Trafficking in IVF Conspiracies

In this episode, hosts Michelle and Ellie break down the debate about IVF in Louisiana. The anti-abortion crazies are trying to block a bill that would protect IVF, because apparently, creating embryos in a lab is now... human trafficking? Ellie knows a lot about the IVF laws and how they have been weaponized against celebs. You have to listen to find out which one.

Please write a review or leave a comment. We might read it on the podcast. If it’s good.

Send us a message on Instagram or at [e-mail] - tell us what your Seriously?! moment is. Follow us on Instagram and TikTok: @LiftLouisiana Get Updates from Lift Louisiana

Episode Transcript

(00:07):
Welcome to Seriously,
the podcast that dives into the baffling. The ridiculous. And downright unbelievable political climate in red states like Louisiana.

(00:29):
Welcome to Seriously, we're your host, your dynamic duo.
I'm Michelle.
And I'm Ellie.
And today is our pro-life podcast.
We are going to talk about IVF and the legislation in
Louisiana and some of the other crazy stuff that's going on
in the country around IVF.

(00:49):
And to be clear, of course,
IVF was always a reproductive freedom issue.
You mean that it's also now being rebranded,
and I think in a fair way,
but rebranded as like a pro-life issue because it is
literally about people being able to have children.
Creating babies.
That's right.
Yes, that's right.
Before we get into that,

(01:11):
what was your Seriously moment this week?
I don't know.
I think the Trump administration, again, back at Harvard,
that was them telling Harvard that they could not enroll
international students anymore,
and the international students had to immediately find
another school,

(01:31):
which was I think about a day before people were
graduating.
And obviously,
it's not like time to be applying to transfer.
All of that I thought was really interesting and
outrageous.
And also that, thankfully, again,
our courts do seem to be semi-working because it was
blocked within 24 hours.
It's so ridiculous.

(01:52):
I don't think that most people understand.
If we just don't allow foreign students to come into our
country,
then we are going to lose so much research expertise,
so much technology expertise.
Also, I didn't used to know this, but I have...
pre-Trump administration,
like international students are a huge money maker for

(02:15):
schools.
All the international students I knew when I went to
Colgate were like on scholarships,
so I didn't realize that, but it's actually like,
and this is not like in any sort of nefarious way,
but like the majority of international students are paying
full freight,
so it's actually really important for universities in terms
of like,
so that they can then give more scholarships to other

(02:36):
people.
So again,
like it actually benefits American students in addition to
just like, you know, getting more perspectives,
getting training the world, you know,
the soft power issue that people talk about, but then like,
you know, you come here, you see like hopefully,
or at least like previously,
like the United States is like a great place to come and

(02:58):
learn and then go back to wherever you were from.
Yeah, we're like, no, we're getting rid of all of that.
And also specifically for Harvard, because you know,
they've dared to fight the administration.
How dare they?
It's so ridiculous.
It is.
What's your seriously, Michelle?
I actually have a good news one today.
Oh my God.
I know.
We've been doing too many good news ones.
Well, you know, we're trying to give people-hope.

(03:20):
There is very little good news.
Right.
Yeah, a little hope and the bleakness.
Yeah.
You know, it's not my brand, but you know, bear with me.
It is now.
Yeah, we're the good news podcast.
All right.
So the US Supreme Court on Thursday blocked a bid led by
two Catholic diocese in Oklahoma.

(03:41):
They wanted to establish the nation's first taxpayer funded
religious charter school.
So the court was tied 4-4.
That's right.
Amy Coney Barrett, recused.
She did.
Yeah.
Well, she didn't have to.
I don't actually know the backstory.
I'm sure she did.
Oh, I don't know why she recused.

(04:01):
But she has integrity.
So she recused because she had previously advised the
organization that was creating the charter.
I want to stop there and agree,
but this is a very seriously, seriously,
is that Amy Coney Barrett is like one of my favorite
justices these days on the Supreme Court.
She was here in New Orleans, speaking at Loyola Law.

(04:24):
I'm not like a fan.
Well, I wanted to go see her, but then I didn't.
But honestly, like she asked questions like for real,
not just like softball, plant and stuff.
She does bring like intellectual rigor to things before
them.
And yeah, now also some intellectual integrity.
So yeah, I mean, yeah,
her addition to the court was like not a good not a good

(04:47):
thing.
But yeah, like it's it's you know,
it's just because women always have to be better at their
jobs, always have right.
You always have to be doing what they do, but better.
So of course, like the conservative justice that they have,
the only one who's good at her fucking job at all is the
girl.
That's right.
That's 100%.
So yeah,
so she has a little bit of integrity and she recused

(05:08):
herself as she should have and as Clarence Thomas should
have in many cases that have come You mean the court's wife
was basically a defendant in the case?
Exactly.
Anyway so you know when the court ties 4-4 then basically
that just lets the lower court ruling stand and so the
lower court ruling was like no you can't.
Which the lower court being the Oklahoma Supreme Court just
FYI.

(05:29):
Right yeah exactly.
Not like so low of a court.
Yeah but this is really kind of unheard of that this at
this court the Roberts Court you know this is like the only
religious freedom case that's ever come before them that
hasn't gone the way of the religious nuts.
These folks will not be dissuaded because the likely yes

(05:51):
vote recused herself so yeah stay tuned.
All right well let's jump in okay so a lot has been
happening with IVF so I want to start off by talking about
how last week there was a car bomb that detonated at the
Los Angeles Fertility Clinic.

(06:11):
The blast like gutted this it's the American Reproductive
Center's Fertility Clinic and it also injured four people.
I think the the reporting I saw is the blast that could be
felt and cause damage like three blocks so like it was a
huge fucking bomb.
Right it was.
A seriously huge fucking bomb.

(06:31):
Right.
So in addition to injuring four people it also killed the
the bomber.
So this was a 25 year old dude I'm not going to say his
name because we don't want to you know give him any sort of
accolades but yeah he died in the explosion.
The FBI and the people that are investigating this said
that he left behind like all these anti-prolife writings he

(06:54):
has all these like you know weird anti-natalist views about
how people shouldn't procreate.
Of course you know no one's released any evidence of that
so we don't know and um but uh yeah so you know this is
yeah he yeah it seemed he He's like, my reaction,
of course, immediately was like,

(07:15):
he's probably the same kind of terrorist as the people who
bomb abortion clinics.
He's a different kind of terrorist thing, it turns out.
But like just equally sort of just like bizarre,
extremist views, but basically about like, yeah,
that like people shouldn't be procreating.
That's the basis, I think.

(07:36):
In general, I don't agree with that.
But if you ask me about specific individuals,
I might have a different opinion.
No doubt.
To be honest with you.
No doubt.
And they're the ones that are always procreating.
Because they're building an army for the Lord.
Right, okay.
Which I want to be clear, all of that was very disturbing.
It's so disturbing.
I don't want to be dismissive at all about, I mean,

(07:57):
just disturbing on a lot of different fronts.
I mean, that level of extremist violence, and we also saw,
you know, this past week, like the,
person like assassinating, you know,
two people at the embassy that, you know,
the Israeli embassy to like,
just like basically random people that worked at that
embassy.
I mean, like the, you know,
all the all of the extremist rhetoric, like, you know,

(08:19):
it does.
It's dangerous.
Yeah, it's dangerous.
Yeah.
100 percent.
OK,
let's set the stage for what we're going to talk about for
the rest of the podcast today.
So Republican states have threatened IVF access by,
you know,
they're trying to define life as beginning at conception.
We've talked about this already on the podcast.

(08:41):
And this is something that, you know,
is pervasive and obviously the abortion context,
but it also is relevant in IVF.
Some conservative groups like Heritage are pushing now the
idea that that we really should be focused on treating the
root cause of infertility directly rather than trying to,

(09:04):
you know, circumvent it with medical intervention.
Exactly.
Exactly.
Yes.
Yeah.
Well,
that's going to be like people aren't getting married.
Oh, some shit like that.
Yeah.
The root cause is the root cause is going to be the ladies
want to work outside of the home and people aren't getting
married and those are going to be the root causes.
Yeah, I can guarantee you more on that later.

(09:25):
But yeah, I mean,
it just obviously like they fundamentally don't understand
how pregnancy works and how complicated it is.
And they basically don't want the ladies working outside of
the home.
That's true.
All right.
Fair.
All right.
So obviously there's, you know,
there's tension between support for the procedure and for
the laws that have been passed by, you know,

(09:47):
so-called pro-life Republicans that grant legal personhood
not only to fetuses,
but to any embryos that are created in this process.
So this came to a head a couple of years ago with something
that happened in Alabama.
Last year.
Last year.
OK.
What is time?
I know.
I know.

(10:07):
So, Ellie, tell us what happened in Alabama.
Yeah.
So, I guess just for background then,
this is a personhood issue.
Like a lot of people, a lot of our listeners of our many,
many thousands and thousands of listeners will understand
this, that the threat to IVF goes back to personhood.

(10:27):
So, yeah, it's been a long, long dream, of course,
of the right to give legal personhood status to the unborn.
So, meaning that you're treated.
before you're born, you know,
from the moment of conception, the moment of fertilization,
the moment of whatever the fuck,
as a person the same as you would be when you're a born

(10:50):
alive person.
Like we saw this in Mississippi years ago,
probably like about a decade ago.
And the main reason that it failed was because of IVF.
That was the,
like they were able to defeat a ballot initiative on fetal
personhood because of IVF because like if a pre-born person

(11:12):
is a person under the law,
then it would effectively make IVF impossible because,
you know, then you can't cryopreserve an embryo,
which it means freezing it.
Like that's like, if I tried to freeze you, Michelle,
then I could get like in a lot of trouble, which, you know,

(11:37):
I might want to freeze you, but probably not,
but if I were to,
I could definitely get in a lot of trouble.
But the only way that IVF works is if you freeze,
if you cryopreserve embryos,
like otherwise then it's literally impossible because you
couldn't implant,
you can't fertilize and implant all like at the exact same

(11:58):
time, basically.
There would be homicide laws,
there would be criminal battery laws,
there would be all of those sorts of things that would
apply to IVF,
that they do apply to a human that would apply then to an
embryo, like a day one fertilized, you know, thing.

(12:19):
And so that's the problem, that's the issue.
And so in Alabama what happened is that there was like,
there was like a very unfortunate incident at an IVF clinic
where some person got unauthorized access and destroyed
some embryos, which was, I mean, that's horrible.
It's really horrible for the people who, you know,
they may not ever be able to.

(12:42):
create embryos, again,
women going through cancer treatment who have pre-preserved
the ability to have children or a couple, whatever.
It's very important, of course,
that embryos be sufficiently protected literally.
Careful, right, yeah.
Like literally, sufficiently protected, not legally,

(13:03):
literally.
So that did not happen in that case.
And then it led to a wrongful death lawsuit, though.
So again,
like under the same theory that you would have is if your
already fully born child was killed like in a car accident
or something.

(13:23):
And the Alabama Supreme Court ruled that it was the same,
that an unborn child was from the moment of conception and
that the wrongful death laws,
wrongful death civil statutes applied the same.
So it immediately shut down IVF access.
Right, because now they're all thinking, oh, my god,
we have an insane amount of liability in these situations.

(13:46):
Yes, civil and criminal, again.
Because if you are recognizing the same rights as a fully
-formed two-year-old or a fully-formed five-year-old as you
would to a day-one fertilized embryo,
then it makes IVF impossible.

(14:07):
How does what happened in Alabama relate to Louisiana's
laws?
I mean, we must have similar language in our laws.
Well, we have worse language.
Oh, really?
OK.
Basically, right when that happened in Alabama,
then people across the country became very,
very worried about what could happen for IVF in their

(14:27):
state.
And in Louisiana,
we've always had this bizarre sort of arcane IVF.
Well, I mean, first of all,
the laws have not been amended since the 80s when they were
first enacted.
So that already was a problem,
just that they're very old and just are not at all in
keeping with medical practice.

(14:49):
But when they were enacted,
then it was like striking this weird sort of balance and
negotiation between the pro-life folks and the regular
medical folks who were trying to allow for reproductive
freedom and IVF in the state.
IVF-created embryos were recognized "juridical persons",

(15:12):
which that's like Louisiana speak.
It's Louisiana speak for a corporation,
so it's already very confusing.
You can be a natural person under Louisiana law,
or you can be a juridical person.
A natural person is like, you and me.
It's a quote, human being.
A juridical person is like other personhood status under

(15:33):
the law.
Citizens United.
Other people are persons.
Corporations are people.
That's right.
Corporations are people, too.
But they're juridical people.
They're juridical people in Louisiana.
But that's always been confusing.
And there's a lot of shit in the IVF laws that can be
interpreted in conjunction with other laws that we have.

(15:56):
Where this is like in Louisiana,
it's particularly right for this exact thing to happen,
as happened in Alabama,
where a court looks at this and says, like, no, I mean,
like, Louisiana law recognizes embryos as human beings.
I was Sophia Vergara's lawyer,
one of Sophia Vergara's lawyers,
in the two different times that her fucking ex- Nick Loeb

(16:20):
sued her in Louisiana for this exact reason.
Their embryos are in California.
They've never been to Louisiana.
The embryos have never been to Louisiana.
Basically neither Nick Loeb or Sofia Vergara have ever been
here.
I mean, that's a little bit of an exaggeration,
but like not by a lot.
But he tried twice to sue her here because the laws were

(16:41):
like sort of ripe for personhood status.
So like in one of those suits, maybe in both of those,
then like the embryos sued themselves.
They were, they were,
because the law says that they can set up one of the many
amazing things.
Yeah, current law is that embryos can sue or be sued.
And so they can get a lawyer.

(17:03):
I've also always made the joke.
I want to know, I mean, so they work suing.
How can, how can they be sued?
But I wanted to find a way to sue those embryos,
but I didn't come up with the reconventional to me.
I guess the embryos.
But anyway,
the language of the laws are bad shit here is the point.

(17:25):
So like they're already,
they were already giving embryos like weird status and
saying shit like that, that like, you know,
they can sue or be sued.
How that language like could be interpreted with other shit
that we already have.
As you know, that's all sorts of like, you know,
recognizing life from the moment of conception and like in

(17:46):
the civil laws.
And it talks about like, you know,
an unborn child being like a human being from the moment
of.
From the moment of fertilization.
That's right.
So all sorts of shit like that,
that like I had already seen like how,
like someone had tried to make the argument that like,
that's what should be recognized here.
Which like, they didn't have great lawyers.

(18:08):
Nick Loeb's a cheap motherfucker.
So they didn't have great lawyers, honestly.
And it's, you know,
it would require sort of like an Alabama situation where
like judges were like willing to be like, yeah,
now I see this.
We want to recognize it this way.
But so it was like already we were in a position that was
not great,
that some random person and some random judge might be able

(18:31):
to interpret our laws in a way that would outlaw IVF or
make it just completely untenable.
So Paula Davis then, a representative in the house,
a representative, she with a lawyer, Katie Bliss,
who's really great, who's done a lot of work.
She represents patients in negotiating agreements with IVF.

(18:55):
This is her area of practice, basically.
They started working on this in the middle of the session.
Last year.
To try to basically make sure that we were cleaning up our
IVF laws so that this couldn't happen.
And they need that.
The laws need to be.
cleaned up and updated anyway,

(19:17):
like the language is just very, very outdated and arcane.
It's literally from the late 80s, when people,
IVF was just starting anyway.
Yeah.
So that bill made it almost all the way through the process
last year.
And then at the very end of the session,
there was like a poison pill amendment that was added to

(19:37):
it.
So it didn't end up moving all the way forward.
So there, yeah, I mean, we talked about this, I think,
a little bit at the beginning of the session,
when we were discussing that there were two IVF bills,
right?
There was the Senator Presley bill and the Paul Davis bill
that were identical bills.
And that were like pretty close to what like we had all
come to as like the what it should be last last session.

(20:01):
But there was also like mad opposition from the right as
we're going to get into,
but also mad opposition from the left,
like it was like a bunch of fucking bullshit.
And that that reminds me a lot of like our conversation
with Hadley Duvall about like people,
people on the left from out of state, fighting us about,

(20:22):
Yeah,
expecting that we're gonna get some perfect solutions when
we try to let go about yeah, how,
how we have to deal with that kind of bullshit.
Yeah, I mean, it's really frustrating.
This happens a lot that, you know,
people who are our allies in the reproductive, you know,
health rights justice movement,
that fundamentally don't understand the reality of what

(20:45):
we're dealing with here in states like Louisiana,
red states all over the country, that, you know,
we cannot let the perfect be the enemy of the good.
Sometimes we just like,
have to try to move the ball forward as best we can.
Yeah, considering.
So that was crazy people that we're dealing with 100%.
So there was, you know,
Senator Seabaugh did add what he what he proudly called

(21:07):
actually this then the House or in the Senate committee
this I'm like, I think I added a poison pill.
But I mean, it wasn't my intention, which yes,
it fucking was, his intention.
But the truth was is that because the bill had been
introduced quickly and was coming together quickly,
and there was all sorts of opposition,
including from people on our own fucking side,
but not people in Louisiana.

(21:28):
The people who were working on that bill were every fucking
doctor that practices in this space.
The only lawyer who really does, in terms of patient,
advocacy.
Yeah.
And then me who got involved was the only person who's ever
litigated a case without anything to do with this.
So we had all the people that we did.
We had all the people that we needed.

(21:49):
But there was all this fucking pushback about,
you guys are leaving the juridical personhood language.
That was the big thing.
It's like, yeah,
because there is no fucking way that this bill is ever
getting through our legislature if we take out the extra
special protections that have been given to these embryos,
which, as we'll see, they are not trying to do that.

(22:12):
Nobody tried to do that last session.
No one's trying to do that now.
And the opposition is fierce from the right.
And the thing that's frustrating to me is that, well,
optically,
and so this is the problem with people from out of state,
optically, that is a bad look, right?
It is providing, quote, personhood status.

(22:34):
Except, again,
having been somebody who litigated a case like this,
it actually is meaningless in the law.
It doesn't actually do anything the way that that language
is gonna get interpreted with other language.
That's never gonna be a problem.
There's other parts of the law that are what need to be
changed to make sure that we don't end up in an Alabama

(22:55):
situation.
We can keep that fucking stupid,
juridical personhood language and never end up in an
Alabama situation.
Oh,
the bill that starts moving this year is Senator Pressley's
bill.
It's Senate Bill 156.
There have been now two hearings.
So there was one on the Senate side and then there was one
on the House side.

(23:16):
So the bill, so it's the same as last,
the bill that Senator Pressley has introduced and that had
the identical one on Paula Davis's side is it's trying to
update the law so that it's not so outdated.
It has all kinds of just language that doesn't really make

(23:36):
any sense because they just didn't really know what IVF was
gonna be like when 40 years ago, the law was passed.
So not realizing that there's gonna be patient,
there's gonna be agreements,
agreements between partners and the clinic for every single
procedure.

(23:58):
There's a lot of language in it that's about,
which we'll get into this, that's about,
it's very parent parental language and about adoption
versus donation.
And that becomes important.
as we'll talk about with trying to reduce the chances of it

(24:19):
being personhoody in how it's going to get interpreted.
But it's also just because when the bill was passed,
and there wasn't the language to talk about these things.
And so the law is not doing what it needs to do to begin
with.
It's vastly out of keeping with what the practice is.

(24:42):
Yes, exactly.
So it needs to be updated.
And then the liability part,
in terms of what potential criminal or civil liability,
that needs to be clarified so that we don't end up in an
Alabama situation,
where then doctors are so worried that they could be
criminally or civilly liable under the existing law.

(25:05):
And then, fundamentally,
the law is then it's cleaning up the language of the law in
terms of the definitions.
We're gonna hear a lot about like the definition,
the definition,
the definitions need to be cleaned up so that it can't be
interpreted with other statutes that we have,
other sort of disparate parts of our law to equate an

(25:27):
embryo, a cryopreserved embryo,
like an out of uterus embryo to equate that with a human
being.
Because if we equate that under the law with a human being,
then we're in a full personhood situation.
And in the House of Representatives,

(25:48):
a former member of our legislature actually came and
testified and his testimony, I think was really great.
No bleeding heart liberal.
No, not at all, not at all.
Not any big like friend of abortion rights.
No, but he's not like a, he's not a crazy person.
I don't think, I don't know.

(26:09):
Anyway, yeah,
so he came and testified in support of what Senator Presley
was doing.
You wanna see young people flock out of the state of
Louisiana faster than don't protect IVF.
I mean,
let's be honest and real with everybody in the committee.
If you wanna see young families leave this day at a more
alarming rate than they already are doing,

(26:31):
don't protect IVF, right?
Because there's nothing me and my family would have not
have done to make that happen.
We would have moved countries to have a family, right?
Moment after they're born,
everybody who is a part of the religious community wants
them.
Nobody tells them no.
They'll take you to Catholic school.
They'll take you to any Christian private university.

(26:51):
Every single one of the people who seem to have an issue or
could have an issue,
they don't raise those objections when you bring your
dollars to them and say, hey, educate my child.
Hey, take my donation for this.
So always find it kind of confusing.
to me that there ever is opposition to children, right?
I just don't understand it,

(27:11):
because this is about the only point where they have it at.
And it makes no sense.
You would think that wanting to be a family and wanting to
have kids and bring life into the world is somehow not a pro
-life position.
I don't even understand how that makes sense.
Right, okay.
So let's talk about one of the issues that the right to

(27:31):
life people raised is this idea of donation versus
adoption.
So the current law has language around people being able
to, if they're not gonna use the embryo, they can,
then someone can adopt that embryo.
And what they wanna do is change the language to allow
people to donate the embryo to, you know, another person,

(27:56):
another, you know, couple, whatever.
So one thing, yeah, so there's sort of two things here.
And like when I was in discussions with people last year,
because one of the, right now it's that you can...
Donate slash adopt whatever To another married couple
that's right But like that's that's fucking crazy shit,

(28:17):
right that like it would just be it's like to a married
couple like all of the time Of course, like,
you know single women for starters like want want to have
children You don't have to be married to do that.
You shouldn't have to be married to do that So like getting
rid of that language is always gonna be like alarm bells
like alarm bells on right All the family values are like

(28:40):
getting it taken out of the IVF laws The adopt adoption
versus donation language does not make sense It doesn't it
just it doesn't make any sense,
but they like the values driven part of it, right?
so they would rather keep language in the law that like 100
% might like end up with like,
you know being interpreted in a personhood kind of way

(29:03):
That's gonna make all of this impossible But not just like,
you know updating it to be like in reality and also,
you know in a way that yes Yes,
it's not your preferred values driven statement,
but otherwise, you know,
maybe nobody can do it at all Well,
so let's listen to what?
Dorinda Plaisance Who is a lawyer?

(29:27):
Who has basically drafted a hundred million things to say
about your into that we can say you Play the clip Michelle
at the clip play the clip and then we'll talk about Dorinda
Well,
it's reasonable for an industry that helps people in a
tough situation to want to have liability reasonable
liability limits That can't go so far as to have other

(29:50):
impacts in the bill That takes away protections that these
parents would Want to have that any parent die as a parent
or as a grandmother would want to have if there's no
incentive for Negligent treatment of of the embryonic the
human beings at the embryo stage that are mistreated,

(30:11):
that are now subject to being donated as property to a
person rather than adopted to a family,
then we lose every protection.
The word parent is taken out,
the word adoption by notarial act is taken out.
In place of it,
it says that a contract can allow for the donation.

(30:35):
One of your grandchildren that's conceived by IVF,
currently under law, could be adopted out.
There would be a process where we look at the parents,
are they fit parents,
are they someone where we would want our children to be
raised.
That would be gone.
Children that would be given to a person,
but no longer has a record of what is their medical

(30:57):
background,
what kind of nationality or genetic traits should I look
out for, that is all wiped out in this bill.
They could be donated to a person.
That person could be a corporation where they could be
grown into parts for biotech research or worse.
We're going to do the or worse later because we're going to

(31:18):
do the or worse in a minute.
So Dorinda.
All right.
She and I know each other well.
She has been my like absolute enemy on the other side for a
million years.
She's like the legal mastermind on their side.
So yeah,
like every law basically that's ever been written here that
is like a bad, a bad abortion restriction.

(31:39):
Dorinda wrote that law.
But now she comes back.
She's in retirement now.
They bring her out of retirement every once in a while to
come back and testify and stuff.
So you know,
always good seeing Dorinda and always good hearing her kind
of insane perspective.
So yeah, this is like,
she's also like insinuating here that what's going on now
with like, you know, if like it's my embryo, you know,

(32:03):
me and whomever's embryo,
that like there's like a full adoption process that's
happening where people are having like background checks.
Like again, if there was a born and live person,
like there is no way that that is happening.
Like that is like complete insanity, complete insanity.
And I mean,
just just so much of what what she is saying is like,

(32:25):
you know,
it's not it's not the way that things are working now.
It's not the way that things ever should work.
And mostly she's just like upset about the language being
changed because it's less personality, which again is like,
that's the whole, that's the whole problem here.
That's like the zero sum of this is that like they want
maximum personhood language because they believe that a one

(32:51):
second old embryo, you know,
one second after fertilization that like that thing should
be given to them.
the same legal status as your two-year-old child,
like your already two-year-old child,
that those should be legally equivalent.
And what, of course,

(33:12):
the proponents of the changes to the bill are saying is
that if we do that, it will make IVF impossible.
So that's real zero sum.
Yeah, that's the crux of it.
So she goes on to talk about, or worse,
what could be worse.
And so I want to play that.

(33:32):
So you're going to hear Dorinda,
and then you're going to hear Representative Wyble ask a
question, and then at the end,
you're going to hear Representative Chad Brown.
We know that there is child human trafficking in this
country,
and we don't know where these children would go without the
protections of adoption.
Dorinda is suggesting that IVF might be being used to

(33:57):
cultivate...
children to literally grow children for the purposes of
human trafficking.
That is so beyond insane.
Yeah.
I mean,
it's so insane that Representative Wyble thinks it's-
That's right.
And he's really conservative.
I mean, I don't know that there's anybody around there,

(34:19):
I'm sure he'd be happy to hear,
that have more conservative bona fides than he does.
Yeah.
Okay.
I've done a lot of work through my career with child
victims of sexual abuse, severe physical abuse,
trafficking.
And you made that reference.
Do you have any data or examples where through IVF,

(34:44):
basically you suggest that we're cultivating children to
traffic?
I mean, is that a thing?
Is that really happening?
And so when you're dealing with child trafficking ring,
which is something that is very hidden in the dark,
my point is I don't say- I can't say here on the corner of
Orleans Avenue we have this,

(35:05):
but I can tell you that when I'm looking closely at the
law,
it takes out the protections of adoption and says it can be
donated to a person.
Once that person brings it to a gestational surrogate in a
country like India, and then where that child ends up,
we have no longer any control on that.

(35:25):
Both of these are very sensitive issues to me.
Yes.
But we don't just throw around some causation as we're
trying to help families in their IVF journey that we don't
conflate or conflict these issues.
Yeah.
So like all true facts from- I will again,

(35:47):
like a very conservative person, but like, I mean,
I just want to like really reiterate the insanity of this.
I mean, like not only like, first of all,
IVF is very expensive.
It's very expensive.
So like the notion that that that that would be like how
we're like getting kids How like bad people are getting
kids to to traffic is insane Second of all,

(36:11):
there's like she makes it seem like that like,
you know The way that things are now like no child created
through her IVF could ever be you know Anything bad could
happen to them.
We've got like this strict system in place Like not true
like often obviously and also not true then again about
like all the fucking kids that are born through whatever

(36:33):
means Right.
I mean what for sure is not happening is that people are
spending ten to twenty thousand dollars to Create a child
for the purposes of human trafficking There would be about
like a thousand easier and cheaper ways if that was your
plan Yeah,

(36:54):
it's pretty it's crazy.
But yeah There's a reason that she brings.
That's right, as Brown says.
It seems like any time that we want to support or kill a
bill, we bring up human trafficking.
Human trafficking is one of the worst things that exists in
our society.
But when we start bringing into the IVF discussion,

(37:17):
you say you support IVF.
Well, I think you bring things like that to kill us, Bill.
Yeah, and you and I know this very, very well,
as does Jorinda.
She talked about some of her bona fides about,
I've been on the human trafficking council, blah, blah,
blah, and all that sort of shit.
And again, human trafficking is like,

(37:39):
it always sounds like we are sort of,
when we bitch about this,
that we are diminishing that issue.
And that is not true.
That is not our intent.
Human trafficking is a real problem.
But what he is saying,
Dorinda has said this a million times.
That's why she's pulling out.
It's like pulling out some of the greatest hits.
Go with some of the greatest hits.
See if we can use these.

(38:00):
That like in the abortion context,
we saw this year after year after year.
That like,
if they could find any way to sort of try to tie the issue
to human trafficking, then it would be like, oh, well,
we gotta do this, or we can't do that.
So it's a complete red herring.
And yeah, like even these motherfuckers in this context,

(38:22):
again, it doesn't sound like, probably very like, you know,
convincing that one of the impacts of the changes to this
law is gonna be some real increase in human trafficking.
Yeah, cultivating children at $25,000.

(38:43):
A pop.
Yeah.
Yeah.
Okay,
so then we also had Damon Cudihy testify in opposition to
this bill.
And we're gonna let him.
introduce himself and then we'll talk about him.
Thank you for the opportunity to speak.
My name is Dr.
Damon Cudihy and I'm also a board certified obstetrician

(39:05):
gynaecologist.
I've been practicing here in Louisiana for 12 years.
I was also honored to serve as the lead witness for the
Louisiana Department of Health pertaining to reproductive
health when there were challenges to legislation we had
passed at the federal level.
Oh, no.
I mean, he did serve as an expert.
I like that he caught himself the lead witness, I think,

(39:26):
for the Department of Health.
He did testify and he's talking about the admitting
privileges case and what he fails to disclose,
and I have brought this to some people's attention before
the legislature,
is that a federal judge specifically found him to be not
credible.

(39:46):
There is a published federal court.
decision that finds him to be a not credible expert on the
issue of abortion because there was so much evidence of his
bias.
So yeah,
maybe you shouldn't keep going to the legislature and
touting how you were the lead expert.

(40:07):
You were the lead expert who a federal judge found to be
not credible in a case that Louisiana lost the whole
fucking way up.
There's like only a handful of OBGYNs who are very,
very fringe,
fringe doctors that they can get to come to the legislature
because there are only a handful of very,

(40:27):
very fringe doctors that support their position.
So I think one of the things that is interesting to me is
that they're so concerned about this adoption versus
donation aspect of the changes that they're making to the
law.
Regular parents don't have to go enter into these,

(40:51):
you know, I don't want to say regular, but I mean,
people that are, you know,
procreating through natural means,
not using IVF like they don't have to enter into any sort
of agreement about like,
what is going to happen to their child, no, or any of that,
none of that is required.
But if you are doing in vitro, then you put together these,
you know, very, very,
very detailed agreements that include all of this

(41:13):
information.
And so they're making it seem like the change to donation
is going to have some sort of profound impact on how these
embryos are treated throughout this process.
But I don't really think that that's the case.
No, I mean, yeah, the word donation,

(41:36):
the reason that they're objecting to it is that they think
that like it is implying property as opposed to personhood,
which again is part of what needs to happen in the law is
that we're getting away from personhood.
language that is actually the problem and why we could end
up in a situation where no one's able to like access this

(41:56):
process or able to you know provide this care like period
but it does nothing to do with how people are handling
these situations like you know we were talking about
earlier like I know people who have left in their will left
embryos in their wills like to their sisters you know like
that if you if you if you want or need to have a child then

(42:18):
I am leaving this to you like it is something that people
treat is like absolutely like precious cargo you know who
said that like they have in their care and not just like in
wills but also you know if like you do have a cryopreserved
embryo and you do want to donate it to someone else then

(42:39):
like that is like an extremely personal thing that people
do you know like you have a friend who who wants to have a
child and you are talking to them about that and donating
it to them as something that is precious to you and is
precious to them.
Like there's nothing that's happening with whether you use

(43:01):
the word donate or you use the word like adopt.
Like the language is only important in terms of how it
could be misinterpreted in the law to make this whole thing
illegal.
It is not that like that language changes what's happening
in reality in terms of how people feel about these things.

(43:23):
Like again,
it's very expensive to create embryos through IVF,
it's very expensive.
And it's very, as Tanner, as we listened to before,
former Rep.
McGee, like people are desperate to have children.
People who are having fertility issues are desperate to
have children.
Or people who like couples or people who can't become

(43:47):
pregnant without IVF,
either because like you're a gay couple or you are a single
woman and you need this process.
So it is like,
this is like something that is absolutely precious that
people are passing on to others.
It's not like I donated my shit to the good will,
which is basically how they're acting like that if we

(44:11):
change the words to donation, then it's gonna be like,
can you like basically like come pick up like my trash?
Yeah,
or like I can pull up to one of the like clothing boxes and
just like, you know, shove a Petri dish into that.
Yeah, it's ridiculous.
It's gonna pick up my $25,000 embryo.
Now, this is always going to be like, you know,

(44:32):
a process that's rigorously controlled legally in terms of
contracts, which in general are law, like it defers to,
you know, contractual arrangements, you know, between.
people who wanted to create these things,
and people who really want to accept them.

(44:52):
Right.
So one of the things that doctor,
and I'm putting doctor in air quotes,
Cudihy brought up in his opposition testimony was about
viability and the definition of viability,
so they are making some changes to that definition in the

(45:15):
law.
So I'm going to play what he says,
and then you can explain.
why he's wrong basically.
When we speak about non-viable in this bill we need to make
it clear what is which most lay people non-positions would
assume is meant by non-viable.
Most of us would assume the non-viable is synonymous with

(45:36):
dead but the language really suggests more of something
analogous to terminal meaning that the physicians or the
embryologist has judged this child is unlikely to survive
to to to a live birth.
When we talk about viability the concern is is that we
don't want there to be arbitrary standards that allow an

(45:59):
embryo to be determined that be to be non-viable and
therefore to be discarded essentially.
Yeah so Ben Clapper is the person that you heard at the
end.
Some of these embryos then like that they're never going to
develop into a you know a fetus that could be carried to

(46:21):
term.
That's right yeah so Cudihy and Clapper and there was a
various of them that were like, you know,
talking about this in terms of basically by terming it non
-viable then you're making it you know seem like some sort
of a lesser a lesser person,
like a lesser embryo which like i mean i guess that that's

(46:44):
accurate i mean the the point is is that it has not
developed outside of the uterus enough to ever to ever have
scientific evidence that it will develop in utero to a
live birth right so that's just that's just the reality,
there's nothing that's like bad there's something that's

(47:06):
nefarious about that yeah something that's bad or good
about that,
it's the same as if it were in utero that you know embryos
do not always develop into a live birth quite often people
have miscarriages these These are exactly the equivalent of
if it had been implanted,
that it would have ended in a miscarriage.

(47:28):
But you're not going to then go through the process of
surgically implanting an embryo that's going to end up
miscarrying.
But maybe that's what they would want to happen,
is that they think that all of these embryos should be
given the chance.
They should be given the chance.
Or just that they should be preserved for forever because
it's already a person.
This is like it's already a person.

(47:51):
It's just a flawed person.
Or I don't know.
It's again where the logic of recognizing personhood from
minute one of fertilization, even when it's not in utero,
and equating that to the same as if you had a
developmentally disabled two-year-old,

(48:12):
these things are not in no way similar.
They're just not.
in a regular person's mind,
those things are not similar. Of course you would never be, well, somebody doesn't need to really , go ahead and keep caring for their two-year-old.
If they're , you know, maybe they won't make a day jade.

(48:32):
So, you know, maybe we just ,
don't worry about caring for that two-year-old.
No one would say that.
But ,
would you say that about like an eight day old cryo-preserved
embryo that is not going to end in a live birth?
Yes, you would say that.
We don't need to keep caring for that.
We don't need to make sure that that quote unquote life is

(48:53):
preserved.
So the current law, and again,
it's really outdated and there's some explanation for this
from some of the doctors that are proponents of the bill
that's being proposed.
But the current law requires like that the embryo be given
36 hours to develop.

(49:13):
And that's not really in accordance with practice at this
point.
And actually, practice now allows for, to wait longer,
right?
To give even more time.
So one of the changes that they propose was, well,
why don't we,
because you don't know whether it's gonna be 36 hours

(49:34):
before you know, or seven days before you know,
why don't we just make it so that at some point,
viability is based on developmental milestones, right?
And so that's what they wanted to do with the law.
And the right to life is like freaking out about that
because they're like, no, no, no, we have to put an eight,

(49:55):
a day limit.
This goes back to just how they are so skeptical of doctors
and women and a way that is really just insane.
When you talk to any of these doctors,
let alone the fucking patient,
then obviously this process again, it's painful.

(50:17):
and it's expensive and it's people are going through it who
are desperately trying to have a child.
So , you know,
every effort is going to be made to try to make sure that
we have ike exhausted all possibilities that this embryo is
going to develop into a place where we think that it could

(50:38):
be viably implanted.
There's no world in which peeps are gonna be trying to like
short-circuit that and be like, now this one, this one,
let's just get rid of this one.
It's fine.
Like, and that's of course with the rates they're like,
we need, we need, you know, parameters on this.
We need to make sure that, you know,
doctors aren't acting badly and patients aren't acting
badly.

(50:59):
That like, you know,
not waiting long enough for just like arbitrarily being,
meh, meh, you know, not viable.
Throw that one out.
Like that's, that's never going to happen.
Like the, trusting doctors and trusting women.
It's just the exact same thing as what's happening in the
abortion space, where they're like,

(51:19):
we need a lot of laws to make sure that these people aren't
acting badly.
These people are not going to be acting badly.
These people are desperately trying to get this embryo to a
point of viability.
They're never going to be, for sure, changing that.
Just like, deciding.

(51:40):
My god.
All right.
We're a lot of other things that came up,
a lot of other questions.
So I would like us to introduce a new segment into the
podcast that we're going to call Asked and Answered.
OK.
So we're going to start with a question from representative

(52:01):
Glorioso.
Asked and Answered, just so folks know, it's also Michelle.
And I love it,
because even though she only plays a lawyer on TV,
then that is a very sort of, ubiquitously used objection.
Yeah.
Objection, Asked and Answered.
That Trump's press secretary uses it all the time.

(52:22):
Oh, yeah.
That's hilarious.
She's even less of a lawyer than I am.
OK.
A lot less.
All right.
So our first question comes from representative Glorioso.
Right now, in the statute,
we have a definition of human embryo,
which I believe is the same as the definition that is in
this bill as in vitro fertilized human embryo.

(52:44):
But I do agree with the attorney at the table that the
bill, as it's written, is inconsistent without law.
Because unless I'm reading it wrong,
it says in several spots that an in vitro fertilized human
embryo is a juridical person.
Then it talks about donation.
You cannot donate a person.

(53:06):
And it also says that an in vitro fertilized human embryo
is not susceptible to ownership, which is true.
it's a juridical person and a person is not subject to
ownership.
So that does need to be rectified.
But what I really don't understand is why we now have a
different definition for human embryo and in vitro and

(53:27):
maybe the doctor can explain that to me because it seems to
me that internally inconsistent with the rest of the bill
in that I believe what it's trying to do is to have one
type of embryo that's treated as property and one type of
embryo that's treated as a person.
But I can't I don't understand from the bill where the

(53:47):
distinction lies.
Thank you for asking Rap Gloria.
Yeah, no, I mean,
the answer is a little bit more complicated.
Like, he is not wrong, as you were talking about before,
that like, there's a lot of inconsistencies with like,
the language that is being used in current law,
as well as like, in the proposed changes to it.

(54:11):
He is someone who voted against this bill in the end.
So that's worth it's worth knowing in the committee.
Because the what he's,
so while he's recognizing that there are conflicting,
there's conflicting language and conflicting definitions,
but he's not understanding is that the main and this was
like consistent throughout this hearing is that he's being
talked about, like, can't y'all just work along?

(54:33):
Can't you just like get along and you know,
come up with or we just are we just talking about the
language?
Is that all we're talking about is the language,
which I wanted to be like,
that's all we're ever talking about motherfuckers.
Very just disagreeing about the language of the bill.
Yes.
What are people otherwise disagreeing about other than the

(54:53):
language of the bill.
But yeah,
here the language of the bill is really important because
what they want, again,
what the people who are opposing the changes want,
is for an embryo to be defined as a human being.
And the problem with that is that all of our homicide

(55:13):
statutes talk about that the homicide is the killing of a
human being.
Right.
So this is exactly what we were talking about earlier,
that there's there's are very clear ways that the IVF laws
could be interpreted.
If we're defining it as a human being,
then all of those laws that apply to human beings cannot
say that.

(55:34):
Right.
You can't like the and they did like a very good work
around with amending it in the Senate committee so that
it's that now the definition is biologically human,
which I thought was actually a really good,
a really good compromise.
But of course, it wasn't enough.
It wasn't enough.
They want the definition to be easy human.

(55:55):
being.
And if that's the definition,
then we have not gotten ourselves out of an Alabama
problem.
In fact, we've gotten ourselves more into one.
So that's the problem, Rep Glorioso.
And for all the other people on the committee who were very
confused, the why can we not just get along?
It's because that's a zero sum issue.

(56:17):
They want, they being the clappers of the world,
want an embryo to find as a human being from the moment of
fertilization.
And if we do that,
then it makes it so that IVF could be illegal,
like absolutely illegal,
criminally illegal in our state at any time if a court,

(56:39):
if a court just, you know,
if this should come to a court to interpret it.
Right.
Okay.
Our next question comes from Representative Carlson.
Representative Carlson for a question.
Thank you Mr.
Chairman.
Along those lines that Rep.
Glorioso so was going down I just want to ensure that right
now in the state is it illegal to destroy an embryo?

(57:04):
Yes.
Yes it is.
Thank you for asking.
Louisiana is the only state in the country that has a law
that prohibits the intentional destruction of embryos which
already again makes the state an outlier in addition to the

(57:26):
juridical personal language so we also have this this
specific law which then what that means is that embryos
then are you know whether viable or not viable they're just
persisting in cryopreservation like in perpetuity which you
have to someone has to pay for that literally it's

(57:50):
expensive for clinics to continue to cryopreserve you know
all the stuff that we've talked about
that - someone could come in and you know interfere yada yada like so there's lots of legal agreements that go into place about you know how long things will be cryopreserved and how much you have to pay to do it and then for clinics then because i've represented a bunch of doctors separate from Sophia Vegara case also represented doctors that are dealing with this where patients will just eventually stop paying because it's you know that they they're long past this point where they want to continue to be paying for cryopreservation so then clinics are just having to keep keep on doing that and because of all the legal agreements there's no there's nothing else for them to do there's there's no way for them to deal with the situation the answer that erica from the louisiana right to life gave was long and kind of went down winding path.

(58:50):
Yeah.
I don't really...
I mean,
a lot of skepticism about what the answer may be to that.
Well, she said, I mean, it's fair, I mean, she said,
it's prohibited,
but I wouldn't necessarily say that it's illegal, I mean,
which I guess is fair.
I mean, ,
I want to say many of the things that they're saying,

(59:11):
of course, in relation to this bill, I'm like,
can you fucking hear yourself?
Can you fucking hear yourself?
the language of a bill matters, you know,
we'll be getting into, HB 575 this week where they're like,
eh, no, I mean,
this is just what we intend with the bill that has like no

(59:32):
relationship to what the language of the bill is.
And then with this, she's like, I mean,
this is in the civil laws, so, you know,
I don't know what would happen in the criminal laws,
like just the way that they're approaching this and the way
that they approach, of course, all of the vastly,
vastly expansive stuff that they want to do in other areas.
It's just it's it's infuriating.

(59:55):
OK,
last thing that I clip from the hearing in the house that I
wanted to play was Representative Edmondston.
At the end of the hearing, fundamentally,
she just really wanted to know where the life to right,
the right to life was going to come down on on this bill.

(01:00:20):
So I'm going to play a clip of her exchange with Ben
Clapper and the whole of the language of the bill.
Yeah, yeah, exactly.
Is it true that all you object to is the language in that
the bill is written in?
We would like to see the language change.
Yes.
Now,
whether we can whether we can get there with with Senator

(01:00:43):
Presley, and that's something we can continue to work on.
We have worked at it.
We're not there at this point.
And so I think that's why.
Is the language the only thing in the bill that you object
to?
Nothing else in the bill that you object to?
By that,
you mean what are the three things I've brought forward or?
Is that the only thing that you are objecting to?

(01:01:05):
I just want to make sure that y'all are good with the bill,
except for the language that you have discussed.
I mean, we are I mean,
I think we're not going to be we're going to be neutral on
the bill.
I mean, she literally had to ask him multiple times.
He was not going to give her a straight answer.
And I love at the end that he's like, I mean,

(01:01:29):
we'll be neutral on the bill, which I mean, in fairness,
that's about often that's the most you can ask for.
That is the most you can ask for.
Which I mean, I think that is being fair to him.
That is the most that they would ever be.
But the problem being.
is that they had said, of course,
a million times already at the table that, like,

(01:01:50):
we're not opposed to IVF, we're not opposed to,
they are opposed to IVF, they are 100% opposed to IVF.
So yes, clapper's never going to get beyond neutral,
and again, we're like this with some bills,
you can get us in neutral, we're never going to support it.
But it was just so,
it was so funny to be on so many levels, because ,
number one, it's like, other than the language of the bill,

(01:02:11):
what do you mean other than the fucking language of the
bill?
What are we ever here talking about other than the language
of the bill?
And with this bill in particular,
that it's been extensive discussion about the definitions
that the very specific language of the bill was what the

(01:02:33):
problem is.
So I did,
I did feel for clapper a little bit that it's like,
that's a question.
Other than the language of the bill.
well, other than the language of the bill, wait, what?
And yeah, no, finally, I'll say,
we ain't never going to support this fucking bill.

(01:02:54):
We're never going to support it.
We don't support IVF.
So yeah, other than the language,
which is the whole thing about the bill, you are correct.
If we get to that, we will still just be like,
don't do the bill.
Don't do it.
Don't do it.
It's , extraordinary.

(01:03:14):
And we've talked about this obviously before, but,
they need Ben Clapper to come to the table and give them
permission to support the bill.
Which Edmondson did not.
She did not.
And neither did Carlson.
And neither did Wyvel.
No, Wyble did.

(01:03:35):
Oh, he did.
He did.
I don't think I've, but Glorioso didn't.
I don't know that I've ever seen someone's face as pissed
off as Presley's was when he was listening to the vote
count on the bill.
Because, you know, again,
he's not a friend of ours by any stretch of the
imagination.

(01:03:56):
Folks will know.
We are literally suing over the law that he passed last
year.
Folks will remember.
Yes.
But because of that, I think he's just like,
he cannot believe.
He cannot believe like how extreme these people are,
which I'm like, welcome to the party, friend.
Welcome to the party.
These people real, real, realextreme.

(01:04:20):
And yeah,
that the semantics are really important with this bill
from our perspective,
because we've already seen a court interpret language that
is currently in the law and that they would like to keep or
include in the law in a way that would outlive.

(01:04:42):
That's not hyperbolic that has already happened. and Alabama legislature had to come back into session and saw us that. So that's very real that that could happen here. And notwithstanding that, then the right to life, all they want to do is be like, this is a values issue.
We need our language, yada, yada, yada.

(01:05:03):
And I think that level of just never,
ever being able to compromise, never,
ever being able to recognize the real issues that are being
raised like on the other side.
I mean, welcome to the party senator, Presley.
I mean, so the bill passed out of committee,

(01:05:24):
just so folks know.
So it's headed for the floor.
Yeah, it's going to be on Tuesday.
It's going to be on the floor in the house on Tuesday.
And we'll see what happens,
and maybe more crazy amendments that are brought.
Or maybe there will be some compromise on the language.
Yeah, that's right.
Maybe.

(01:05:44):
I mean, but the.
I hope, I'm confident that, you know,
folks on our site understand like where,
which was not understood in the committee.
All this talk about like, again,
there is some zero sum on this, on the language.
Somebody's got to give, yeah.

(01:06:04):
You can, yeah.
I mean, there can be some work arounds on some things,
like the bill at this point is already like,
it is a very compromised version, again,
of like what anyone on our side would want.
So there is very, very little to give.
There just is, there's very,

(01:06:25):
very little that can be given on the side of people who are
trying to protect IVF.
Yeah, that's it.
I mean,
I guess I'll just state for the record that an embryo is
not a human being.
There was a lot of upset consternation when the thing

(01:06:47):
happened in Alabama,
and then Congress tried to do something on IVF,
and then a bunch of Republicans voted against it.
Yep, including Mike Johnson.
Right.
That's true.
Yeah.
And then, and so then, you know, during the campaign,
Trump was like, oh, I'm going to protect IVF.
What did he call himself?
The fertility president.

(01:07:09):
Oh, my God.
Anyway, the greatest defender, the greatest protect,
probably always great.
I think he called himself the fertility president.
We'll find the clip.
Anyway, so, you know, so he, you know,
one of the first things that he does is introduce this
executive order called expanding access to in vitro
fertilization.

(01:07:30):
So this is what it says.
It is the policy of my administration to ensure reliable
access to IVF treatment,
including by easing unnecessary statutory or regulatory
burdens to make IVF treatment drastically more affordable.
So this week,
they apparently recommendations for how to do what he wants

(01:07:56):
to do with this, you know,
came to him and he's reviewing them.
Well, because he, he declared on the campaign trail,
that she was going to make insurance companies pay for IVF,
which is which I mean, that would be great.
We'll see that when it happens.

(01:08:18):
doesn't happen by executive order.
I mean, the Affordable Care Act did not do that.
But I mean, it mandated that you know,
insurance coverage had to do a bunch of shit.
that's the only way you get something like that done that
just like you're making private companies do something that
they don't want to do is through something called
legislation, which Trump might not have heard of.

(01:08:40):
Yeah, in the real world, in the non-Trump world,
where executive orders don't just say what things do and
what they don't do, and yeah,
I don't think they can get that through the house.
Yeah, well, it probably will be completely meaningless.
He'll like, you know,
like a handful of people will be able to get access to IVF,

(01:09:04):
but then they won't in red states because we have these
fucked up crazy laws in these definitions that don't make
sense.
No, Trump's just gonna do like, "I did it.
I signed the executive order." Yeah,
it did nothing because it turns out you can't make sweeping
changes to health gear without legislation.

(01:09:24):
All right, this has been a good conversation, a long one.
We're gonna wrap up.
I'm gonna do our closeout today because we have a new
thing.
What's new?
So the new thing is,
we're just asking people to leave a review or a comment.
We really want to hear from you.
So this is how you can do this.

(01:09:45):
Michelle is exhausted.
Can you hear her?
Can you hear it in her voice?
Just do it, people.
Please.
Just do it.
I mean- Just do the thing she's saying.
It's really sad for me because I'm, you know,
checking to see who's listening, who's watching, you know,
who's Following the podcast,
and I know people are listening to the podcast.

(01:10:05):
They ain't telling us.
So just tell us.
Please write us a review.
It's a little complicated.
In Apple Podcasts,
you can scroll down to the ratings and review section and
then just tap write a review.
Okay?
It's not complicated.
It's not complicated.
But in Spotify,
you can't write like a review of the whole podcast,
but you can comment on the episode.

(01:10:26):
So that is what we're encouraging people to do.
And I don't know what the rules are on any of the other
podcast things.
You'll have to look that up as chat GPT or whatever,
but those are the two that the most people are listening
on.
So you have instructions.
Yeah, I guess.
All right, write, review, prescribe.
Prescribe.
Prescribe.
Or subscribe, either one.

(01:10:48):
We'll talk to y'all next week.
Seriously is presented by Lift Louisiana,
a nonprofit organization advocating for reproductive
health, rights, and justice.