January 7, 2025 • 56 mins
Sexual and reproductive health faced unrelenting attacks this year, and the assault will likely only increase in 2025 under the Trump administration. Susan Rinkunas with the Cut, Jezebel, and Vice, and an independent journalist covering abortion and politics, sits down to look back with us on sexual and reproductive health and rights in 2024 and what we can expect in the coming year.
2024 was marked by the attempted redefinition of abortion bans by incoming President Donald Trump and Vice President JD Vance, extremists using the exact same playbook to attack both abortion and transgender health and rights, the Alabama Supreme Court case that declared frozen embryos as people, and a host of abortion ballot measures around the country. 2025 is likely to bring a Supreme Court justice retirement, loosening abortion clinic buffer zones, a goal to defund Planned Parenthood, and continued attacks to gender-affirming care and birth control.
You might be interested in the Public Health is Dead podcast: https://www.publichealthisdead.com/ 9o03
Follow Us on Social:
Twitter: @rePROsFightBack
Instagram: @reprosfb
Facebook: rePROs Fight Back
Bluesky: @reprosfightback.bsky.social
Email us: jennie@reprosfightback.com
Rate and Review on Apple Podcast
Thanks for listening & keep fighting back!
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:03):
Welcome to Repro Fight Back a podcast on all
things related to sexual andreproductive health rights and
justice. Hi, re pros. How'severybody doing? I'm your host
Jenny Wetter , and my pronounsare she her . So happy New
Year, y'all. I hope everybodyhad a wonderful holiday and a
(00:23):
nice break and a happy start tothe new year. I went home for
the holidays, which means I wasin Wisconsin, but I have to
say, I don't know who I mademad or who cursed me, but I had
a bit of a cursed holiday. Iwas still able to have a good
time, like I got to spend timewith family. But man, y'all, I
(00:46):
, I , I don't know who cursedme, but it was, it was an
unpleasant holiday. The nightbefore I was supposed to fly
home, I got really sick outtanowhere, was worried I was
gonna have to reschedule myflight. Luckily, I was able to
feel well enough in the morningthat I could fly, but , um,
still took a couple days to getover whatever made my stomach
(01:08):
freak out. Uh, so that meantthat I was sick the first
couple days I got home. Andthen as I was just starting to
feel better, I was goingdownstairs to get some dough
that I had rising in thedownstairs fridge to go so I
could bake , um, sourdoughbread for , uh, new Year or
(01:30):
Christmas Eve. And I slid onthe stairs and I slid halfway
down the stairs. And I don'tknow if I broke my toe, but I,
my little pinky toe was reallyhurt. And I mean, it turned a
really gross , like it wasalmost black that first day.
It's, it's better now. Like aslong as I don't bump it or
(01:52):
anything, like, it's fine. Butmore importantly, I bruised or
broke my tailbone. And so I'mstill dealing with that, which
was not fine . So I, that is,yeah, I do not recommend zero,
zero of 10. Do not recommendbreak , uh, hurting your
tailbone. And so then I spent alot of that the rest of the
(02:13):
time home, like, you know,having a hard time sitting and
like, just not great. And thenas I was getting ready to the
day before I was supposed tofly back, like my allergies,
I'm sure you can hear, I don'tsound my best right now. My
allergies really kicked off andI was really sick that last day
home. And I , um, I'm stilldealing with the cough, so
(02:34):
hopefully it won't be too bad.
I'm sure. Um , Meg, our amazingeditor, will edit around it as
much as possible, but that iswhy my voice is not quite what
you're used to hearing today.
Uh , I'm still dealing withthat. So I don't know who I
made mad , but it was , um, itwas a rough holiday. But all
that, all that being said, Istill, it was lovely to get to
(02:56):
spend 10 days with my mom and ,um, see my , uh, family,
broader family for our big ,uh, Christmas Eve party. Um, I
did some baking while I washome. Also very exciting a co
oh man, it feels like foreverago, I guess it was like almost
seven years ago when my mom anddad and I went to Tanzania. Um,
(03:19):
I had bought some tanzaniteand, but it , I just got the
loose stones and I never foundlike the person I wanted to
have set them in a piece orlike, I just never took that
step to like get it turned intojewelry. And so when I was home
in August this year , uh, mymom and I went to a jeweler and
they designed something for methat I helped with. And yeah,
(03:43):
so when I went home forChristmas, my ring and a
necklace were ready. So thatwas super exciting to finally
get that. And yeah, it was , it, like I said, other than being
sick and either sick or injuredor sick and injured, it was, it
was nice. I really, I stayedmostly off of social media. I
(04:04):
did a ton of reading, just alittle bit of baking and got a
lot of quality time with mymom. So , um, it was nice. Oh,
and like we decorated the bigChristmas tree one when I got
home and was feeling up to it.
Um, so it was, it was like homefor the holidays and there was
snow, so like it was a whiteChristmas, so it was like
(04:25):
everything I needed. Sohopefully this cough and my
throat are betterbefore I need to record next
time, hopefully just soon.
Anyway, I'm really kinda sickof the, the hacking cough, but
I'm definitely on the mend , sothat is good. I think with
that, let's move to this week'sepisode. I am really excited to
(04:46):
have on Susan Rin Kunis , whois an independent journalist
who writes on sexual andreproductive health and rights
to kind of do a look back atlast year and what's happened
and to do a look ahead of whatwe are keeping an eye out for
in this coming year. Um, sowith that, let's go to my
interview with Susan. Hi Susan.
Thank you so much for beinghere.
Speaker 2 (05:08):
Hi Jenny . Thanks for having me on.
Speaker 1 (05:09):
Before we get into our conversation, do you maybe
wanna take a second andintroduce yourself and include
your pronouns?
Speaker 2 (05:15):
Sure. I'm Susan Uni . She, her and I'm an
independent journalist coveringabortion and politics , um, for
various outlets. And I've beenon staff for Jezebel Vice and
The
Speaker 1 (05:27):
Cut . And I feel like I've been reading you for
a very long time, but again,it's the, like, time has lost
all meanings. So that could belike a year, it could be like
10 years, I don't know , but itfeels like forever. So I'm so
excited to finally talk to you.
Uh ,
Speaker 2 (05:40):
What is Time
? I'm glad to be here.
Speaker 1 (05:43):
Seriously. Um, so I thought since this is gonna be
our first episode of the NewYear, it might be good to do
like a little bit of a lookback on 2024. 'cause again,
with that time losing allmeaning, it's hard to remember
like all of the things thathappened in the last year, and
obviously we're not gonna getto all of them 'cause there
(06:04):
were a lot. But what are someof the big things you think
about when you think back over2024?
Speaker 2 (06:10):
I'm sure I'm gonna forget some of them. Um, so
this is not meant to be , uh,exhaustive. Yeah . But I think
one of the big things as we sawduring the presidential
campaign was Donald Trump andJD Vance trying to redefine
what an abortion ban is. Theyseem to act like an abor , a
(06:30):
federal abortion ban is onlyone that would ban every single
abortion nationwide, noexceptions. And as we talk
about what's gonna happen thisyear, I think that that little
sleight of hand is going to bereally important because they
might do things that reallyrestrict access to abortion in
various ways, but they can turnaround and be like, what do you
mean? People can still get anabortion sometimes in some
(06:53):
places. So that's a really hugeone, I would say. I think the
fact that , um, Donald Trumpwas telling people that he
wouldn't sign a federal ban orthat he doesn't support banning
abortion nationwide actuallyties into the ballot measures
that we saw this fall wherethere were 10 on the ballot and
(07:16):
seven of them passed, and someof them passed in states where
Donald Trump also carried thestate. So it seemed like people
wanted to have their cake andneed it to vote for a candidate
who claimed that he would notban abortion and then turn
around , um, and said theywanted to protect abortion in
the state constitution, kind ofas a , a backup. The sad fact
(07:37):
is that federal restrictionswould almost, in every case,
override state constitutionalprotections. So I , I mean, can
I curse on this podcast?
?
Speaker 1 (07:50):
I don't have a problem with it.
Speaker 2 (07:51):
Okay. Um, 2025 is potentially gonna be like,
around , find out season , um,ffo , FAFO. We'll see what
kinds of federal restrictionshappen and whether or not
people who split their vote onabortion or voted for Trump
thinking he wouldn't do any ofthis. You know, we'll see if
they have any kind ofrealization about how they
(08:16):
contributed to this.
Speaker 1 (08:17):
Yeah. You know, it was really hard to like hold
the, like, optimism of, like,abortion was on the state on
the ballot in 10 states, and itwon in seven, I mean,
technically eight 'cause ofFlorida, which just didn't have
enough to meet that 60%threshold. But like that is
huge that it won in so manydiverse states. Um , but then
(08:40):
you saw like the federalelection results and like my
brain automatically went tothinking through like all of
the ways that the new adminisincoming administration was
gonna be harmful to those wins.
But like those were still hugewins.
Speaker 2 (08:54):
Yeah, it's a lot of dissonance. Um, they , they
feel like big wins and it'sgreat to see ballot measures
pass in states like Arizona andMissouri. You know, that's,
that's looks amazing. But thenalso, as you and your listeners
might be aware, there's animplementation fight in
Missouri, and even though , um,amendment three passed there ,
(09:19):
um, a judge said that, sure,the total abortion ban in
Missouri is overturned, but allthese other restrictions are
still in place, including areally key one that clinics in
the state need to get a licensefrom the State Department of
Health. And right now abortionis not accessible because no
clinic in the state has alicense and, and there's other
(09:40):
restrictions that , um, plannedParenthood and the people
challenging the bans say justco completely make it
impossible for them to provideabortion. So even within a
state, people are feelingdissonance of, Hey, we passed
this ballot measure and yet westill don't have access , um,
almost two months later.
Speaker 1 (09:59):
Yeah, I mean, you've definitely seen those fights in
other states take a while toget to where there has been
greater access.
Speaker 2 (10:05):
Right. Including Ohio, where there's still
litigating over things. Um,Ohio had its ban blocked for
most of the time since Dobbs.
So it's slightly differentsituation since , uh, as
compared to Missouri whereabortion has been banned mostly
since Dobbs. But yeah, even inOhio, they're still, they're
still fighting in , um, statecourts and against the state
(10:27):
legislature trying to make surethat the voters will is, you
know, actually in effect.
Speaker 1 (10:34):
I think the other big thing I've been thinking
about is the ways we've seenthe attacks on abortion and the
attacks on trans rights, likejust being like mirror images
of each other, just likefollowing that exact same
playbook. And that really stoodout even more last year.
Speaker 2 (10:52):
It was really, really explicit. And I think
that there are gonna be somepeople who wanna keep these
things separate because theythink that they're not linked,
but it's the same groups goingafter people's rights and
they're making some similararguments, but the end goal is
the same. I think that that'swhat's really important for
people to understand. Um, you ,you might think that, oh,
(11:16):
abortion is about like womenand keeping women in subjugated
places and, and male controlover women's bodies. But it's
really just about the genderdynamic of that and wanting to,
you know, make sure that , um,people are following
traditional gender roles andlike the, you know, ideal of a
Christian family. I mean, a lotof these groups that are
pushing , um, abortion bans andbans on transgender care or
(11:37):
even trans kids in sports,like, let's name that too. It's
not just the bans on medicalcare. These groups like
Alliance Defending Freedom oryou know, the Heritage
Foundation. They don't likeanything that attacks gender
roles broadly. They want like amale patriarchal Christian
society. So I think that that'skey. And you know, if people,
(12:00):
you know, people with genderdysphoria, even people who are
non-binary, right? People maynot even want to transition to
a gender other than what theywere assigned , um, at birth.
But people who are non-binary,like that's a threat to like a
specific part of the Republicanmovement. It's the, you know,
the conservative Christianmovement, evangelical , um, as
(12:21):
well. And I think that it'sjust like people need to see
the forest for the trees here.
Um, it's not just attacks onwomen, it's attacks on anybody
who wants to like, challengethe longstanding ideals of like
who is in charge of the familyand what the family should look
like.
Speaker 1 (12:37):
And you definitely see like the anti-abortion
playbook being used, right?
Like they're starting withyoung people, which is how a
lot of the abortion bansstarted, right? Was like going
after young people. And youknow, it's one of those things
that if you, like, if you don'tthink deeply about some of
these issues that like, it maysound reasonable on its face,
(13:00):
but then you start to like,hear more about it and like
understand the issues at stake,you can see the real problems,
but you're really starting tosee that playbook being built
and you're seeing it alsorepeated with birth control
with that Title 10 case inTexas.
Speaker 2 (13:15):
Absolutely. Um, yeah, attacking minors is a way
for the right wing to go afterrights for more people later
on. They just, I feel like theyhave the legal end to do it for
minors first. And, and it'ssuch a good point. And I wanna
, um, go back to, you know,bands on trans kids playing
sports , um, and people mightthink, yeah, that that makes a
(13:37):
lot of sense. Yeah . Like ,let's, you know, whatever, I'm
not even gonna repeat some ofthe arguments. Yeah . But , but
the , the problem is that ifyou read reporting, I mean,
there's this huge New Yorkerpiece , um, on alliance
defending freedom in October,2023. And there's been other
reporting , um, including inthe New York Times. I don't
remember exactly when, butthese groups tried something
(13:58):
different first and failed. Andthat's when they went after
trans kids in sports. The firstthing they tried was bathroom
bans in 2016 in North Carolina.
And that backfired so hugelythat , um, they decided, you
know, like the NCAA pulled outof its , uh, of a tournament ,
um, that was gonna be in NorthCarolina because the state
passed a bill that trans kidshad to use a bathroom for their
(14:21):
sex assigned at birth. And thatpeople were just like, what?
Like, that's creepy. Like whyare we talking about bathrooms?
And so they, they went tosports after that and then they
also went to , um, medical carefor minors after that. And
you'll even see that peoplegiving interviews who are
speaking maybe a little toofreely say things like, oh, we
(14:41):
want to ban medical care foradults, but the support isn't
there yet. And our pollingshows us the , the support is
there to do it for kids. Sowe're gonna do that first.
It's, it's literally like,again, going back to the
abortion , um, context, peoplemight say in polls that they
don't support abortion accessafter a certain point in
(15:02):
pregnancy. And antis kind ofuse that wedge to get in and do
things like overturn Roe v Wadewith a ban after , um, on
abortion after 15 weeks. Butthen the actual end goal is to
ban all abortions nationwide.
So we should not be separatingthese two , um, lines of
attack. They are the same lineof attack. And I think that's
(15:22):
really important for yourlisteners to keep in mind in
2025 and going forward.
Speaker 1 (15:25):
So what else are you thinking about when you think
about last year?
Speaker 2 (15:29):
One of the , it happened early on, and it may ,
I kind of almost forgot that ithappened last year and not like
three years ago, but theAlabama State Supreme Court ,
um, ruling that in , in alawsuit over some embryos , um,
created for IVF that, you know,a clinic that destroyed some
inadvertently, you know, couldbe sued for wrongful death,
(15:51):
right? That's like civillitigation. It's not criminal,
but at the same time, it'sstill a fetal personhood
argument that fertilized eggs,embryos, and, you know, then
later up to fetuses have rightsunder the law. And this is an
extremely dangerous argumentthat , um, basically negates
the rights of women andpregnant people. And it was
really interesting to see thebacklash to that, you know,
(16:14):
from IVF patients in Alabamatalking about what it meant to
them. And then also lawmakersat the state and federal level
saying, see , we told you , um,that this was gonna happen
after Dobbs. And then it movedinto Republican lawmakers
saying, oh, no, no, we supportIVF, what are you talking
about? And passing somenonsense. Or, you know, trying
to pass some nonsense inCongress that was just nominal
(16:37):
support for IVF, but doesn'tactually do anything. And that
, um, you know, Republicanresolution came at the same
time that people werehighlighting how many
Republican members of Congresshad co-sponsored bills called
the Life at Conception Act.
Right. Where they'respecifically saying that life
begins at fertilization. Andthat would lead to a total ban
(16:58):
on abortion. It would changethe way IVF is practiced
because it would mean peoplewould have to create like one
embryo at a time, not do anygenetic testing and implant
that embryo and then see whathappens, right? And that's, you
know, unworkable for so manyfamilies. 'cause IVF is
expensive , um, or people aregetting older and they don't,
they can't wait to be doing,you know, these, these year ,
(17:20):
months and years long , um,cycles. So the IVF and fetal
personhood aspect was a hugething , um, earlier this year.
And I, I am curious to seewhat's gonna happen going
forward.
Speaker 1 (17:31):
Yeah. Because it even felt like, so there was
like the big burst, like whenit happened, but then you could
start seeing like as it gotfurther and further away that
the conversation was going backto what it was before it
happened. So like, did anythingactually change? Like it really
doesn't feel like it
Speaker 2 (17:51):
Did anything actually change? I mean, later
we sorry, I'm stillreminded of Trump saying like,
oh, I'm the, I'm the father offertilization, or I'm like, you
know, the , I'm the biggestlike supporter of IVF , all
this stuff. It's just, he sayswhatever he wants. And people,
some people believe him. Andthen it was , um, this , I
think the Southern BaptistConvention said later in the
(18:12):
year that they didn't supportIVF.
Speaker 1 (18:15):
Oh god, I totally forgot about that. Exactly.
It's, again, there's so manythings happening all at once.
Like, it just hard to retainlike all of the many things
that have happened. And, andhonestly, the , I that's
something that has been likejust stating in the back of my
head as we've been talking is,you know , you talked about
the, like trying to redefinewhat a ban is, but like we've
(18:38):
also been seeing for years, butI think it was kind of giving
some new life again last year,was just redefining what an
abortion is coming up as well.
And I , that also worries me ,uh, going into next year.
Speaker 2 (18:53):
That's a huge thing because republicans don't want
to be associated with anydeaths that come after abortion
bans. Like we've seen thedevastating reporting from
ProPublica and other outletsand they want to say things
like, oh, it's totally legalto, you know, treat ectopic
pregnancies or miscarriagesthat lead to sepsis, that kind
(19:15):
of thing. But they're justignoring the fact that
hospitals and the lawyers atthose hospitals are navigating
all kinds of other risks. Andhowever, lawmakers wrote these
bills doesn't work in real lifeand that's why you're seeing
care get delayed. That's whyyou're seeing people not being
offered Dees or aspirationswhen they are miscarrying and
(19:41):
being like watched to , to seeif they get better. And some of
these women are dying. I I just ectopic pregnancy
treatment. Yeah. They're alwayslike, that's a lie. It's always
legal to treat this. And theone thing I do wanna add is
when you look at these , um,abortion groups comments on
ectopic pregnancy and how totreat it, what they want people
(20:02):
to do is have , uh, theirfallopian tube where the
pregnancy is implanted,removed. Like they want people
to have a surgery instead ofgetting , um, a medication
injected to end the pregnancy.
And that's just, they , theywanna mandate like an invasive
procedure instead of lettingpeople choose what's best for
(20:25):
them. And it's crazy.
Speaker 1 (20:26):
Well, and this brings me back to like one of
my like personal like passionsas somebody who came up like
with, in like a science fieldof like the anti-science ness
and like things that they push. This is taking me back to,
I've kind of lost track of likewhen this exactly was, but the
like medication abortionreversal and like seeing coming
(20:48):
up now talking about reimplantlike the embryos and like,
these are not things you can doand like, but they are offering
them like they are actualsolutions.
Speaker 2 (21:01):
Yeah. Medication abortion reversal is something
that these groups have beenpushing for years and they're
actually suing in some statesover laws that are trying to
prevent crisis pregnancycenters or anti-abortion
centers from telling patientsabout this. And they're arguing
that it's like a violation oftheir free speech if states try
(21:24):
to say they can't tell peopleabout this unproven and , uh,
in some studies, like unsafesuggestion. So, but yet we
might see crisis pregnancycenters get more money than
ever from states in the federalgovernment next year. Oh ,
Speaker 1 (21:41):
Okay. So now that we've had like, that like
already bleak conversationabout last year, I guess that
leads us to like next year ornot next year. 'cause it's this
year. Like what, what are youkeeping an eye on this coming
year? Oh,
Speaker 2 (21:56):
There's so much , and I know , I know,
I
Speaker 1 (22:00):
Know. And I like sit in both the global and domestic
space. So there's like Yeah .
The global side too, but wedon't need to talk about that
right now.
Speaker 2 (22:07):
Oh , that's also gonna be really bad. Um, right.
Yeah . Like the , there'sthings that happen on day one
and one of them is, you know,the from a , a switch from ,
uh, democratic to Republicancontrol, right? Like
overturning the Mexico Citypolicy and , and endangering
like the health of women andgirls and , um, people can be
pregnant across the globe.
Yeah. I don't, I don't reallyknow where to start other than
(22:30):
just like, I do wanna remindpeople if they somehow forgot
that it's very likely thatwe're gonna see , um, at least
one retirement on the SupremeCourt at the end of this term.
People who watch this stuffthink it would be Samuel Alito
before Clarence Thomas, becausethey think Alito has gotten
(22:51):
like really ornery and crankyand his wife has made comments
about how he wants to be outtathere. And, you know, Thomas is
allegedly like very stubbornand wants to just be there
until he dies. Um, but yeah, it, it feels like we could see
confirmation hearings thissummer for somebody to replace
(23:12):
one of those guys, if not bothof those guys. Uh , which,
which, and the , the impact ofthat is it doesn't change the ,
um, super majority on thecourt. Uh ,
Speaker 1 (23:22):
But I assume they're going to be very, very young.
Yes. That's,
Speaker 2 (23:25):
That's the thing. It doesn't, it would still be a
six three conservative supermajority. It just means that
that majority will last evenlonger because you can imagine
that Trump would dominatesomebody who is under 50,
right? I I think if, if hechooses somebody over 50, it's
gonna have to to be like areally exceptionally strident
(23:47):
person because they wantsomeone to, to last for a
really long time. And it'sgonna be the , the , the rest
of the things that we're gonnatalk about for what to expect
in 2025, like all that is goingto come up at the confirmation
hearings. And it will beinteresting to see how this
nominee dances around thembecause there's so much that
could happen now that , um, Roev Wade is gone.
Speaker 1 (24:08):
Oh yeah. I haven't even thought about like, some
of those questions of like,with that, the new policy
landscape, right ? And
Speaker 2 (24:15):
Some of the things could be enforcing the Comstock
Act, right? How do they feelabout this law from 1873? Um ,
how does a nominee for a seatfeel about this law? Do they
think that it could be applied, um, to ban the mailing of
any, you know , device or itemthat could be used for
(24:36):
abortion? Which is, I mean,historians have talked about
the Comstock Act was notactually about abortion, it was
about vice. It was about likepeople having , um, sex not for
childbearing and you know,pornography and that kind of
stuff. Um, so conservatives arereally reading this act in a
way that's not faithful tohistory, but, you know , uh,
(24:59):
the Trump administration isgonna do it , um, do something
, um, with it no matter whatthe history is. I, so I'll,
I'll go from there into likethey , the Trump administration
could do something with theComstock Act for abortion
pills, but also they don't haveto do that. They could just
(25:20):
work through the FDA to limitaccess to abortion pills. Um,
and there's, there's two waysthey could, two main ways they
could do that is going back torules that existed in 2016 ,
um, and that were changed underthe , um, Biden administration.
The big one is telemedicine forabortion pills. It used to be
(25:45):
that you had to go in person toget pills that you would take
at home, which made no sense.
And it's because there's allthese regulations on abortion
pills for no reason except forthat they're involved in
abortion. And that wouldreally, that would really
change the landscape of, ofabortion access right now. I
(26:05):
mean, people have been able toget , uh, telemedicine abortion
increasingly, you know, sincethe , the pandemic and saying
that you have to go back toclinics would make it harder
for people who want the pills.
And then it would also make itharder for people who need ,
um, abortion want or needabortion procedures and , um,
may face longer wait times inclinics to get those
(26:28):
procedures.
Speaker 1 (26:29):
Yeah. Like the , what the infrastructure we have
right now cannot absorb thatamount of people who need to go
in person . That's
Speaker 2 (26:37):
Right. And another thing , um, that is listed in
Project 2025, and that otheradvocates have been asking for,
including , um, AllianceDefending Freedom and its
lawsuit over the abortion pill,they want to not only end
telemedicine, but also changerevert the FDA approved label
on Miry stone , the first drugin the , in the regimen. Um,
(26:59):
to, instead of being FDAapproved through 10 weeks of
gestation, they want to revertit back to seven weeks of
gestation. Oof . Um, yeah,it's, it's currently approved
for 70 days right now. Theywanna go back to 49 because
that's what it was in 2016before the label got updated.
And they're trying to claimthat the update was not
(27:21):
evidence-based and, you know,blah, blah , blah. But I mean,
that's also gonna limit , um,the amount of people who can
get pills and mean that morepeople need procedures, which
you just mentioned. Theinfrastructure is not able to
handle that.
Speaker 1 (27:35):
Like , I sorry, y'all, it's just there's so
much and like Yeah ,
Speaker 2 (27:39):
I know
Speaker 1 (27:40):
This is just like one part and like there are so
many other lines of attack thatthey are contemplating that,
like, it's just really hard tothink of all of the people who
need care, who are not going tobe able to get the care they
need. And, and knowing whatthose impacts are, like we have
the turn away study, we knowhow long those impacts can last
(28:02):
and , um, it's, yeah, it's ,it's , it's bad.
Speaker 2 (28:05):
Yeah. It's really bad. Um, and I , I wanna
mention this next thing thatcould happen right after
talking about the changes thatthey want to make to , uh,
abortion pills, because itseems in my mind that they also
want to go after people'ssafety and accessibility at
clinics. So it's not justending care at home and forcing
(28:29):
people to go back to clinics,it's then making those clinics
feel less safe for patients whoare forced to go there. And the
, there are ways they wannamake the clinics less safe,
including overturning , um,laws about buffer zones around
clinics. There's a petition atthe Supreme Court right now,
they haven't taken up the case,but it's , uh, laws in New
(28:50):
Jersey and Illinois aroundbuffer zones. And we'll see if
they take up a case. Theargument, there is a free
speech argument that statesbanning anti-abortion advocates
from speaking to people withina certain distance, like
unconstitutionally limits theirspeech.
Speaker 1 (29:06):
I just have to say, I remember going to SCOTUS for
the last round of this, and Ithink it was snowing. And so
like, I had a sign and it waslike falling apart. So I was
like folding it and walkingback to my office, which is
right behind the Supreme Courtand getting yelled at for
walking on one of thoseinternal sidewalks with the
protest sign that was not beinglike, it was like folded and in
(29:30):
my hand so I could throw itaway and like walking in their
buffer zone. Yes. And the , theirony was just, it was a lot.
Thank
Speaker 2 (29:37):
You for bringing that up because yes, the
Supreme Court has its ownbuffer zone, which they were ,
Speaker 1 (29:41):
That was much bigger than any of the clinics were
asking for. Yeah,
Speaker 2 (29:44):
Yeah. And they will claim that they need that for
their safety. Yep . But yeah,and speaking of safety, the
other thing that anti-abortionadvocates want to undo is the
FACE Act, the freedom of accessto Clinic Entrances Act, which
was passed in the early to midnineties. It's either 93 or 94
maybe. Uh , yeah. But it , itcame after horrific violence
(30:06):
and literal assassinations ofabortion providers, you know,
like, like firebombings ofclinics, all this, all this
kind of thing, you know, fromthe , like the quote unquote
rescue movement of the eightiesand and early nineties. And
there are advocates right nowwho say that now that Roe v
Wade is gone, that there's noconstitutional basis for the
(30:30):
Face Act. If there's no rightto abortion, that there is then
no freedom of access to anabortion clinic as a federal
matter. And we're seeing thisin the lawyers appealing the
sentence of Lauren Handy, theanti-abortion activist who
invaded a clinic in WashingtonDC and was convicted under the
Face Act. She is represented bylawyers from the Thomas Moore
(30:52):
Society, and they are openabout the fact that on Appeal,
they're gonna be asking for theFace Act to get overturned. Um,
and that could take a while .
Um, but there's also thingsthat the administration could
do under Department of Justice, uh, to enforce it completely
differently than it has beenbeing enforced
Speaker 1 (31:11):
Somehow. This has flown under my radar. Uh, so
thanks for bringing it up. Itjust makes me think of, yeah ,
whose book was it ? I think itwas maybe the one that Lauren
Rankin wrote about clinicescorts that was going through
a lot of that early history oflike, the movements that were
not just like the , thebombings and the , the
(31:34):
assassination attempts, butlike the people going and like
handcuffing themselves to theclinics and stuff, and like
really getting a bigger pictureof like how bad that was. Like
I had like a general idea oflike remembering it happening,
but like reading through likeall of the stuff that was
happening then was prettyhorrific.
Speaker 2 (31:52):
Yeah. And yeah, it's good that you're getting
specific there. And just tomention what Lauren Handy was
accused and convicted of , um,was leading a clinic invasion
and the people she was with hadbike locks, like heavy chains,
and they changed their, likenecks together and they tied
(32:13):
themselves to chairs in thewaiting room. I mean, they
called and made a fakeappointment and, and then
entered the clinic under that,you know, false pretense and
then ran in and tried to justblock patients from accessing
care. And so this is not justsweet little people prey
outside. Yep . Okay. And that'show they frame it, right? They
(32:35):
say the Biden administration ispersecuting these people for,
you know, peaceful prayer andthey might be praying in those
chairs, but they are also likeviolently interrupting people's
access to medical care. And infact , um, sometimes hurting ,
um, clinic staff who try to, totry to intervene or hurting
patients. So, so there's, youknow, legal challenges there.
(32:58):
And then also there's , um, repChip Roy from Texas has
introduced a bill to overturnthe Face Act in Congress, which
probably doesn't have enoughvotes to pass, but there are
other, obviously other avenueslike the executive branch and
the , um, judicial branch wherethis could be a big problem. I
know. Well, and that's.
(33:18):
I'm gonna move to the, the nextone, which is also a
multi-prong attack to achievethe same goal. And that is,
quote unquote defunding PlannedParenthood. Um, that came up on
the campaign trail a littlebit. Um, it was, you know, JD
Vance mentioned it in someinterviews, but it wasn't
really something that you heardfrom Trump as far as I can
(33:40):
recall. But it's something thatconservatives have been after
for a long time. And there's acouple things here. First of
all, the Hyde Amendment, whichis unjust and inequitable
already bans federal dollarsfrom being used for abortion
care. Although states can saythat they want their Medicaid
dollars to fund this, thiscare. But the , just the idea
that there is, you know,funding allocated directly to
(34:04):
Planned Parenthood is amisnomer. There's Title 10
funding, which you mentionedearlier, but that's not, that's
given to states. And thenpeople have to apply for grants
and have to get approved. It'snot just like, oh yeah, here
we're gonna throw you millionsand millions of dollars. Um ,
and then there's also Medicaidfunding. And again, that's not
just like, oh yeah, line itemlike 11 D Planned Parenthood
(34:25):
dollars for Planned Parenthood.
It's people who have Medicaidhealth insurance go to a
provider that accepts theirinsurance, and then that
provider bills Medicaid for theservices.
Speaker 1 (34:37):
And that can often be hard to find and hard to get
appointments, especiallyquickly for family planning and
reproductive health. AndPlanned Parenthood is like the
place you can easily get yourappointments. Yeah ,
Speaker 2 (34:50):
Yeah. And it's covering things like , um,
birth control STI testing andtreatment cancer screenings
like pap smears and breastexams, HIV testing. Um, I ,
which is also an STI , but I'mcalling that one out
specifically. Like these areYeah . You know, really
important services and can belifesaving. And when
Republicans say that they wannaquote unquote defund Planned
(35:10):
Parenthood, what they mean isthey want it to be harder in
effect. They want it to beharder for people to get these
services because there aren't alot of places where people do
like low cost or sliding scaleaccess to things like , um,
birth control. So there's,there's a couple ways that this
(35:31):
quote unquote defunding couldhappen. And one of them is a
lawsuit. The Supreme Court justtook up a case out of South
Carolina where that state triedto exclude Planned Parenthood
from the Medicaid program. And, um, lower court said, you
can't do that. They arequalified to provide this care,
and they're not using the moneyfor abortion. So what's your
(35:51):
reasoning? And , um, theSupreme Court is gonna hear
that case this term, whichmeans we would get a decision ,
um, this June probably, wedon't know when the arguments
are yet. Um, there's also , uh,there's probably gonna be a , a
federal bill to defund, but Idon't know if it would pass,
given how small the majority isin the house and the fact that
(36:15):
Yeah. The , the Senate majorityis what, 53, 54 and two of
those, and like Collins andMurkowski. Collins and
Murkowski, yeah. Yeah . Younever know. You never know. I
mean , generally they're goodon this, but also, but Right.
So it , or it could pass, Idon't know, maybe I'm being
naive. Yeah . But , um, thenthis kind of sleeper, the
sleeper aspect of this is , um,there's a lawsuit in Texas and
(36:39):
an anonymous plaintiff claimsto be a whistleblower and is
saying that the Texas affiliateof Planned Parenthood defrauded
the United States governmentand the state of Texas , um, by
continuing to bill Medicaidduring four years in which a ,
a state court case over whetherTexas could kick Planned
(37:00):
Parenthood out of the programwas ongoing. This case could
bankrupt Planned Parenthoodbecause of the, it's, it's
crazy. Let me , let mestipulate. This case is crazy.
It's under the False ClaimsAct, and it's like, this is not
how it's supposed to work. Andalso , um, planned Parenthood
is saying in Texas, you know,knew we were billing them for
Medicaid services while thelawsuit was ongoing. Like
(37:22):
there's no, there's, there's nofraud here. Like, what are you
talking about? But , um, I,it's only worrisome because of
course it was filed in thecourtroom of Judge Matthew
Kamarck in Amarillo, Texas.
Whoa . What? No. And , um,reporting has , um, uncovered
that the plaintiff in the casebears striking resemblance to
(37:45):
David De Laden the , um, headof the Center for Medical
Progress. Oh my God . Yeah.
There's, there's a really good,of course, of course. There's a
really great story from , um,Kaiser Health News , um, that
un uh , uncovered some likeredacted documents and, you
know, a a a Kame filing said,you know, plaintiff was the
president of Center for MedicalProgress and did undercover
(38:06):
video stuff. So Yeah . So nowJenny , we're gonna talk about
the 2015 videos from PlannedParent. That's where all this
comes from. Yeah. This, thisguy David Leyden , it said that
he was doing journalism. It's,it's like Project Veritas
journalism, it's not real. And,and spoke to Planned Parenthood
executives about donating,about their practice of
(38:26):
donating , um, fetal tissue forscientific research and getting
reimbursed for the costs oftransporting that tissue. Like
this is all legal and fetaltissue research helps , uh,
with scientific advancement,all this . But he tried to make
it like they were, quote ,selling baby body parts. Quote.
Yeah. And this is this videoseries from July, 2015 or that
(38:48):
summer led to states like Texasand South Carolina trying to
kick Planned Parenthood out ofMedicaid programs. It has led
to lawmakers saying thatPlanned Parenthood should not
get any federal funding. Um,and so even though this has all
been like debunked asdeceptively edited, and even
though David delayed in , likelost many court cases and
(39:10):
actually had to pay PlannedParenthood money , um,
for, you know, like hisundercut, I don't know, like
they , they lost in court andthey're still using this
talking point and they'retrotting it out. I literally
saw people sharing videos ofthis on Twitter , um, last week
saying that like, oh , this iswhat they're doing, blah, blah,
blah . So we're gonna see this, um, come back. And , um, oh,
(39:33):
side note, Leonard Leo , um,gave David Dein legal advice ,
uh, on those videos and , um,maybe helping him in this
lawsuit. That's , that's alsoin the , in the Kaiser health
news story.
Speaker 1 (39:45):
Of course,
Speaker 2 (39:46):
That's the former chair of the Federalist
Society. He's deeply involvedwith groups like Students for
Life, and he's also like , and
Speaker 1 (39:52):
Supreme Court nominees
Speaker 2 (39:53):
And Supreme Court nominee. Right. He's, he's
friends with , um, Alito andThomas and , um, also like
unsurprisingly alignedDefending Freedom has also like
supported delayed in this videothing. And it's just like they,
they want , they want tocompletely kneecap Planned
Parenthood because of theservices it offers, not just
abortion, but also things likebirth control and gender
(40:14):
affirming care. They hate that.
Planned Parenthood offersgender affirming care. Yeah .
And it's all back to the thingwe talked about at the top,
like gender roles.
Speaker 1 (40:21):
Well, and also back to, you know, talking about
those deceptively edited videosand like what they led to, but
they also led to that shootingin Colorado. So back to like
the violence
Speaker 2 (40:31):
A hundred percent.
In, in I think November, 2015,a disturbed person came to a
Planned Parenthood clinic inColorado and killed multiple
people and injured , um,several others. And he was like
muttering about baby parts. Um,and that was after like the
highly publicized hearingswhere Cecile Richards came to
Congress and testified , um,for
Speaker 1 (40:54):
That was so long. I remember watching that. It was
a really long
Speaker 2 (40:56):
Day. Yeah . And so that was, that's gonna be 10
years ago , um, the summer andlike these, so, so these, you ,
you bring, thank you formentioning that shooting
because like these tacticsdon't all only impact people's
access to medical care. Theyalso like necessarily result in
violence because there arepeople who believe that, you
(41:17):
know, abortion is murder and sothey're going to kill in
response. Okay.
Speaker 1 (41:23):
There are like so many other things that I'm like
worried about in this upcomingyear. Maybe let's touch on ,
um, one more. We talked aboutgender affirming care from last
year. What are you like keepingan eye on for 2025 for around
that
Speaker 2 (41:38):
People in the space of hating trans people want to
make ahy amendment for genderaffirming care. They want to
make no federal funding , um,in Medicaid go toward this
care, not just for kids, butfor adults. Uh , like there ,
there's a guy named JohnSchwepp, he's , um, at the
American Principles Project andhe told NPR in an interview
that, that that's what hewants. And literally quote, we
(42:02):
definitely, one of our goals isto create a Hyde amendment for
so-called gender affirmingcare. He literally says that.
So yeah, if you don't believeus that these fights are
linked, like believe them whenthey say
Speaker 1 (42:12):
It. Yeah. And I know we're definitely keeping an eye
out for a global version , likewith the global gag rule, like
a , a version that's gonna alsotouch gender affirming care,
whether that's in the day oneone or somewhere further down
the road , uh, because theyneed to get some more ducks in
the line. We're, we'redefinitely keeping an eye on
that and think we fully expectto see some version of a global
(42:35):
gag around gender , um,transgender issues. It's just
like one of those we've reallystarted to see in the global
space more. Yeah. Um, I think ,I think that hasn't necessarily
been getting quite as muchattention, but like it's really
become challenging working onany, just like overall gender
issues. And I think we're alsogonna see like some shifts
around language there. I thinkwe've really made a lot of
(42:58):
progress on talking about, youknow, gender based violence and
like a lot of like language andbeing more inclusive. And I
think we're gonna see a lot ofthat get rolled back and seeing
a lot more focus on women andgirls again, and really
excluding people from , um,access to care
Speaker 2 (43:14):
Really quickly. I do wanna mention that there , we
can expect attacks on birthcontrol as well. And I think
that a lot of people are like,ah , they're not gonna ban
birth control. Oh yeah . Maybethey won't immediately, but
what I think they're gonna dois make it harder to afford.
And that could be throughthings like kicking Planned
Parenthood outta Medicaid, butalso making it easier for
(43:34):
private insurance to not coverbirth control. And that could
be, or
Speaker 1 (43:39):
Redefining again, what's abortion, right? Uhhuh
. So like sayingcertain things aren't birth
control or abortion.
Speaker 2 (43:45):
Exactly. And one of the things called out by name
in project 2025 is oneemergency, one form of
emergency contraception calledElla, it's prescription only.
And they claim that it's likechemically similar to abortion
pill, which is non , I meanwhatever. It's nonsense. So
they say that that shouldn'thave to be covered by
insurance, but then alsothere's a quote unquote moral
(44:07):
exemption to the contraceptivemandate that , um, Trump tried
to enact in his first term andthey could bring that back. Yes
. Um , and so that could makeit harder for people to afford
birth control and that likethey could do that without
overturning griswolds e eventhough groups also want to
overturn Griswold the , theruling that allowed people to
use birth control.
Speaker 1 (44:28):
I think, you know, one of the things I feel like
we've talked about in some ofthe advocacy spaces is how the
first term there was so much ofthey had to do the learning on
how to do the things. And likethey've already done that. And
so starting now or startingwhen the new administration is
sworn in, they already know howto do the things and work the
(44:49):
levers so they can hit theground running in a way that
they were not able to beforebecause they had to learn how
to use all the things. And sowe could see some of these
things happening faster thanthey did previously. Yeah. Plus
project 2025, it's all rightthere. Absolutely. Okay, well
this is all terribly depressingand , um, it's gonna be a long
(45:10):
year, four years, whatever.
Let's turn, I really love toend not on the like
hopelessness, but like how canthe audience get involved? What
are some things the audiencecan do to get involved in all
of this?
Speaker 2 (45:23):
I think as we have been discussing, it's gonna be
more difficult than ever to beable to afford to prevent
pregnancy and afford to haveabortions because of the things
that , um, republicans wannado. Like more people are gonna
have to travel or, you know,like to get care, all , all
(45:43):
this kinda stuff. So I thinkone thing people can do is
support abortion funds andother reproductive justice
groups like locally , um, or inyour region because these
groups not only provide mutualaid support for abortion
appointments, but they're alsodoing things like handing out
free emergency contraception,pregnancy tests, condoms , um,
and even some of these groupseven hand out things like
diapers to help people who ,um, choose to parent or were
(46:06):
unfortunately forced to parent.
So I think that like gettinginvolved that way is, is really
important and something that ,uh, like a tangible way you can
help people , um, under the ,the second Trump
administration. Another thingpeople can do is advocate for
politics at the state level,which is gonna be really
important. And I understandthat I say this as someone
living in New York where I havedemocratic controlled
(46:29):
legislature, but I think youcan also make a difference in
places where it's, it's morepurple or, you know, work to
elect lawmakers in your statethat's like gerrymandered or
Republican controlled. But ,um, what states and localities
are doing is funding , uh,abortion care directly or, you
know, they're like Illinois ,um, and the city of Chicago are
(46:51):
, are funding Chicago abortionfund. There's even some cities
in Texas , um, like citiesbecause that's, you know, local
in a , in a conservativecontrolled state that are , um,
funding reproductive justiceorganizations. And that , um,
will really help people get thecare they need. And you can
support, you know, lawmakerswho sponsor and, and like enact
these bills because they'llprobably get a lot of hate. So
(47:11):
hearing from you , um, if yousupport it is, is gonna be
helpful to them.
Speaker 1 (47:16):
And even if you're in a blue state, like there may
be policies that could bebetter. Absolutely. We have, we
do a 50 state report card everyyear that looks through a ,
like a wide range of, of issuesrelated to sexual reproductive
health and rights. And youwould be surprised at some of
the states that have liketerrible sex ed policies, New
(47:36):
York being one of them,Massachusetts doesn't mandate
any form of sex ed. So likethere are states where you may
think they're doing really wellin some areas, but maybe doing
poorly in others. So we haven'treleased , uh, this coming
years yet, but you can checkout last year's , um, on our
website. Yeah,
Speaker 2 (47:53):
Very good point. And yeah, New York is absolutely
not perfect. Thank you formentioning the sex ed. Another
thing is , um, Medicaidreimbursements are too low for
abortion care in New York andso many states and in fact,
that specific issue is one thatPlanned Parenthood of Greater
New York cited when it saidthat it was , um, reducing
abortion services in the statefrom through 24 weeks to 20
(48:16):
weeks. That happened earlierthis year. And they said
specifically that they can'tafford to provide care because
they're not being paid enough.
Um ,, and this actuallyis pivots kind of in my , into
my next point. I just talkedabout like abortion at 24 weeks
versus abortion at 20 weeks.
And I think we're gonna see atthe federal level attacks on
(48:38):
later abortion because again,this is what people think polls
. Well, and some people mighteven say, sure, yeah, I don't
think I would get an abortionthen, but does that mean you
actually support a federal banon it? Maybe some people say
yes, but I think in 2025 andbeyond, people who support
bodily autonomy need to notleave people behind. And you
know, like if and when peoplestart talking about like, oh
(49:01):
yeah, that's a reasonablerestriction. It's like you are
seeding ground that could beused to bring it down even
further. Right? Go down to 15weeks, go down to 12, go down
to six. Any like federal ban ,um, on abortion based on
gestation is like not somethingpeople who support bodily
autonomy should tolerate. Andlike quickly while we talk
(49:23):
about this, like I think it'salso important to think about
who actually gets abortionsafter 20 weeks. And it's not
just people who get devastatingfetal diagnoses, like those
people exist and are important,but we also should include in
our thoughts and advocacy , um,that it's people who find out
they're , uh, pregnant later inpregnancy, like if they're very
(49:43):
young or if they're like asexual abuse survivor. Um, and
then also bans and restrictionspush people later into
pregnancy if because peoplecan't afford the care , um,
they don't have paid time offwork. Yes. Um, they, you know,
like they make an appointmentand it's for $1,200 and they
say, I need time to get thatmoney. And then they have the
(50:05):
money, they come back and theclinic says, okay, you're
further along and it's x youknow, hundreds or thousands of
dollars more. Like this is asystemic snowball problem. Yeah
. And like, we should includeall of those people and not
leave them behind by sayingthat, oh , it's okay to ban
abortion later in pregnancy.
It's not
Speaker 1 (50:23):
A hundred percent.
And you know , um, I had agreat conversation with , um,
oh God , my brain is like notpulling the name and Diane ,
I'm so sorry, Diana , uh,partners in care in Maryland.
Oh yeah.
Speaker 2 (50:38):
Diane Hardoff .
Speaker 1 (50:39):
Thank you. I'm like, name not coming to me saying at
what point in a person'spregnancy is the state more
qualified to make decisionsabout their healthcare than
they are? And that is what thatconversation is about. And I
thought that was such a greatway to put it.
Speaker 2 (50:55):
It absolutely is.
And you know, peopleshould be able to decide their
own medical care and liketrying to get people to like
support some sort of ban. Um,again, you're just doing their
work for them because once theyare able to ban it at 20 weeks,
they're gonna keep going. Like,we saw that , um, think about
all the abortion bans passed inlike 2019, like , um, or it's
(51:18):
just , well, 2018 was the , theMississippi law at 15 weeks
that turned into Dobbs and thenthe next year it was like six
week bands. Right. So it'sjust, it's, it's a never ending
, um, race to the bottom andlike people should not
participate in it.
Speaker 1 (51:30):
And like how those six week week bands were used
to then push, okay, that'scrazy, we can't do that. And
okay, well here's this otherbill that is ready to go, that
was a 15 week ban, a 20 weekban. And then, you know, so
watch out for some of thosethings that seem so wild , um,
(51:52):
because then they're used tobring in a , a gentler version,
heavy air quotes. Yeah . Um,that then paves the way to do
that more restrictive versionlater.
Speaker 2 (52:02):
Another part of like not leaving people bind is ,
um, people are gonna, morepeople than ever are gonna be
criminalized for pregnancyoutcomes. Um , whether that's
miscarriage or whether that isbecause they self-manage an
abortion. Yeah . And as someonewho's reported on these cases,
there's people who aresympathetic and then there's a
lot of people saying like, oh,they shouldn't have done that.
And how, look how far alongthey were in pregnancy,
(52:25):
prosecutors go after people whowere further along in pregnancy
for the same reasons thatlawmakers want to ban abortion
later in pregnancy because theythink they will get public
support for it. And then theycan go after people earlier and
earlier. So like, people shouldunderstand why someone is
self-managing an abortion andthere are lots of reasons and
(52:45):
like evict the cop in yourhead, as some people say.
Right. You know, if you supportbodily autonomy, it is
antithetical to that to supportpeople being criminalized for
ending their pregnancies. Uh ,yeah,
Speaker 1 (52:59):
Go ahead. Yeah, no, I was just say, if you wanna
support people who are dealingwith being criminalized, the
repro Legal Defense Fund is agreat , um, group to
Speaker 2 (53:08):
Support and pregnancy justice as well.
There's like, yes , there'sgroups that are helping people
, um, in these situationsbecause they are unfortunately
more likely, I bring this up asa segue into another action
item, which is plan c pills.orgis a website with a lot of
information and they also havestickers that people can , um,
buy and, and put up in, youknow, like bathroom stalls and,
(53:29):
and other spaces to spreadinformation about , um,
abortion with pills and , andeven self-managed abortion. And
I wanted to bring up thecriminalization aspect first
because one, some people might, might not feel safe putting
up these stickers, but thentwo, when more people are
self-managing their abortions,there's gonna be more , um,
opportunities for lawenforcement to get involved.
(53:51):
And I think we should all justbe cognizant of that, that like
self-managing abortion isimportant and will continue,
but it also isn't like abandaid or a panacea because of
the, like the criminal legalsystem in the United States.
Speaker 1 (54:06):
Oh . These are all such great things for everybody
to think through. So many greatways to get involved. Susan,
thank you so much for doingthis. I had so much fun talking
to you about such horriblethings.
Speaker 2 (54:19):
Horrible, horrible things. That's that's what it's
like. It's like, oh, this wasgood but bad.
Speaker 1 (54:23):
Yeah. Bad. And giving me new things to worry
about that I hadn't beenworried about. So thanks .
Speaker 2 (54:29):
I'm so sorry.
.
Speaker 1 (54:33):
All right . Thanks for being here.
Speaker 2 (54:34):
Thank you.
Speaker 1 (54:35):
Okay, y'all, I hope you enjoyed my conversation
with Susan. I had a great timetalking to her about everything
that happened last year andlooking ahead to this year. Um,
and I will see everybody nextweek. If you have any
questions, comments, or topicsyou would like us to cover,
always feel free to shoot me anemail. You can reach me at
jenny JNI e@reprofightact.comor you can find us on social
(54:59):
media. We're at re pros, fightback on Facebook and Twitter or
re pros FB on Instagram. If youlove our podcast and wanna make
sure more people find it, takethe time to rate and review us
on your favorite podcastplatform. Or if you wanna make
sure to support the podcast,you can also donate on our
website@reprofightback.com.
(55:20):
Thanks all .
Welcome to Repro Fight Back a podcast on all
things related to sexual andreproductive health rights and
justice. Hi, re pros. How'severybody doing? I'm your host
Jenny Wetter , and my pronounsare she her . So happy New
Year, y'all. I hope everybodyhad a wonderful holiday and a
(00:23):
nice break and a happy start tothe new year. I went home for
the holidays, which means I wasin Wisconsin, but I have to
say, I don't know who I mademad or who cursed me, but I had
a bit of a cursed holiday. Iwas still able to have a good
time, like I got to spend timewith family. But man, y'all, I
(00:46):
, I , I don't know who cursedme, but it was, it was an
unpleasant holiday. The nightbefore I was supposed to fly
home, I got really sick outtanowhere, was worried I was
gonna have to reschedule myflight. Luckily, I was able to
feel well enough in the morningthat I could fly, but , um,
still took a couple days to getover whatever made my stomach
(01:08):
freak out. Uh, so that meantthat I was sick the first
couple days I got home. Andthen as I was just starting to
feel better, I was goingdownstairs to get some dough
that I had rising in thedownstairs fridge to go so I
could bake , um, sourdoughbread for , uh, new Year or
(01:30):
Christmas Eve. And I slid onthe stairs and I slid halfway
down the stairs. And I don'tknow if I broke my toe, but I,
my little pinky toe was reallyhurt. And I mean, it turned a
really gross , like it wasalmost black that first day.
It's, it's better now. Like aslong as I don't bump it or
(01:52):
anything, like, it's fine. Butmore importantly, I bruised or
broke my tailbone. And so I'mstill dealing with that, which
was not fine . So I, that is,yeah, I do not recommend zero,
zero of 10. Do not recommendbreak , uh, hurting your
tailbone. And so then I spent alot of that the rest of the
(02:13):
time home, like, you know,having a hard time sitting and
like, just not great. And thenas I was getting ready to the
day before I was supposed tofly back, like my allergies,
I'm sure you can hear, I don'tsound my best right now. My
allergies really kicked off andI was really sick that last day
home. And I , um, I'm stilldealing with the cough, so
(02:34):
hopefully it won't be too bad.
I'm sure. Um , Meg, our amazingeditor, will edit around it as
much as possible, but that iswhy my voice is not quite what
you're used to hearing today.
Uh , I'm still dealing withthat. So I don't know who I
made mad , but it was , um, itwas a rough holiday. But all
that, all that being said, Istill, it was lovely to get to
(02:56):
spend 10 days with my mom and ,um, see my , uh, family,
broader family for our big ,uh, Christmas Eve party. Um, I
did some baking while I washome. Also very exciting a co
oh man, it feels like foreverago, I guess it was like almost
seven years ago when my mom anddad and I went to Tanzania. Um,
(03:19):
I had bought some tanzaniteand, but it , I just got the
loose stones and I never foundlike the person I wanted to
have set them in a piece orlike, I just never took that
step to like get it turned intojewelry. And so when I was home
in August this year , uh, mymom and I went to a jeweler and
they designed something for methat I helped with. And yeah,
(03:43):
so when I went home forChristmas, my ring and a
necklace were ready. So thatwas super exciting to finally
get that. And yeah, it was , it, like I said, other than being
sick and either sick or injuredor sick and injured, it was, it
was nice. I really, I stayedmostly off of social media. I
(04:04):
did a ton of reading, just alittle bit of baking and got a
lot of quality time with mymom. So , um, it was nice. Oh,
and like we decorated the bigChristmas tree one when I got
home and was feeling up to it.
Um, so it was, it was like homefor the holidays and there was
snow, so like it was a whiteChristmas, so it was like
(04:25):
everything I needed. Sohopefully this cough and my
throat are better
time, hopefully just soon.
Anyway, I'm really kinda sickof the, the hacking cough, but
I'm definitely on the mend , sothat is good. I think with
that, let's move to this week'sepisode. I am really excited to
(04:46):
have on Susan Rin Kunis , whois an independent journalist
who writes on sexual andreproductive health and rights
to kind of do a look back atlast year and what's happened
and to do a look ahead of whatwe are keeping an eye out for
in this coming year. Um, sowith that, let's go to my
interview with Susan. Hi Susan.
Thank you so much for beinghere.
Speaker 2 (05:08):
Hi Jenny . Thanks for having me on.
Speaker 1 (05:09):
Before we get into our conversation, do you maybe
wanna take a second andintroduce yourself and include
your pronouns?
Speaker 2 (05:15):
Sure. I'm Susan Uni . She, her and I'm an
independent journalist coveringabortion and politics , um, for
various outlets. And I've beenon staff for Jezebel Vice and
The
Speaker 1 (05:27):
Cut . And I feel like I've been reading you for
a very long time, but again,it's the, like, time has lost
all meanings. So that could belike a year, it could be like
10 years, I don't know , but itfeels like forever. So I'm so
excited to finally talk to you.
Uh ,
Speaker 2 (05:40):
What is Time
Speaker 1 (05:43):
Seriously. Um, so I thought since this is gonna be
our first episode of the NewYear, it might be good to do
like a little bit of a lookback on 2024. 'cause again,
with that time losing allmeaning, it's hard to remember
like all of the things thathappened in the last year, and
obviously we're not gonna getto all of them 'cause there
(06:04):
were a lot. But what are someof the big things you think
about when you think back over2024?
Speaker 2 (06:10):
I'm sure I'm gonna forget some of them. Um, so
this is not meant to be , uh,exhaustive. Yeah . But I think
one of the big things as we sawduring the presidential
campaign was Donald Trump andJD Vance trying to redefine
what an abortion ban is. Theyseem to act like an abor , a
(06:30):
federal abortion ban is onlyone that would ban every single
abortion nationwide, noexceptions. And as we talk
about what's gonna happen thisyear, I think that that little
sleight of hand is going to bereally important because they
might do things that reallyrestrict access to abortion in
various ways, but they can turnaround and be like, what do you
mean? People can still get anabortion sometimes in some
(06:53):
places. So that's a really hugeone, I would say. I think the
fact that , um, Donald Trumpwas telling people that he
wouldn't sign a federal ban orthat he doesn't support banning
abortion nationwide actuallyties into the ballot measures
that we saw this fall wherethere were 10 on the ballot and
(07:16):
seven of them passed, and someof them passed in states where
Donald Trump also carried thestate. So it seemed like people
wanted to have their cake andneed it to vote for a candidate
who claimed that he would notban abortion and then turn
around , um, and said theywanted to protect abortion in
the state constitution, kind ofas a , a backup. The sad fact
(07:37):
is that federal restrictionswould almost, in every case,
override state constitutionalprotections. So I , I mean, can
I curse on this podcast?
Speaker 1 (07:50):
I don't have a problem with it.
Speaker 2 (07:51):
Okay. Um, 2025 is potentially gonna be like,
around , find out season , um,ffo , FAFO. We'll see what
kinds of federal restrictionshappen and whether or not
people who split their vote onabortion or voted for Trump
thinking he wouldn't do any ofthis. You know, we'll see if
they have any kind ofrealization about how they
(08:16):
contributed to this.
Speaker 1 (08:17):
Yeah. You know, it was really hard to like hold
the, like, optimism of, like,abortion was on the state on
the ballot in 10 states, and itwon in seven, I mean,
technically eight 'cause ofFlorida, which just didn't have
enough to meet that 60%threshold. But like that is
huge that it won in so manydiverse states. Um , but then
(08:40):
you saw like the federalelection results and like my
brain automatically went tothinking through like all of
the ways that the new adminisincoming administration was
gonna be harmful to those wins.
But like those were still hugewins.
Speaker 2 (08:54):
Yeah, it's a lot of dissonance. Um, they , they
feel like big wins and it'sgreat to see ballot measures
pass in states like Arizona andMissouri. You know, that's,
that's looks amazing. But thenalso, as you and your listeners
might be aware, there's animplementation fight in
Missouri, and even though , um,amendment three passed there ,
(09:19):
um, a judge said that, sure,the total abortion ban in
Missouri is overturned, but allthese other restrictions are
still in place, including areally key one that clinics in
the state need to get a licensefrom the State Department of
Health. And right now abortionis not accessible because no
clinic in the state has alicense and, and there's other
(09:40):
restrictions that , um, plannedParenthood and the people
challenging the bans say justco completely make it
impossible for them to provideabortion. So even within a
state, people are feelingdissonance of, Hey, we passed
this ballot measure and yet westill don't have access , um,
almost two months later.
Speaker 1 (09:59):
Yeah, I mean, you've definitely seen those fights in
other states take a while toget to where there has been
greater access.
Speaker 2 (10:05):
Right. Including Ohio, where there's still
litigating over things. Um,Ohio had its ban blocked for
most of the time since Dobbs.
So it's slightly differentsituation since , uh, as
compared to Missouri whereabortion has been banned mostly
since Dobbs. But yeah, even inOhio, they're still, they're
still fighting in , um, statecourts and against the state
(10:27):
legislature trying to make surethat the voters will is, you
know, actually in effect.
Speaker 1 (10:34):
I think the other big thing I've been thinking
about is the ways we've seenthe attacks on abortion and the
attacks on trans rights, likejust being like mirror images
of each other, just likefollowing that exact same
playbook. And that really stoodout even more last year.
Speaker 2 (10:52):
It was really, really explicit. And I think
that there are gonna be somepeople who wanna keep these
things separate because theythink that they're not linked,
but it's the same groups goingafter people's rights and
they're making some similararguments, but the end goal is
the same. I think that that'swhat's really important for
people to understand. Um, you ,you might think that, oh,
(11:16):
abortion is about like womenand keeping women in subjugated
places and, and male controlover women's bodies. But it's
really just about the genderdynamic of that and wanting to,
you know, make sure that , um,people are following
traditional gender roles andlike the, you know, ideal of a
Christian family. I mean, a lotof these groups that are
pushing , um, abortion bans andbans on transgender care or
(11:37):
even trans kids in sports,like, let's name that too. It's
not just the bans on medicalcare. These groups like
Alliance Defending Freedom oryou know, the Heritage
Foundation. They don't likeanything that attacks gender
roles broadly. They want like amale patriarchal Christian
society. So I think that that'skey. And you know, if people,
(12:00):
you know, people with genderdysphoria, even people who are
non-binary, right? People maynot even want to transition to
a gender other than what theywere assigned , um, at birth.
But people who are non-binary,like that's a threat to like a
specific part of the Republicanmovement. It's the, you know,
the conservative Christianmovement, evangelical , um, as
(12:21):
well. And I think that it'sjust like people need to see
the forest for the trees here.
Um, it's not just attacks onwomen, it's attacks on anybody
who wants to like, challengethe longstanding ideals of like
who is in charge of the familyand what the family should look
like.
Speaker 1 (12:37):
And you definitely see like the anti-abortion
playbook being used, right?
Like they're starting withyoung people, which is how a
lot of the abortion bansstarted, right? Was like going
after young people. And youknow, it's one of those things
that if you, like, if you don'tthink deeply about some of
these issues that like, it maysound reasonable on its face,
(13:00):
but then you start to like,hear more about it and like
understand the issues at stake,you can see the real problems,
but you're really starting tosee that playbook being built
and you're seeing it alsorepeated with birth control
with that Title 10 case inTexas.
Speaker 2 (13:15):
Absolutely. Um, yeah, attacking minors is a way
for the right wing to go afterrights for more people later
on. They just, I feel like theyhave the legal end to do it for
minors first. And, and it'ssuch a good point. And I wanna
, um, go back to, you know,bands on trans kids playing
sports , um, and people mightthink, yeah, that that makes a
(13:37):
lot of sense. Yeah . Like ,let's, you know, whatever, I'm
not even gonna repeat some ofthe arguments. Yeah . But , but
the , the problem is that ifyou read reporting, I mean,
there's this huge New Yorkerpiece , um, on alliance
defending freedom in October,2023. And there's been other
reporting , um, including inthe New York Times. I don't
remember exactly when, butthese groups tried something
(13:58):
different first and failed. Andthat's when they went after
trans kids in sports. The firstthing they tried was bathroom
bans in 2016 in North Carolina.
And that backfired so hugelythat , um, they decided, you
know, like the NCAA pulled outof its , uh, of a tournament ,
um, that was gonna be in NorthCarolina because the state
passed a bill that trans kidshad to use a bathroom for their
(14:21):
sex assigned at birth. And thatpeople were just like, what?
Like, that's creepy. Like whyare we talking about bathrooms?
And so they, they went tosports after that and then they
also went to , um, medical carefor minors after that. And
you'll even see that peoplegiving interviews who are
speaking maybe a little toofreely say things like, oh, we
(14:41):
want to ban medical care foradults, but the support isn't
there yet. And our pollingshows us the , the support is
there to do it for kids. Sowe're gonna do that first.
It's, it's literally like,again, going back to the
abortion , um, context, peoplemight say in polls that they
don't support abortion accessafter a certain point in
(15:02):
pregnancy. And antis kind ofuse that wedge to get in and do
things like overturn Roe v Wadewith a ban after , um, on
abortion after 15 weeks. Butthen the actual end goal is to
ban all abortions nationwide.
So we should not be separatingthese two , um, lines of
attack. They are the same lineof attack. And I think that's
(15:22):
really important for yourlisteners to keep in mind in
2025 and going forward.
Speaker 1 (15:25):
So what else are you thinking about when you think
about last year?
Speaker 2 (15:29):
One of the , it happened early on, and it may ,
I kind of almost forgot that ithappened last year and not like
three years ago, but theAlabama State Supreme Court ,
um, ruling that in , in alawsuit over some embryos , um,
created for IVF that, you know,a clinic that destroyed some
inadvertently, you know, couldbe sued for wrongful death,
(15:51):
right? That's like civillitigation. It's not criminal,
but at the same time, it'sstill a fetal personhood
argument that fertilized eggs,embryos, and, you know, then
later up to fetuses have rightsunder the law. And this is an
extremely dangerous argumentthat , um, basically negates
the rights of women andpregnant people. And it was
really interesting to see thebacklash to that, you know,
(16:14):
from IVF patients in Alabamatalking about what it meant to
them. And then also lawmakersat the state and federal level
saying, see , we told you , um,that this was gonna happen
after Dobbs. And then it movedinto Republican lawmakers
saying, oh, no, no, we supportIVF, what are you talking
about? And passing somenonsense. Or, you know, trying
to pass some nonsense inCongress that was just nominal
(16:37):
support for IVF, but doesn'tactually do anything. And that
, um, you know, Republicanresolution came at the same
time that people werehighlighting how many
Republican members of Congresshad co-sponsored bills called
the Life at Conception Act.
Right. Where they'respecifically saying that life
begins at fertilization. Andthat would lead to a total ban
(16:58):
on abortion. It would changethe way IVF is practiced
because it would mean peoplewould have to create like one
embryo at a time, not do anygenetic testing and implant
that embryo and then see whathappens, right? And that's, you
know, unworkable for so manyfamilies. 'cause IVF is
expensive , um, or people aregetting older and they don't,
they can't wait to be doing,you know, these, these year ,
(17:20):
months and years long , um,cycles. So the IVF and fetal
personhood aspect was a hugething , um, earlier this year.
And I, I am curious to seewhat's gonna happen going
forward.
Speaker 1 (17:31):
Yeah. Because it even felt like, so there was
like the big burst, like whenit happened, but then you could
start seeing like as it gotfurther and further away that
the conversation was going backto what it was before it
happened. So like, did anythingactually change? Like it really
doesn't feel like it
Speaker 2 (17:51):
Did anything actually change? I mean, later
we
oh, I'm the, I'm the father offertilization, or I'm like, you
know, the , I'm the biggestlike supporter of IVF , all
this stuff. It's just, he sayswhatever he wants. And people,
some people believe him. Andthen it was , um, this , I
think the Southern BaptistConvention said later in the
(18:12):
year that they didn't supportIVF.
Speaker 1 (18:15):
Oh god, I totally forgot about that. Exactly.
It's, again, there's so manythings happening all at once.
Like, it just hard to retainlike all of the many things
that have happened. And, andhonestly, the , I that's
something that has been likejust stating in the back of my
head as we've been talking is,you know , you talked about
the, like trying to redefinewhat a ban is, but like we've
(18:38):
also been seeing for years, butI think it was kind of giving
some new life again last year,was just redefining what an
abortion is coming up as well.
And I , that also worries me ,uh, going into next year.
Speaker 2 (18:53):
That's a huge thing because republicans don't want
to be associated with anydeaths that come after abortion
bans. Like we've seen thedevastating reporting from
ProPublica and other outletsand they want to say things
like, oh, it's totally legalto, you know, treat ectopic
pregnancies or miscarriagesthat lead to sepsis, that kind
(19:15):
of thing. But they're justignoring the fact that
hospitals and the lawyers atthose hospitals are navigating
all kinds of other risks. Andhowever, lawmakers wrote these
bills doesn't work in real lifeand that's why you're seeing
care get delayed. That's whyyou're seeing people not being
offered Dees or aspirationswhen they are miscarrying and
(19:41):
being like watched to , to seeif they get better. And some of
these women are dying. I I just
treatment. Yeah. They're alwayslike, that's a lie. It's always
legal to treat this. And theone thing I do wanna add is
when you look at these , um,abortion groups comments on
ectopic pregnancy and how totreat it, what they want people
(20:02):
to do is have , uh, theirfallopian tube where the
pregnancy is implanted,removed. Like they want people
to have a surgery instead ofgetting , um, a medication
injected to end the pregnancy.
And that's just, they , theywanna mandate like an invasive
procedure instead of lettingpeople choose what's best for
(20:25):
them. And it's crazy.
Speaker 1 (20:26):
Well, and this brings me back to like one of
my like personal like passionsas somebody who came up like
with, in like a science fieldof like the anti-science ness
and like things that they push. This is taking me back to,
I've kind of lost track of likewhen this exactly was, but the
like medication abortionreversal and like seeing coming
(20:48):
up now talking about reimplantlike the embryos and like,
these are not things you can doand like, but they are offering
them like they are actualsolutions.
Speaker 2 (21:01):
Yeah. Medication abortion reversal is something
that these groups have beenpushing for years and they're
actually suing in some statesover laws that are trying to
prevent crisis pregnancycenters or anti-abortion
centers from telling patientsabout this. And they're arguing
that it's like a violation oftheir free speech if states try
(21:24):
to say they can't tell peopleabout this unproven and , uh,
in some studies, like unsafesuggestion. So, but yet we
might see crisis pregnancycenters get more money than
ever from states in the federalgovernment next year. Oh ,
Speaker 1 (21:41):
Okay. So now that we've had like, that like
already bleak conversationabout last year, I guess that
leads us to like next year ornot next year. 'cause it's this
year. Like what, what are youkeeping an eye on this coming
year? Oh,
Speaker 2 (21:56):
There's so much
I
Speaker 1 (22:00):
Know. And I like sit in both the global and domestic
space. So there's like Yeah .
The global side too, but wedon't need to talk about that
right now.
Speaker 2 (22:07):
Oh , that's also gonna be really bad. Um, right.
Yeah . Like the , there'sthings that happen on day one
and one of them is, you know,the from a , a switch from ,
uh, democratic to Republicancontrol, right? Like
overturning the Mexico Citypolicy and , and endangering
like the health of women andgirls and , um, people can be
pregnant across the globe.
Yeah. I don't, I don't reallyknow where to start other than
(22:30):
just like, I do wanna remindpeople if they somehow forgot
that it's very likely thatwe're gonna see , um, at least
one retirement on the SupremeCourt at the end of this term.
People who watch this stuffthink it would be Samuel Alito
before Clarence Thomas, becausethey think Alito has gotten
(22:51):
like really ornery and crankyand his wife has made comments
about how he wants to be outtathere. And, you know, Thomas is
allegedly like very stubbornand wants to just be there
until he dies. Um, but yeah, it, it feels like we could see
confirmation hearings thissummer for somebody to replace
(23:12):
one of those guys, if not bothof those guys. Uh , which,
which, and the , the impact ofthat is it doesn't change the ,
um, super majority on thecourt. Uh ,
Speaker 1 (23:22):
But I assume they're going to be very, very young.
Yes. That's,
Speaker 2 (23:25):
That's the thing. It doesn't, it would still be a
six three conservative supermajority. It just means that
that majority will last evenlonger because you can imagine
that Trump would dominatesomebody who is under 50,
right? I I think if, if hechooses somebody over 50, it's
gonna have to to be like areally exceptionally strident
(23:47):
person because they wantsomeone to, to last for a
really long time. And it'sgonna be the , the , the rest
of the things that we're gonnatalk about for what to expect
in 2025, like all that is goingto come up at the confirmation
hearings. And it will beinteresting to see how this
nominee dances around thembecause there's so much that
could happen now that , um, Roev Wade is gone.
Speaker 1 (24:08):
Oh yeah. I haven't even thought about like, some
of those questions of like,with that, the new policy
landscape, right ? And
Speaker 2 (24:15):
Some of the things could be enforcing the Comstock
Act, right? How do they feelabout this law from 1873? Um ,
how does a nominee for a seatfeel about this law? Do they
think that it could be applied, um, to ban the mailing of
any, you know , device or itemthat could be used for
(24:36):
abortion? Which is, I mean,historians have talked about
the Comstock Act was notactually about abortion, it was
about vice. It was about likepeople having , um, sex not for
childbearing and you know,pornography and that kind of
stuff. Um, so conservatives arereally reading this act in a
way that's not faithful tohistory, but, you know , uh,
(24:59):
the Trump administration isgonna do it , um, do something
, um, with it no matter whatthe history is. I, so I'll,
I'll go from there into likethey , the Trump administration
could do something with theComstock Act for abortion
pills, but also they don't haveto do that. They could just
(25:20):
work through the FDA to limitaccess to abortion pills. Um,
and there's, there's two waysthey could, two main ways they
could do that is going back torules that existed in 2016 ,
um, and that were changed underthe , um, Biden administration.
The big one is telemedicine forabortion pills. It used to be
(25:45):
that you had to go in person toget pills that you would take
at home, which made no sense.
And it's because there's allthese regulations on abortion
pills for no reason except forthat they're involved in
abortion. And that wouldreally, that would really
change the landscape of, ofabortion access right now. I
(26:05):
mean, people have been able toget , uh, telemedicine abortion
increasingly, you know, sincethe , the pandemic and saying
that you have to go back toclinics would make it harder
for people who want the pills.
And then it would also make itharder for people who need ,
um, abortion want or needabortion procedures and , um,
may face longer wait times inclinics to get those
(26:28):
procedures.
Speaker 1 (26:29):
Yeah. Like the , what the infrastructure we have
right now cannot absorb thatamount of people who need to go
in person . That's
Speaker 2 (26:37):
Right. And another thing , um, that is listed in
Project 2025, and that otheradvocates have been asking for,
including , um, AllianceDefending Freedom and its
lawsuit over the abortion pill,they want to not only end
telemedicine, but also changerevert the FDA approved label
on Miry stone , the first drugin the , in the regimen. Um,
(26:59):
to, instead of being FDAapproved through 10 weeks of
gestation, they want to revertit back to seven weeks of
gestation. Oof . Um, yeah,it's, it's currently approved
for 70 days right now. Theywanna go back to 49 because
that's what it was in 2016before the label got updated.
And they're trying to claimthat the update was not
(27:21):
evidence-based and, you know,blah, blah , blah. But I mean,
that's also gonna limit , um,the amount of people who can
get pills and mean that morepeople need procedures, which
you just mentioned. Theinfrastructure is not able to
handle that.
Speaker 1 (27:35):
Like , I sorry, y'all, it's just there's so
much and like Yeah ,
Speaker 2 (27:39):
I know
Speaker 1 (27:40):
This is just like one part and like there are so
many other lines of attack thatthey are contemplating that,
like, it's just really hard tothink of all of the people who
need care, who are not going tobe able to get the care they
need. And, and knowing whatthose impacts are, like we have
the turn away study, we knowhow long those impacts can last
(28:02):
and , um, it's, yeah, it's ,it's , it's bad.
Speaker 2 (28:05):
Yeah. It's really bad. Um, and I , I wanna
mention this next thing thatcould happen right after
talking about the changes thatthey want to make to , uh,
abortion pills, because itseems in my mind that they also
want to go after people'ssafety and accessibility at
clinics. So it's not justending care at home and forcing
(28:29):
people to go back to clinics,it's then making those clinics
feel less safe for patients whoare forced to go there. And the
, there are ways they wannamake the clinics less safe,
including overturning , um,laws about buffer zones around
clinics. There's a petition atthe Supreme Court right now,
they haven't taken up the case,but it's , uh, laws in New
(28:50):
Jersey and Illinois aroundbuffer zones. And we'll see if
they take up a case. Theargument, there is a free
speech argument that statesbanning anti-abortion advocates
from speaking to people withina certain distance, like
unconstitutionally limits theirspeech.
Speaker 1 (29:06):
I just have to say, I remember going to SCOTUS for
the last round of this, and Ithink it was snowing. And so
like, I had a sign and it waslike falling apart. So I was
like folding it and walkingback to my office, which is
right behind the Supreme Courtand getting yelled at for
walking on one of thoseinternal sidewalks with the
protest sign that was not beinglike, it was like folded and in
(29:30):
my hand so I could throw itaway and like walking in their
buffer zone. Yes. And the , theirony was just, it was a lot.
Thank
Speaker 2 (29:37):
You for bringing that up because yes, the
Supreme Court has its ownbuffer zone, which they were ,
Speaker 1 (29:41):
That was much bigger than any of the clinics were
asking for. Yeah,
Speaker 2 (29:44):
Yeah. And they will claim that they need that for
their safety. Yep . But yeah,and speaking of safety, the
other thing that anti-abortionadvocates want to undo is the
FACE Act, the freedom of accessto Clinic Entrances Act, which
was passed in the early to midnineties. It's either 93 or 94
maybe. Uh , yeah. But it , itcame after horrific violence
(30:06):
and literal assassinations ofabortion providers, you know,
like, like firebombings ofclinics, all this, all this
kind of thing, you know, fromthe , like the quote unquote
rescue movement of the eightiesand and early nineties. And
there are advocates right nowwho say that now that Roe v
Wade is gone, that there's noconstitutional basis for the
(30:30):
Face Act. If there's no rightto abortion, that there is then
no freedom of access to anabortion clinic as a federal
matter. And we're seeing thisin the lawyers appealing the
sentence of Lauren Handy, theanti-abortion activist who
invaded a clinic in WashingtonDC and was convicted under the
Face Act. She is represented bylawyers from the Thomas Moore
(30:52):
Society, and they are openabout the fact that on Appeal,
they're gonna be asking for theFace Act to get overturned. Um,
and that could take a while .
Um, but there's also thingsthat the administration could
do under Department of Justice, uh, to enforce it completely
differently than it has beenbeing enforced
Speaker 1 (31:11):
Somehow. This has flown under my radar. Uh, so
thanks for bringing it up. Itjust makes me think of, yeah ,
whose book was it ? I think itwas maybe the one that Lauren
Rankin wrote about clinicescorts that was going through
a lot of that early history oflike, the movements that were
not just like the , thebombings and the , the
(31:34):
assassination attempts, butlike the people going and like
handcuffing themselves to theclinics and stuff, and like
really getting a bigger pictureof like how bad that was. Like
I had like a general idea oflike remembering it happening,
but like reading through likeall of the stuff that was
happening then was prettyhorrific.
Speaker 2 (31:52):
Yeah. And yeah, it's good that you're getting
specific there. And just tomention what Lauren Handy was
accused and convicted of , um,was leading a clinic invasion
and the people she was with hadbike locks, like heavy chains,
and they changed their, likenecks together and they tied
(32:13):
themselves to chairs in thewaiting room. I mean, they
called and made a fakeappointment and, and then
entered the clinic under that,you know, false pretense and
then ran in and tried to justblock patients from accessing
care. And so this is not justsweet little people prey
outside. Yep . Okay. And that'show they frame it, right? They
(32:35):
say the Biden administration ispersecuting these people for,
you know, peaceful prayer andthey might be praying in those
chairs, but they are also likeviolently interrupting people's
access to medical care. And infact , um, sometimes hurting ,
um, clinic staff who try to, totry to intervene or hurting
patients. So, so there's, youknow, legal challenges there.
(32:58):
And then also there's , um, repChip Roy from Texas has
introduced a bill to overturnthe Face Act in Congress, which
probably doesn't have enoughvotes to pass, but there are
other, obviously other avenueslike the executive branch and
the , um, judicial branch wherethis could be a big problem. I
know. Well, and that's
(33:18):
I'm gonna move to the, the nextone, which is also a
multi-prong attack to achievethe same goal. And that is,
quote unquote defunding PlannedParenthood. Um, that came up on
the campaign trail a littlebit. Um, it was, you know, JD
Vance mentioned it in someinterviews, but it wasn't
really something that you heardfrom Trump as far as I can
(33:40):
recall. But it's something thatconservatives have been after
for a long time. And there's acouple things here. First of
all, the Hyde Amendment, whichis unjust and inequitable
already bans federal dollarsfrom being used for abortion
care. Although states can saythat they want their Medicaid
dollars to fund this, thiscare. But the , just the idea
that there is, you know,funding allocated directly to
(34:04):
Planned Parenthood is amisnomer. There's Title 10
funding, which you mentionedearlier, but that's not, that's
given to states. And thenpeople have to apply for grants
and have to get approved. It'snot just like, oh yeah, here
we're gonna throw you millionsand millions of dollars. Um ,
and then there's also Medicaidfunding. And again, that's not
just like, oh yeah, line itemlike 11 D Planned Parenthood
(34:25):
dollars for Planned Parenthood.
It's people who have Medicaidhealth insurance go to a
provider that accepts theirinsurance, and then that
provider bills Medicaid for theservices.
Speaker 1 (34:37):
And that can often be hard to find and hard to get
appointments, especiallyquickly for family planning and
reproductive health. AndPlanned Parenthood is like the
place you can easily get yourappointments. Yeah ,
Speaker 2 (34:50):
Yeah. And it's covering things like , um,
birth control STI testing andtreatment cancer screenings
like pap smears and breastexams, HIV testing. Um, I ,
which is also an STI , but I'mcalling that one out
specifically. Like these areYeah . You know, really
important services and can belifesaving. And when
Republicans say that they wannaquote unquote defund Planned
(35:10):
Parenthood, what they mean isthey want it to be harder in
effect. They want it to beharder for people to get these
services because there aren't alot of places where people do
like low cost or sliding scaleaccess to things like , um,
birth control. So there's,there's a couple ways that this
(35:31):
quote unquote defunding couldhappen. And one of them is a
lawsuit. The Supreme Court justtook up a case out of South
Carolina where that state triedto exclude Planned Parenthood
from the Medicaid program. And, um, lower court said, you
can't do that. They arequalified to provide this care,
and they're not using the moneyfor abortion. So what's your
(35:51):
reasoning? And , um, theSupreme Court is gonna hear
that case this term, whichmeans we would get a decision ,
um, this June probably, wedon't know when the arguments
are yet. Um, there's also , uh,there's probably gonna be a , a
federal bill to defund, but Idon't know if it would pass,
given how small the majority isin the house and the fact that
(36:15):
Yeah. The , the Senate majorityis what, 53, 54 and two of
those, and like Collins andMurkowski. Collins and
Murkowski, yeah. Yeah . Younever know. You never know. I
mean , generally they're goodon this, but also, but Right.
So it , or it could pass, Idon't know, maybe I'm being
naive. Yeah . But , um, thenthis kind of sleeper, the
sleeper aspect of this is , um,there's a lawsuit in Texas and
(36:39):
an anonymous plaintiff claimsto be a whistleblower and is
saying that the Texas affiliateof Planned Parenthood defrauded
the United States governmentand the state of Texas , um, by
continuing to bill Medicaidduring four years in which a ,
a state court case over whetherTexas could kick Planned
(37:00):
Parenthood out of the programwas ongoing. This case could
bankrupt Planned Parenthoodbecause of the, it's, it's
crazy. Let me , let mestipulate. This case is crazy.
It's under the False ClaimsAct, and it's like, this is not
how it's supposed to work. Andalso , um, planned Parenthood
is saying in Texas, you know,knew we were billing them for
Medicaid services while thelawsuit was ongoing. Like
(37:22):
there's no, there's, there's nofraud here. Like, what are you
talking about? But , um, I,it's only worrisome because of
course it was filed in thecourtroom of Judge Matthew
Kamarck in Amarillo, Texas.
Whoa . What? No. And , um,reporting has , um, uncovered
that the plaintiff in the casebears striking resemblance to
(37:45):
David De Laden the , um, headof the Center for Medical
Progress. Oh my God . Yeah.
There's, there's a really good,of course, of course. There's a
really great story from , um,Kaiser Health News , um, that
un uh , uncovered some likeredacted documents and, you
know, a a a Kame filing said,you know, plaintiff was the
president of Center for MedicalProgress and did undercover
(38:06):
video stuff. So Yeah . So nowJenny , we're gonna talk about
the 2015 videos from PlannedParent. That's where all this
comes from. Yeah. This, thisguy David Leyden , it said that
he was doing journalism. It's,it's like Project Veritas
journalism, it's not real. And,and spoke to Planned Parenthood
executives about donating,about their practice of
(38:26):
donating , um, fetal tissue forscientific research and getting
reimbursed for the costs oftransporting that tissue. Like
this is all legal and fetaltissue research helps , uh,
with scientific advancement,all this . But he tried to make
it like they were, quote ,selling baby body parts. Quote.
Yeah. And this is this videoseries from July, 2015 or that
(38:48):
summer led to states like Texasand South Carolina trying to
kick Planned Parenthood out ofMedicaid programs. It has led
to lawmakers saying thatPlanned Parenthood should not
get any federal funding. Um,and so even though this has all
been like debunked asdeceptively edited, and even
though David delayed in , likelost many court cases and
(39:10):
actually had to pay PlannedParenthood money , um,
for, you know, like hisundercut, I don't know, like
they , they lost in court andthey're still using this
talking point and they'retrotting it out. I literally
saw people sharing videos ofthis on Twitter , um, last week
saying that like, oh , this iswhat they're doing, blah, blah,
blah . So we're gonna see this, um, come back. And , um, oh,
(39:33):
side note, Leonard Leo , um,gave David Dein legal advice ,
uh, on those videos and , um,maybe helping him in this
lawsuit. That's , that's alsoin the , in the Kaiser health
news story.
Speaker 1 (39:45):
Of course,
Speaker 2 (39:46):
That's the former chair of the Federalist
Society. He's deeply involvedwith groups like Students for
Life, and he's also like , and
Speaker 1 (39:52):
Supreme Court nominees
Speaker 2 (39:53):
And Supreme Court nominee. Right. He's, he's
friends with , um, Alito andThomas and , um, also like
unsurprisingly alignedDefending Freedom has also like
supported delayed in this videothing. And it's just like they,
they want , they want tocompletely kneecap Planned
Parenthood because of theservices it offers, not just
abortion, but also things likebirth control and gender
(40:14):
affirming care. They hate that.
Planned Parenthood offersgender affirming care. Yeah .
And it's all back to the thingwe talked about at the top,
like gender roles.
Speaker 1 (40:21):
Well, and also back to, you know, talking about
those deceptively edited videosand like what they led to, but
they also led to that shootingin Colorado. So back to like
the violence
Speaker 2 (40:31):
A hundred percent.
In, in I think November, 2015,a disturbed person came to a
Planned Parenthood clinic inColorado and killed multiple
people and injured , um,several others. And he was like
muttering about baby parts. Um,and that was after like the
highly publicized hearingswhere Cecile Richards came to
Congress and testified , um,for
Speaker 1 (40:54):
That was so long. I remember watching that. It was
a really long
Speaker 2 (40:56):
Day. Yeah . And so that was, that's gonna be 10
years ago , um, the summer andlike these, so, so these, you ,
you bring, thank you formentioning that shooting
because like these tacticsdon't all only impact people's
access to medical care. Theyalso like necessarily result in
violence because there arepeople who believe that, you
(41:17):
know, abortion is murder and sothey're going to kill in
response. Okay.
Speaker 1 (41:23):
There are like so many other things that I'm like
worried about in this upcomingyear. Maybe let's touch on ,
um, one more. We talked aboutgender affirming care from last
year. What are you like keepingan eye on for 2025 for around
that
Speaker 2 (41:38):
People in the space of hating trans people want to
make ahy amendment for genderaffirming care. They want to
make no federal funding , um,in Medicaid go toward this
care, not just for kids, butfor adults. Uh , like there ,
there's a guy named JohnSchwepp, he's , um, at the
American Principles Project andhe told NPR in an interview
that, that that's what hewants. And literally quote, we
(42:02):
definitely, one of our goals isto create a Hyde amendment for
so-called gender affirmingcare. He literally says that.
So yeah, if you don't believeus that these fights are
linked, like believe them whenthey say
Speaker 1 (42:12):
It. Yeah. And I know we're definitely keeping an eye
out for a global version , likewith the global gag rule, like
a , a version that's gonna alsotouch gender affirming care,
whether that's in the day oneone or somewhere further down
the road , uh, because theyneed to get some more ducks in
the line. We're, we'redefinitely keeping an eye on
that and think we fully expectto see some version of a global
(42:35):
gag around gender , um,transgender issues. It's just
like one of those we've reallystarted to see in the global
space more. Yeah. Um, I think ,I think that hasn't necessarily
been getting quite as muchattention, but like it's really
become challenging working onany, just like overall gender
issues. And I think we're alsogonna see like some shifts
around language there. I thinkwe've really made a lot of
(42:58):
progress on talking about, youknow, gender based violence and
like a lot of like language andbeing more inclusive. And I
think we're gonna see a lot ofthat get rolled back and seeing
a lot more focus on women andgirls again, and really
excluding people from , um,access to care
Speaker 2 (43:14):
Really quickly. I do wanna mention that there , we
can expect attacks on birthcontrol as well. And I think
that a lot of people are like,ah , they're not gonna ban
birth control. Oh yeah . Maybethey won't immediately, but
what I think they're gonna dois make it harder to afford.
And that could be throughthings like kicking Planned
Parenthood outta Medicaid, butalso making it easier for
(43:34):
private insurance to not coverbirth control. And that could
be, or
Speaker 1 (43:39):
Redefining again, what's abortion, right? Uhhuh
control or abortion.
Speaker 2 (43:45):
Exactly. And one of the things called out by name
in project 2025 is oneemergency, one form of
emergency contraception calledElla, it's prescription only.
And they claim that it's likechemically similar to abortion
pill, which is non , I meanwhatever. It's nonsense. So
they say that that shouldn'thave to be covered by
insurance, but then alsothere's a quote unquote moral
(44:07):
exemption to the contraceptivemandate that , um, Trump tried
to enact in his first term andthey could bring that back. Yes
. Um , and so that could makeit harder for people to afford
birth control and that likethey could do that without
overturning griswolds e eventhough groups also want to
overturn Griswold the , theruling that allowed people to
use birth control.
Speaker 1 (44:28):
I think, you know, one of the things I feel like
we've talked about in some ofthe advocacy spaces is how the
first term there was so much ofthey had to do the learning on
how to do the things. And likethey've already done that. And
so starting now or startingwhen the new administration is
sworn in, they already know howto do the things and work the
(44:49):
levers so they can hit theground running in a way that
they were not able to beforebecause they had to learn how
to use all the things. And sowe could see some of these
things happening faster thanthey did previously. Yeah. Plus
project 2025, it's all rightthere. Absolutely. Okay, well
this is all terribly depressingand , um, it's gonna be a long
(45:10):
year, four years, whatever.
Let's turn, I really love toend not on the like
hopelessness, but like how canthe audience get involved? What
are some things the audiencecan do to get involved in all
of this?
Speaker 2 (45:23):
I think as we have been discussing, it's gonna be
more difficult than ever to beable to afford to prevent
pregnancy and afford to haveabortions because of the things
that , um, republicans wannado. Like more people are gonna
have to travel or, you know,like to get care, all , all
(45:43):
this kinda stuff. So I thinkone thing people can do is
support abortion funds andother reproductive justice
groups like locally , um, or inyour region because these
groups not only provide mutualaid support for abortion
appointments, but they're alsodoing things like handing out
free emergency contraception,pregnancy tests, condoms , um,
and even some of these groupseven hand out things like
diapers to help people who ,um, choose to parent or were
(46:06):
unfortunately forced to parent.
So I think that like gettinginvolved that way is, is really
important and something that ,uh, like a tangible way you can
help people , um, under the ,the second Trump
administration. Another thingpeople can do is advocate for
politics at the state level,which is gonna be really
important. And I understandthat I say this as someone
living in New York where I havedemocratic controlled
(46:29):
legislature, but I think youcan also make a difference in
places where it's, it's morepurple or, you know, work to
elect lawmakers in your statethat's like gerrymandered or
Republican controlled. But ,um, what states and localities
are doing is funding , uh,abortion care directly or, you
know, they're like Illinois ,um, and the city of Chicago are
(46:51):
, are funding Chicago abortionfund. There's even some cities
in Texas , um, like citiesbecause that's, you know, local
in a , in a conservativecontrolled state that are , um,
funding reproductive justiceorganizations. And that , um,
will really help people get thecare they need. And you can
support, you know, lawmakerswho sponsor and, and like enact
these bills because they'llprobably get a lot of hate. So
(47:11):
hearing from you , um, if yousupport it is, is gonna be
helpful to them.
Speaker 1 (47:16):
And even if you're in a blue state, like there may
be policies that could bebetter. Absolutely. We have, we
do a 50 state report card everyyear that looks through a ,
like a wide range of, of issuesrelated to sexual reproductive
health and rights. And youwould be surprised at some of
the states that have liketerrible sex ed policies, New
(47:36):
York being one of them,Massachusetts doesn't mandate
any form of sex ed. So likethere are states where you may
think they're doing really wellin some areas, but maybe doing
poorly in others. So we haven'treleased , uh, this coming
years yet, but you can checkout last year's , um, on our
website. Yeah,
Speaker 2 (47:53):
Very good point. And yeah, New York is absolutely
not perfect. Thank you formentioning the sex ed. Another
thing is , um, Medicaidreimbursements are too low for
abortion care in New York andso many states and in fact,
that specific issue is one thatPlanned Parenthood of Greater
New York cited when it saidthat it was , um, reducing
abortion services in the statefrom through 24 weeks to 20
(48:16):
weeks. That happened earlierthis year. And they said
specifically that they can'tafford to provide care because
they're not being paid enough.
Um ,
my next point. I just talkedabout like abortion at 24 weeks
versus abortion at 20 weeks.
And I think we're gonna see atthe federal level attacks on
(48:38):
later abortion because again,this is what people think polls
. Well, and some people mighteven say, sure, yeah, I don't
think I would get an abortionthen, but does that mean you
actually support a federal banon it? Maybe some people say
yes, but I think in 2025 andbeyond, people who support
bodily autonomy need to notleave people behind. And you
know, like if and when peoplestart talking about like, oh
(49:01):
yeah, that's a reasonablerestriction. It's like you are
seeding ground that could beused to bring it down even
further. Right? Go down to 15weeks, go down to 12, go down
to six. Any like federal ban ,um, on abortion based on
gestation is like not somethingpeople who support bodily
autonomy should tolerate. Andlike quickly while we talk
(49:23):
about this, like I think it'salso important to think about
who actually gets abortionsafter 20 weeks. And it's not
just people who get devastatingfetal diagnoses, like those
people exist and are important,but we also should include in
our thoughts and advocacy , um,that it's people who find out
they're , uh, pregnant later inpregnancy, like if they're very
(49:43):
young or if they're like asexual abuse survivor. Um, and
then also bans and restrictionspush people later into
pregnancy if because peoplecan't afford the care , um,
they don't have paid time offwork. Yes. Um, they, you know,
like they make an appointmentand it's for $1,200 and they
say, I need time to get thatmoney. And then they have the
(50:05):
money, they come back and theclinic says, okay, you're
further along and it's x youknow, hundreds or thousands of
dollars more. Like this is asystemic snowball problem. Yeah
. And like, we should includeall of those people and not
leave them behind by sayingthat, oh , it's okay to ban
abortion later in pregnancy.
It's not
Speaker 1 (50:23):
A hundred percent.
And you know , um, I had agreat conversation with , um,
oh God , my brain is like notpulling the name and Diane ,
I'm so sorry, Diana , uh,partners in care in Maryland.
Oh yeah.
Speaker 2 (50:38):
Diane Hardoff .
Speaker 1 (50:39):
Thank you. I'm like, name not coming to me saying at
what point in a person'spregnancy is the state more
qualified to make decisionsabout their healthcare than
they are? And that is what thatconversation is about. And I
thought that was such a greatway to put it.
Speaker 2 (50:55):
It absolutely is.
And you know,
own medical care and liketrying to get people to like
support some sort of ban. Um,again, you're just doing their
work for them because once theyare able to ban it at 20 weeks,
they're gonna keep going. Like,we saw that , um, think about
all the abortion bans passed inlike 2019, like , um, or it's
(51:18):
just , well, 2018 was the , theMississippi law at 15 weeks
that turned into Dobbs and thenthe next year it was like six
week bands. Right. So it'sjust, it's, it's a never ending
, um, race to the bottom andlike people should not
participate in it.
Speaker 1 (51:30):
And like how those six week week bands were used
to then push, okay, that'scrazy, we can't do that. And
okay, well here's this otherbill that is ready to go, that
was a 15 week ban, a 20 weekban. And then, you know, so
watch out for some of thosethings that seem so wild , um,
(51:52):
because then they're used tobring in a , a gentler version,
heavy air quotes. Yeah . Um,that then paves the way to do
that more restrictive versionlater.
Speaker 2 (52:02):
Another part of like not leaving people bind is ,
um, people are gonna, morepeople than ever are gonna be
criminalized for pregnancyoutcomes. Um , whether that's
miscarriage or whether that isbecause they self-manage an
abortion. Yeah . And as someonewho's reported on these cases,
there's people who aresympathetic and then there's a
lot of people saying like, oh,they shouldn't have done that.
And how, look how far alongthey were in pregnancy,
(52:25):
prosecutors go after people whowere further along in pregnancy
for the same reasons thatlawmakers want to ban abortion
later in pregnancy because theythink they will get public
support for it. And then theycan go after people earlier and
earlier. So like, people shouldunderstand why someone is
self-managing an abortion andthere are lots of reasons and
(52:45):
like evict the cop in yourhead, as some people say.
Right. You know, if you supportbodily autonomy, it is
antithetical to that to supportpeople being criminalized for
ending their pregnancies. Uh ,yeah,
Speaker 1 (52:59):
Go ahead. Yeah, no, I was just say, if you wanna
support people who are dealingwith being criminalized, the
repro Legal Defense Fund is agreat , um, group to
Speaker 2 (53:08):
Support and pregnancy justice as well.
There's like, yes , there'sgroups that are helping people
, um, in these situationsbecause they are unfortunately
more likely, I bring this up asa segue into another action
item, which is plan c pills.orgis a website with a lot of
information and they also havestickers that people can , um,
buy and, and put up in, youknow, like bathroom stalls and,
(53:29):
and other spaces to spreadinformation about , um,
abortion with pills and , andeven self-managed abortion. And
I wanted to bring up thecriminalization aspect first
because one, some people might, might not feel safe putting
up these stickers, but thentwo, when more people are
self-managing their abortions,there's gonna be more , um,
opportunities for lawenforcement to get involved.
(53:51):
And I think we should all justbe cognizant of that, that like
self-managing abortion isimportant and will continue,
but it also isn't like abandaid or a panacea because of
the, like the criminal legalsystem in the United States.
Speaker 1 (54:06):
Oh . These are all such great things for everybody
to think through. So many greatways to get involved. Susan,
thank you so much for doingthis. I had so much fun talking
to you about such horriblethings.
Speaker 2 (54:19):
Horrible, horrible things. That's that's what it's
like. It's like, oh, this wasgood but bad.
Speaker 1 (54:23):
Yeah. Bad. And giving me new things to worry
about that I hadn't beenworried about. So thanks .
Speaker 2 (54:29):
I'm so sorry.
Speaker 1 (54:33):
All right . Thanks for being here.
Speaker 2 (54:34):
Thank you.
Speaker 1 (54:35):
Okay, y'all, I hope you enjoyed my conversation
with Susan. I had a great timetalking to her about everything
that happened last year andlooking ahead to this year. Um,
and I will see everybody nextweek. If you have any
questions, comments, or topicsyou would like us to cover,
always feel free to shoot me anemail. You can reach me at
jenny JNI e@reprofightact.comor you can find us on social
(54:59):
media. We're at re pros, fightback on Facebook and Twitter or
re pros FB on Instagram. If youlove our podcast and wanna make
sure more people find it, takethe time to rate and review us
on your favorite podcastplatform. Or if you wanna make
sure to support the podcast,you can also donate on our
website@reprofightback.com.
(55:20):
Thanks all .
Popular Podcasts
On Purpose with Jay Shetty
I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com