Below are highlights from our interview with Aseel Houmsse.
Read the full conversation.

Can you share about your path to public health and how you got to where you are today?

Growing up, I was always interested in helping people. My dad is a physician, and we’re a first-generation Syrian-American family. Watching him work in middle America while also navigating being an immigrant provider and the complexities interplaying within the context of healthcare shaped how I thought about health and community. I’ve always been curious about the intersectionality of the lived experience–sociopolitical impacts and people’s health. Initially, I thought the only way to help people was by becoming a provider myself. But at some point, I realized I was more interested in pushing the envelope, rethinking systems rather than providing direct care alone. That mindset led me toward public health and research.

What led you to focus specifically on sexual and reproductive health (SRH)?

It wasn’t a direct line. I started in cardiovascular research, particularly exploring inequities affecting Black Americans at risk for heart disease. Working in research provided a structure–for example the structure of a literature review–to more clearly understand structural barriers to accessing care among this community, whether broadly or very localized like in Boston where we see differences in access and health care delivery based on neighborhood. I learned how important it is for people with lived experiences to be involved in research to make sure that the full narrative is being presented. 

That experience got me thinking more about systemic barriers—how structural changes affect health access. SRH emerged as a space where inequities are especially visible, and where so much of the conversation ties back to identity, policy, and geography. What are the sources of the reasons why people are not able to access the same quality and types of care? I was drawn to that complexity, especially as I started working as a researcher at Planned Parenthood.

When people think about sexual and reproductive health and rights, the conversation usually centres around having babies or not having babies. What are some common misconceptions about sexual and reproductive health?

One of the biggest misconceptions is that it’s only about abortion or pregnancy. But sexual and reproductive health (SRH) includes everything from wellness visits to STI screenings to access to gender-affirming care. At Planned Parenthood, we offer a wide range of services—often to people who don’t have health insurance or can’t afford care elsewhere. When I started to work at Planned Parenthood I was like, Wow, we offer a range of services—it’s almost like we need structural support!

But here’s the challenge: we’re expected to do everything for everyone, often without adequate support. High turnover, low pay, and chronic underfunding make it hard to sustain the work. Funding decisions—especially in a political climate where SRH is constantly under attack—reflect a lack of perceived value for this kind of care. That’s what we’re constantly up against. 

If politics and funding weren’t barriers and SRH was a blossoming field that everyone wanted to put money into—what would your dream work in SRH look like?

That’s such a great question. Honestly, if SRH were fully supported and equitable, my clinic might not even exist in its current form—because people wouldn’t need to rely on it as a safety net. 

As someone who identifies outside of the gender binary, I’d focus on gaps in gender-affirming care. For example, trans people on testosterone are told it's not a reliable form of birth control, but there’s not enough research or guidance beyond that. I’d love to better understand the intersections between gender-affirming care, unplanned pregnancies, and abortion access. We need more research on those lived experiences. I’d also be interested in the link between health literacy and research. It seems that there’s a lapse in understanding about issues that people are facing, leading to a lack of information to help them navigate things more easily, which can be really detrimental to certain populations when there is no investment in research.