helene demolished roads, flooded towns, and devastated areas previously thought to be “climate havens.” Rapidly warming ocean waters created the preconditions for the formation of Hurricane Milton, known to be one of the strongest hurricanes to hit Florida in over a decade. This past summer, cities across the world saw deadly heat waves and record highs, as they do every year. Climate change is a terrifying reality, yet Donald Trump continues to deny its existence. His presidency would see reversals in U.S. climate goals and a subsequent increase in our emissions.
Kamala Harris is not God and cannot magically cool the oceans, but she has promised to continue investing in carbon-neutral technologies that will slow the pace of global warming and stave off the destruction of entire cities. In the 900-page Project 2025 playbook — written by key players
in the former Trump administration — conservatives have expressed their desire to abolish the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the organization responsible for monitoring climate change, and to privatize the National Weather Administration. In other words, a low-income Floridian’s weather alert could be placed behind a paywall in the future.
In terms of housing, cities across the United States are experiencing a “housing shortage” as unhoused populations continue to rise. Though there are technically enough homes across the nation to provide shelter for every unhoused person, the issue at hand seems to be building enough homes that are in areas where people want to live. The Harris campaign has detailed billions of dollars worth of investments in housing to make basic living more affordable for Americans. The Trump campaign’s current housing plan is to deport more immigrants from American cities. They used the housing crisis in Springfield, Ohio to claim that Haitian migrants were eating animals, directly inciting a wave of hatred and unrest in the city. To be totally clear, the Trump plan for fixing a housing crisis is targeted state violence against anyone who identifies as an immigrant.
At the end of the day, one of two people will be sitting in the White House with full command of the most powerful military and surveillance complex in the world. Should that person be Kamala Harris, who will try to make incremental positive changes for the American people, or Donald Trump, whose plan to solve homelessness in the United States involves taking mass amounts of people away to tent camps? Should that person be Kamala Harris, who doesn’t want to deploy the U.S. military on protestors, or Donald Trump, who recently said that maybe the military should be used to take care of “the radical left”? Should the person with control of the CIA, NSA, and our nuclear codes be Donald Trump — who called a crowd of neo-Nazis “very fine people” after their demonstration in 2017 where Heather Heyer was killed — or should it be Kamala Harris, a normal human being?
The choice should be clear.
DAVID WANG | STAFF ILLUSTRATOR
Avi
Aliana
Voter Guide:
What’s on the ballot in this election?
RILEY HERRON, LILY TAYLOR, MATT EISNER, & ISAAC SEILER
MANAGING SPORTS EDITOR, INVESTIGATIVE EDITOR, JUNIOR SPORTS EDITOR, & STAFF WRITER
Amendment 2:
Below is an election guide, compiled by Student Life writers, to help WashU students understand Missouri candidates and ballot initiatives. If you are not registered in Missouri, or if you have more questions about voting, polling locations, and Election Day, visit the WashU Votes information hub.
Missouri Ballot Initiatives
Yes to legalize sports betting; No to keep status quo, where sports betting is illegal.
If this amendment passes, adults over the age of 21 would be able to bet on sports, including through online apps and at casinos. Proponents estimate sports betting would generate nearly $29 million a year for Missouri in tax revenues, with about $24 million of that going to schools, and critics have argued that there is no guarantee that sports gambling will actually generate any tax revenue.
Amendment 3:
Yes to overturn Missouri’s abortion ban; No to keep Missouri’s abortion ban.
Amendment 3 seeks to add a “fundamental right to reproductive freedom,” including a right to abortion, to the Missouri constitution, while still allowing the state legislature to enact regulations on abortion after a fetus becomes viable. Since 2022, Missouri has had a ban on abortion with certain exceptions, including saving the life of the mother.
Amendment 5:
Yes to issue one additional gambling boat license; No to not issue the additional license.
Amendment 5 seeks to allow the Missouri Gaming Commission to issue one more gambling boat license to operate on the Osage River between the Missouri River and the Bagnell Dam. The contract would go to Bally’s, a gambling enterprise that operates casinos nationwide, including a riverboat casino in Kansas City. If the amendment passes, revenue from the gambling boat will go towards funding early-childhood education.
Missouri U.S. Senate Race
Amendment 6:
Yes to authorize usage of court fees for salaries and pensions of current and retired law enforcement personnel; No to not authorize that usage. Amendment 6 seeks to authorize the usage of court fees to generate revenue for salaries and benefits of current and retired county sheriffs and prosecuting attorneys. The revenue generated would fund pensions for sheriffs and law enforcement personnel. Opponents say it would create a set of incentives that tie pensions to the amount of arrests and prosecutions performed.
Amendment 7:
Yes to require citizenship to vote and an ranked-choice voting; No to allow municipalities to use ranked-choice voting and not add a citizenship requirement to vote in the state constitution.
Amendment 7 would prohibit ranked-choice voting or approval voting in the state of Missouri. Proponents of ranked-choice voting say it is a more representative and competitive system, while opponents say it is too confusing and expensive. In addition, though state law already prohibits non-citizens from registering to vote, this amendment would explicitly add a statement to the state constitution ensuring only U.S. citizens can vote.
Proposition A:
Yes to increase the minimum wage and require paid sick leave; No to oppose this.
Proposition A would establish a $13.75/hour minimum wage by 2025, which would increase to $15/hour in 2026. Currently, Missouri’s minimum wage is $12.30/hour, the 17th-highest in the country. In addition, if passed, this proposition would require employers to provide one hour of paid sick leave for every 30 hours worked.
Candidates on the Ballot
Republican incumbent Josh Hawley is facing off against U.S. Marine Corps veteran Lucas Kunce for a Senate seat. As Missouri’s attorney general, Hawley led litigation against the Affordable Care Act, and is currently running on his record on religious liberty and taking on big special interests. Kunce is running on bringing federal resources back to Missouri, his support from labor unions, his national security experience, and restoring abortion rights at the state level.
U.S. House Race: Missouri’s 1st District
St. Louis County prosecutor Wesley Bell is the new Democratic nominee for Congress in Missouri’s 1st District, and advocates for lowering health insurance costs and fighting climate change. Bell will face Republican marketing executive Andrew Jones Jr., who describes himself as a candidate pushing for “common-sense leadership.” His website focuses on closing the border, lowering national debt, and improving access to education.
Missouri Governor Race
Republican Lieutenant Governor Mike Kehoe is running against Democratic State Representative Crystal Quade. Kehoe has served on the Missouri Highway and Transportation Commission, in the State Legislature, and in the Lieutenant Governor’s office. Kehoe, who is pro-life and supported by former President Donald Trump, said Amendment 3 “goes way too far.” Quade, who grew up in rural Missouri, is prioritizing protecting abortion rights and standing up to special interests.
Missouri Lieutenant Governor Race
Republican Attorney David Wasinger will face Democratic State Representative Richard Brown in November. Wasinger, who calls himself an “America First conservative,” is running on border security, opposing abortion, and protecting veterans and seniors. Brown, a former public-school teacher, has made few public comments, but supports strengthening healthcare and standing up for working families.
Missouri Attorney General Race
Republican Attorney General Andrew Bailey, who was appointed by Missouri Governor Mike Parson in 2023, is running against civil rights attorney Democrat Elad Gross. Bailey opposed efforts to release exonerated people from prison. Per his website, Bailey, a U.S. Army veteran, wants to defend constitutional freedoms. Gross is running to “crack down on scammers, including those in our government.”
Missouri Secretary of State Race
Republican State Senator Denny Hoskins is facing Democratic State Senator Barbara Phifer in the race for Secretary of State. Central to this campaign are debates around mail-in and absentee voting. State-level secretaries of state are in charge of overseeing statewide elections. Hoskins supports limiting absentee and mail vote options, while Phifer supports protecting and expanding these programs.
Missouri Treasurer Race
Incumbent Republican Treasurer Vivek Malek will face Democratic Army veteran Mark Osmack in November. Malek, who has been State Treasurer since 2023, will “emphasize the promise and possibilities of America” and “stand up to the woke agenda.” On his campaign website, Osmack says he will protect funding for veterans and seniors and increase resources for teachers and first responders.
MO-HD99 (South 40) and MO-HD86 (Village, Forsyth, UCity, Loop)
Democrats Ian Mackey and Jeff Hales are running unopposed for state representative, though voters are able to write-in candidates. The South 40 is represented by Mackey, who has prioritized education and food security during his time in office. Hales’ district includes the Village and off-campus areas north and west of campus. Running for his first term, Hales plans to prioritize abortion rights and LGBTQ+ rights.
MO-HD84
Incumbent Democrat Del Taylor will face Republican Richard Cowell for a seat in the 84th House District, located east of campus within the city of St. Louis. Taylor emphasizes bringing state resources back to his district, boasting a return of $19 million to his district since he was elected. Cowell says he would champion pro-business policies, favor schoolchoice programs, and reform law enforcement to enact harsher penalties on criminals while lowering penalties for ordinance violations and misdemeanors.
Design by Sydney Tran
Illustrations
by
Jaime Hebel
We surveyed students about on the 2024 These are their
BALLOTS BEARS&
surveyed 696 WashU about their thoughts 2024 election. their answers.
BALLOTS
your favorite moment from
election? concepts of a plan” “They’re eating the cats… eating the dogs” have a glock” “Kamala is brat”
Political party affiliation by school
SAM FOX
Democrat: 83.3%
0%
9.3%
ART SCI
Democrat: 80.9%
10.5%
4.6%
MCKELVEY
Democrat: 69.5%
13.7%
11.6%
Democrat: 59.1%
15.9%
25%
Party: 0%
5.6%
1.8%
1.5%
0.6%
1.9%
Party: 1%
1%
3.2%
Party: 0%
0%
0%
Would you date someone from a different political party than your own?
Reproductive rights should matter to you, too.
unconstitutional pre-Dobbs and 13 states passing total abortion bans.
In the spring of last year, I collected signatures to get the Right to Reproductive Freedom Initiative on the Missouri Ballot. As my friend and I asked people in Bear’s Den (BD), “Do you want to end Missouri’s total abortion ban?” I was met with reactions that fell into three camps. First, eagerness to hear more and get involved. Second, averted eye contact, speed-walking away, or blatant laughing. Third, questions, including a number from people who did not know that Missouri had an abortion ban in the first place.
Of these reactions, it is not the laughing that angered me most, but rather the apathy. And it is not anti-abortion voters who worry me most as we approach the 2024 election in Missouri. We know antiabortion voters are steadfast in their opposition and will vote against Amendment 3. I worry, instead, about the voters who don’t know where they stand, or who don’t care. The reproductive healthcare crisis requires immediate action, not indifference. This November, registered voters in Missouri have a chance to take decisive action by voting yes on Amendment 3. In today’s political climate, most people understand at least some of the impacts of abortion bans, regardless of where they stand on the issue. Still, in discussions among many young people, abortion is often treated as an abstract and distant concept. It is hard for people across the board to understand the scope and severity of the impacts of these bans. So as we approach the election in November, we need to establish how high the stakes really are.
In the 2022 case Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, the U.S. Supreme Court overruled the constitutional right to abortion and returned the power to regulate abortion to the states. Missouri became the first state to ban abortion after Dobbs on June 24, 2024, banning all abortions except in cases of a medical emergency. Abortion bans have since spread across the country, with 21 states passing abortion bans that would have been considered
At the same time, state courts have legally challenged abortion bans, and abortionrelated measures have put the question of abortion rights on state ballots. In 2022, abortion access was put to a vote in seven states. Each of the efforts ended in favor of the right to abortion, with four states amending the constitution to include the right to reproductive freedom. This year, 10 states, including Missouri, will have reproductive rights on the ballot.
As college students, we need to understand and talk about how abortion bans affect us and our close communities. As human beings, we need to understand, discuss, and feel outraged about abortion bans for what they are — a publichealth crisis. These bans are causing and exacerbating extreme harm, poverty, and sometimes death for people in Missouri and across the country.
Missouri voters will have the chance to enshrine the right to reproductive freedom in the state constitution by voting yes on Amendment 3, the Right to Reproductive Freedom Initiative. This amendment declares that “The Government shall not deny or infringe upon a person's fundamental right to reproductive freedom,” which includes “all matters relating to reproductive healthcare.”
As you consider your vote on Amendment 3, it is important that you understand the detrimental impacts of Missouri’s abortion ban.
It may not seem like the abortion ban will impact you or people close to you. Yet, abortion is an exceptionally common procedure. One in four women will have one in their lifetime. The majority of people (61%) who receive this care are in their 20s and the vast majority (95%) of abortions are results of unintended pregnancies. You may not think you know someone who has had an abortion, but you probably do.
“There are people who are — through no fault of their own, through no decisionmaking of their own — still suffering immensely under this ban,” senior Maddy Molyneux, president of WashU’s chapter of Planned Parenthood Generation Action (PPGA),
told me in an interview. “It could be you, it could be a friend, it could be a teacher, it could be anyone.” Molyneux added that under the current ban, there are no exceptions for rape and incest.
A year after Dobbs, a KFF study found that over half of women between the ages of 18 and 49 reported that “they or someone they know has taken at least one of several steps aimed at reducing the likelihood of getting pregnant due to concerns about not being able to access an abortion.”
This includes 28% of women who bought emergency contraception in case of needing it in the future.
WashU students are no exception. PPGA offers free Plan B for students, which Molyneux said has been very important and successful since Dobbs. Molyneux explained, “I think there's a certain level of fear [that an abortion ban] instills in young people. And I think that's probably why we've seen the demand that we've seen for contraceptives and emergency contraceptives recently.”
This fear is far from unfounded or irrational. Being pregnant in Missouri and other states with abortion bans has severe health risks, and the quality of care that patients receive has decreased due to bans’ restrictions on healthcare providers. While every abortion ban in the U.S. provides exceptions for emergencies, the definition of “emergency” is so vague that doctors face hurdles to helping their patients in medical crises.
Doctors throughout the country have reported having to wait for their patients to be on the brink of death before taking action due to abortion restrictions. In September, Amber Nicole Thurman got a rare infection after taking the abortion pills mifepristone and misoprostol. The 28-year-old was from Georgia, where there is a six-week abortion ban and where doctors can face up to a decade in prison for providing abortion care. When she went to the hospital, the doctors, instead of providing the common medical solution of a dilation and curettage (D&C) abortion, waited 20 hours to operate. Within those hours, Thurman’s infection spread and her organs failed. She died before they could perform the
procedure. Thurman’s story is one of many in which people face preventable death or severe medical harm due to abortion bans in their state, including in Missouri.
“Women and physicians don't know where the line is and what constitutes a medical emergency because it's not defined,” Dr. Jennifer Smith, an OB/GYN at Barnes-Jewish Hospital and president of Missouri Healthcare Professionals for Reproductive Rights, told me in an interview. “Women are afraid that if they have a complication, they won't be able to get care in Missouri. And frankly, most of the time, they probably can't.” She explained that whether doctors will delay abortion-related care depends largely on what hospital you go to.
Beyond the care that doctors can provide, the abortion ban has also restricted what medical students and residents can learn about. Since the ban, medical students and residents have faced barriers to comprehensive family-planning education. I talked to Pamela Merritt, the executive director of Medical Students for Choice (MSFC), an international nonprofit organization that advocates for access to reproductivehealthcare education. Merritt described the impact of abortion bans on medical students and residents as “catastrophic.”
Merritt explained that at many medical schools currently, abortion is no longer discussed or included in classwork. “Across the board, what we're seeing is that abortion and family-planning has been removed from the academic setting, which is not necessary. But most of the
institutions have erred on the side of extreme caution,” she said.
While residents at the WashU School of Medicine can access education and training at nearby clinics in Illinois, Merritt noted that residents at the University of Missouri must travel three hours to get to the nearest abortion clinic. Any training that they receive there will not be salaried, nor will Missouri pay for their transportation or housing to receive such training.
“That now makes that access about money,” Merritt said. High-income students will be able to get this training, while low-income and first-generation medical students will not. Merritt explained that clinic experience is “directly connected to whether people can see themselves as a provider in the future.” Ultimately, these barriers to education could decrease the number and diversity of OB/GYNs in the future.
These changes have potential impacts on doctor training in states with bans; the year after Dobbs, there was an 11.7% decrease in applications to OB/GYN residency programs in states with abortion bans, compared to a 5.3% decrease to programs in states where abortion remains legal.
The total abortion ban in Missouri should deeply concern you. Your community, including at WashU and in Missouri, is suffering under this ban — especially low-income and rural people, and people of color. It is far harder for these communities to access care, as many live hours away from abortion clinics, do not have the ability to take time off of work, or cannot afford childcare and lodging. Additionally,
continuing a pregnancy is a far greater health risk than getting an abortion, and these dangers disproportionately impact women of color.
People forced to carry out pregnancies must face the threat of extremely high maternal mortality rates, which are 62% higher in states with highly restrictive abortion bans. Black women are three times more likely to die by carrying out a pregnancy than white women. After people are forced to continue their pregnancy and have a child, they are also more likely to experience household poverty, raise the child alone, stay in contact with a violent partner, and face life-threatening as well as non-life-threatening health consequences.
Abortion access will not stop being a problem regardless of November’s election results, as there will likely be a long process of litigation to reestablish this care. However, if Amendment 3 passes, reproductive freedom will be guaranteed under Missouri’s constitution. This acknowledgment establishes that every Missourian has a right to make their own reproductive-healthcare decisions.
We, as college students, must use this leverage to further advocate for reproductive justice, including access to abortion, contraception, and safe environments to be pregnant and raise children in. We must acknowledge the widespread impacts of abortion bans, including how they affect each and every one of us — and also who they impact most. We cannot be apathetic. We should acknowledge reproductive healthcare for what it is — a fundamental right.
Vice President Kamala Harris addressing the “Daddy Gang” was not on my 2024 Bingo card. But Donald Trump surviving two shots to the head wasn’t either, so maybe nothing is off the table this election cycle.
Harris’s appearance on “Call Her Daddy” earlier this month garnered a flurry of media attention — some hailing the appearance as a “smart” move, and others claiming it may have backfired. Harris’ stop on the sex and relationship podcast, hosted by Alex Cooper, was one of many media appearances the presidential candidate made recently, including 60 Minutes and The View. Perhaps most striking was Cooper’s introduction to the podcast with an apology. She begins by explaining that she does not usually discuss politics because she wants the show to be “comfortable” for all listeners. She said that regardless
of the topic — be it mental health, relationships, or sex — her focus is always on women.
“At the end of the day, I couldn’t see a world in which one of the main conversations of this election is women, and I’m not a part of it,” Cooper said. The differentiation of personal issues from the political, as reflected by Cooper’s podcast, allows for social and political injustices to permeate private lives without notice. It is difficult for me to imagine a world where conversations about sex and mental health, especially in their relation to gender, could be anything but political.
Every election, whether explicit or not, is about women. This portrayal of neutrality, however, is what keeps Cooper’s politically diverse audience engaged — the same audience that Harris hopes to capture, and the same audience that would further her chances in a race to the presidency.
So if Cooper wants to maintain the illusion that
her platform is apolitical, that is in her right — it benefits Harris all the better.
If anything, the Vice President’s appearance on the show reflects a broader public shift from traditional news outlets to narrowcast media. Harris’ “Call Her Daddy” debut is an attempt to reach otherwise politically disengaged voters or those leaning to the other side of the spectrum — a campaign decision that Trump made months ago. In what has been dubbed as an attempt to win the “bro vote,” the former President participated in interviews with YouTubers and podcasters including Logan Paul, Theo Von, and the Nelk Boys, all of which appeal to male-centric audiences.
Public trust in American media remains low, especially among Republican voters. Journalists have long struggled to engage viewers on the right, and figures like Matt Walsh and Tucker Carlson have risen to fill that gap.
As an aspiring journalist,
it is saddening — yet unsur prising — that politicians value time with influencers more than time with jour nalists. It is unlikely that influencers would press a candidate with hard-hitting questions the way a journal ist would.
Today, though, alternative media is where the younger audiences exist, and no amount of journalistic prowess changes the fact that Cooper’s podcast has been the second-most-lis tened to podcast on Spotify since 2021.
Aside from her large audience, Cooper’s interview with Harris also offered an angle of the Vice President that viewers would be unlikely to access elsewhere. “Call Her Daddy” gave Harris an opportunity to talk more about her personal life, such as her own experiences with misogyny and being raised by a single mother. She interwove those personal experiences with the political — how regulation of women’s bodies led to Amber Thurman’s death, and how Harris is the
first Vice President to visit a healthcare clinic. As a whole, the podcast humanized Harris in a way that many news outlets fail to.
Cooper views her podcast as outside the realm of politics — even while a presidential candidate sits in the seat across from her. Even as the two women bond over misogynistic comments they’ve received, or the fact that many men are clueless to what tampons are, let
alone how pregnancy works. While Cooper can present her podcast with a facade of neutrality, Harris’ appearance reinforces the inevitable fact that a show focused on women’s issues is inherently political. At a time when the gender gap continues to widen, Harris used “Call Her Daddy” as an opportunity to help expose just how deeply our personal lives are entrenched in the political.
HANNAH
Presidential plates: An investigation into the diets of Joe Biden and Donald Trump
LA PORTE
As the famous saying goes, you are what you eat. If that’s the case, what could the presidents of our country be eating that makes them the way they are?
Spoiler alert: Presidential diets are far from normal.
Former President Obama was known for eating seven lightly salted almonds before bed.
Ronald Reagan was a jelly bean fanatic. Richard Nixon consumed cottage cheese, pineapple slices, and a glass of milk before resigning from the Oval Office.
In the name of curiosity, I decided to follow the diets of our two most recent presidents for a weekend. On Friday, I spent the day following Joe Biden’s meal plan, and on Saturday, I tackled Donald Trump’s. This weekend was a flurry of cooking, ordering out, and subjecting both myself and my stomach to some weird food combinations. Let’s just say I was more than happy to return to BD after the weekend was over. Here’s how it went.
Breakfast:
They say that breakfast is the most important meal of the day, but it’s unclear if either
of these presidents agree.
President Biden often begins his morning with a hearty bowl of Special K, a grain cereal chock-full of dried strawberry bits. While a bit dry and cardboard-esque, the chunks of strawberry provided some flavor, making it a decidedly normal breakfast choice.
Former President Trump, however, often skips the meal entirely. I had an early work meeting that morning and that, coupled with a lack of food, made me wonder how on earth Donald Trump was able to run the country on an empty stomach.
Although the President and Former President differ in their breakfast choices, both have a distinct morning beverage of choice: orange Gatorade and Diet Coke, respectively. As an avid non-consumer of both beverages, it made for an odd start to each morning. Overall, breakfast was the easiest meal of the weekend by far. Other than the fact that I’ve never consumed Diet Coke or Gatorade at 8 o’clock in the morning, the food choices were solidly normal. The same cannot be said about my other meals.
Lunch: Joe Biden’s diet is often
described as being akin to that of a child, featuring simple and nostalgic comfort foods. Although this sentiment didn’t make much of an appearance at breakfast, it definitely began to show during lunch, when I had to consume a peanut butter and jelly sandwich. I had just spent Fall Break backpacking and eating PB&J tortillas every day, so I wasn’t particularly inclined to eat yet another variation of the playground favorite, but alas. Similar to his breakfast, the sandwich was inexpensive, easy to assemble, and dry as cardboard. I washed the entire thing down with yet another bottle of orange Gatorade. While President Biden seems to follow a fairly structured meal plan, Former President Trump appears to do quite the opposite — often not eating for up to 16 hours at a time. Unfortunately, I get way too hangry for that to be sustainable, so I prepared the meal he eats on days he decides to have lunch: steak, a side salad, and another can of Diet Coke. Sounds fairly normal, right?
I have to say at first, the prospect of eating a steak for the first time in a couple months was quite exciting,
until I learned how he likes it prepared. Trump opts for an extremely well-done steak slathered in ketchup. Against my will, I cooked up a steak that curled at the edges and begrudgingly dipped it in his condiment of choice. It took me upwards of five minutes to chew a single morsel, and my only reprieve was the side caesar salad that I had snagged from BD. Why someone would purchase a great cut of meat only to ruin it like that is beyond me, but hey, who am I to judge?
Dinner:
Dinner is where things really started to get rough. President Biden continues with his childish eating streak, opting for a dish of angel hair pasta and red sauce. While simple to prepare, it lacked a decent bit of flavor, color, and general variety, which seems to be a theme of his diet.
Contrastingly, dinner is where Donald Trump truly indulges. According to Corey Lewandowski’s book “Let Trump Be Trump,” dinner for the former president is typically a well-orchestrated McDonald’s feast. His average meal includes two Quarter Pounders, two Filet-O-Fishes, and a chocolate shake. He
washes the entire meal down with more Diet Coke. I honestly cannot even begin to describe how affected I was by this meal. I started with the Quarter Pounders, both topped with raw onions, ketchup, and pickles. I then continued on to the Filet-OFishes, but had to stop because I could feel myself getting ill. Three hours later, I consumed my final Filet-O-Fish, and washed the entire thing down with a medium chocolate shake, and more Diet Coke.
In addition to following both presidential diets, I decided to recreate two recipes from candidates on the Democratic ticket: Tim Walz’s “Hot Dish” and the Harris family’s bacon-fried apples.
As a native Californian, I can’t say I’d ever had a hot dish before, and after this experience, I cannot say I will be having another. Tim Walz’s infamous hot dish was a huge conglomerate of tater tots and cream soups and sausages, all encased in cheddar cheese. To be frank, it did not look incredible, but in its defense, I was working with the resources of the Dauten kitchen, and I was missing some potentially key ingredients (notably, beer and celery). Taste-wise, it wasn’t as
bad as it looked, just a whole lot of cheese (I wouldn’t recommend it if you're lactose intolerant).
Contrasting with everything else I’d eaten this weekend, Kamala Harris’s bacon-fried apples were a welcome start to my Sunday morning. Originally introduced via her series “Cooking With Kamala,” Harris details how her mother used to make bacon-fried apples as part of their pancake breakfasts. With only two real ingredients and some optional additions, it was simple to put together, fairly inexpensive, and actually tasted like something I would eat in a normal meal. All in all, I cannot say I learned much from this experiment other than this: No amount of money can force someone to eat well. Although it didn’t make me sick, the lack of variety, flavor, and general excitement of Joe Biden’s diet made for an uninteresting and bland day of eating. Donald Trump’s meals of excessive fast food and intense amounts of Diet Coke, on the other hand, spurred both an upset mind and stomach, a sensation that I have no desire to return to anytime soon.
Republican vs Democrat Fantasy Football lineups
WILL
The Set-Up
Trophy:
The nuclear football God help us all.
Every year, Congressional Democrats and Republicans face off in a baseball game (Republicans lead 46-42 games all time). This got us thinking — what if we did something completely different and unrelated? So, Student Life sat down to craft football teams of Republicans and Democrats from past and present, and we’re here to show you the lineups and our predictions for America’s real pastime.
Money Line: GOP -110
Student Life doesn’t think that the Dems will have an answer to Herschel Walker. The only way we see them making this game close is if the offense can stay consistent. However, a couple of swing plays could determine the outcome of the game all on their own
Venue: Northwest Stadium outside Washington, D.C.
Where better to host than our nation’s capital? Formerly known as FedEx Field, Northwest Stadium offers a good look at the state of our nation — pipes bursting, railings breaking, no dividers between urinals — and is thus the perfect venue.
Republican
Walk-out song: “God Bless the U.S.A,” Lee Greenwood Quarterback: Ronald Reagan
An extremely influential president, Reagan and his media-trained answers would charm fans. Having played football at Eureka College, Reagan has the experience the GOP needs. We suppose we’ll have to see if his trickle-down offense can distribute the ball equally.
Running Back: Herschel Walker
Is this allowed? Even if he has no idea how to run a political campaign, man can he run the football.
Tight End: Teddy Roosevelt
Elected president at the spry age of 42, Teddy Roosevelt frequently went on big game hunting expeditions and even boxed for Harvard. This wealth of experience provides him the bruising toughness necessary to play tight-end Wide Receiver: Abraham Lincoln*
The party of Lincoln will benefit from his lanky 6-foot-4-inch frame, eating up grass and making the field look small.
Defense/Special Teams: George H. Bush Administration
This is a star-studded lineup. Colin Powell, Condoleezza Rice, and, of course, Dick Cheney will be absolute weapons of mass destruction on defense — that is, if there really are any.
Center: Donald Trump
Though he might take some issues with refereeing decisions throughout the game, Trump is going to be the guy to rally the team with some locker-room talk. If he gets himself thrown out of the game, we’ll put in Gerald Ford, who played center for the University of Michigan.
Head Coach: Dwight D. Eisenhower
Ike became a 5-star General and organized the attack on Normandy during WWII before he was elected president. If he can rally the Allies to stage a comeback and take back Europe, he should be able to motivate his boys at halftime.
Officiating Team
Led by head referee Chief Justice John Roberts, the nine Justices of the Supreme Court will put down the gavel and pick up the whistle to provide “nonpartisan” officiating (right?).
Commentators
Tucker Carlson will join Anderson Cooper in the booth, with the tandem providing color commentary and play-by-play analysis. Tucker will be co-streaming on X (once he has solved the technical difficulties) due to a recent split with ESPN.
Democrats
Walk-out song: “Only the Young,” Taylor Swift
Quarterback: John F. Kennedy*
The quarterback is the face of the team, and there are few better faces in politics than JFK’s. This is a man who knows how to handle pressure and times of crisis, so this feels like an easy choice at QB1.
Running Back: Lyndon B. Johnson
Hailing from the football Mecca of Texas, Johnson will barrel down the middle. Standing 6 feet, 3 inches and 210 pounds, “Landslide Lyndon” is going to pose problems for the GOP defense.
Wide Receiver: Andrew Jackson
At 6 feet, 1 inches and the founder of the Democratic Party, Jackson would be an excellent choice for wideout. Especially given his ability to avoid injury (he lived the second half of his life with a bullet lodged in his chest from a duel he won).
Center: Grover Cleveland
Weighing in at 250 pounds, Cleveland was known to his friends as “Big Steve.” It's safe to say Kennedy will have plenty of time in the pocket — finally, someone who might protect him.
Defense/Special Teams: Franklin Delano Roosevelt Administration
FDR had to defend the country from multiple adversaries — an ailing Great Depression economy and the Axis powers after the attack on Pearl Harbor. Succeeding on both fronts, we’re trusting FDR to come up with the necessary schemes on defense.
Head Coach: Tim Walz
Duh.
*Asterisks indicate captains.
From now through Nov. 4
Find locations/times at Vote.WashU.edu
PREPARE
FOR THE ELECTION
10/31: Beyond Our Divides with Dialogue Across Difference, 12-1 p.m.
10/31: Rules of the Game: Understanding the Electoral College and State Voting Laws, 1-2 p.m.
Scan to register for these electionrelated events and to find more
ELECTION DAY
Party at the Polls, 6 a.m.-8 p.m.
Pause @ Graham Chapel, 9 a.m.-4 p.m.
Grad Student Election Night Watch Party, 5:30 p.m.-8:30 p.m.
Students voting absentee by mail should return their ballot ASAP. Check vote411.org for your state's procedures and come to Stix House if your timeline is tight.
St. Louis County voters can vote at the Athletic Complex from 6 a.m. to 7 p.m.
St. Louis City voters can vote at McDonnell Medical Sciences Building on the Medical Campus Find other polling locations at Vote.WashU.edu
The ballot is about 40 items long in STL City/County, so do your research in advance! Vote411.org Ballotpedia.org YourMissouriJudges.org
VOTING CHECKLIST
Check your registration at wustl.turbovote.org
Bring your Voter ID
Federally-issued photo ID (e.g. passport, military ID) Or a Missouri-issued photo ID (e.g. driver’s license or state ID)
Don’t have the ID you need? You can still vote! Ask for a Provisional Ballot when you vote on Nov. 5. You can bring a sample ballot/other resources into the polling place with you.
PROCESS THE ELECTION
11/6: Pause @ Graham Chapel, 9 a.m.-4 p.m.
11/7: Dessert and Dialogue: PostElection Impacts, 12-1 p.m. 11/8: When the Political Gets Personal: Debriefing PostElection Stress, 12:30-2:30 p.m.
11/12: Civic Café Democracy Dinner and Debrief: Understanding the General Election, 5:30-7 p.m.
11/14: Building Resilience: Mindfulness & the 2024 Election
Scan the QR code above to register for these and more post-election events, or go to GephardtInstitute.WashU.edu/ED2024
