October 21, 2025 • 39 mins
The term crisis pregnancy center (CPC) refers to anti-abortion facilities that mislead, confuse, delay, misinform, and purposefully re-direct pregnant people looking for education and services, including abortion care. They are often referred to as fake clinics, but they are beginning to offer some medical services. Garnet Henderson and Susan Rinkunas, journalists and co-founders of Autonomy News, sit down to talk with us about the new, harmful deceptions that CPCs are rolling out nationwide.
CPCs claim, without good evidence, an in-progress abortion can be halted through an “abortion pill reversal,” or the placement of progesterone between the ingestion of mifepristone and misoprostol—the two medications needed a medication abortion. This is based off myths of anecdotal regret, not scientific studies. In fact, the medical consensus is clear: the "abortion pill reversal" pseudoscience is ineffective and potentially dangerous. A case this Supreme Court term, First Choice Women's Resource Centers v. Platkin, stemmed from a subpoena from New Jersey Attorney General Matt Platkin to the First Choice chain of CPCs, seeking evidence on their abortion pill reversal claims. They have fought the subpoena up to the Supreme Court.
Meanwhile, the "One Big Beautiful Bill" has cut Planned Parenthood out of Medicaid. Abortion providers are forced to make a choice: continue providing abortions and remain ineligible to participate in Medicaid, or halt abortion services. There is no early gestation ban on abortion in Wisconsin, but Planned Parenthood has chosen not to provide abortions in response to this law.
For more information, check out Pantsuit Politics: https://www.pantsuitpoliticsshow.com/s/podcast
Follow Us on Social:
Twitter: @rePROsFightBack
Instagram: @reprosfb
Facebook: rePROs Fight Back
Bluesky: @reprosfightback.bsky.social
Buy rePROs Merch: Bonfire store
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.
Jennie (00:03):
Welcome to rePROs Fight Back, a podcast on
all things related to sexual andreproductive health, rights,
and justice.
Hi, rePROs.
How's everybody doing?
I'm your host, Jennie Wetter,and my pronouns are she/her.
Hey y'all, I am back fromItaly.
I am, as you can hear, notcompletely healthy.
(00:24):
I we we went all over, we had agreat trip, and when we hit
Venice, my allergies likeexploded like crazy.
Like, I ended up not getting todo the Venice tour because I
just stayed in the hotel roomlike feeling pretty miserable
(00:46):
that day.
The good news is like I slept alittle, took some drugs, and
then I was able to walk aroundMurano, which was the island we
were staying on, and got to goshopping and buy some Murano
glass jewelry and just have achill day.
I'm really bummed that I didn'tget to go and explore Venice,
but that's okay.
(01:07):
I enjoyed my day anyway.
But we had so much fun.
It was great to spend time withmy cousins and my aunt, ate so
much amazing food, drank wine,discovered Hugo Spritzes, which
were delightful, had a BlueProsecco, which was also
delightful, had Limoncello, andgot to spend some time in Amalfi
(01:34):
and have a Limoncello Spritzwhen I was there in honor of my
old boss, which was also reallynice.
Yeah, it was so much fun.
We traveled all over.
We were in Rome and Florenceand Cinque Terre and Venice and
Naples and Sorrento, Positano,and Pompeii.
(01:54):
Like, it was so much fun.
I got to see so many wonderfulthings.
It was exhausting.
Like, it was a lot of travelall over Italy and early days
and long days, and I am readyfor a vacation for my vacation.
So I'm very much lookingforward to over the weekend
doing absolutely nothing, butjust taking some time to
(02:15):
recover.
So that is my plan for thislast weekend is to do nothing.
I'm very much looking forwardto it.
And yeah.
But it was a great trip.
We met so many wonderfulpeople, had a lot of fun.
Some people that I'm sure Iwill keep in touch with, some
that will probably also belistening to the podcast.
Hi, Julie and Tim.
I had so much fun hanging outwith y'all.
(02:36):
It was just a wonderful trip,and I'm really glad we did it.
Like I said, amazing food andtook so many pictures.
I took a number on my phone,but I also took my good camera
with me and took a ton on that.
So, I cannot wait to downloadall of those onto my computer
and see see those pictures.
(02:57):
I haven't had a chance to lookat them yet.
So maybe among my doingnothing, maybe something else I
will do this weekend.
We'll see.
I really feel like doingabsolutely nothing.
But yeah, I had a great trip.
And then I came back and foundout that we are a finalist for
an Anthem Award.
I am so excited.
I am so as always, when anysort of recognition comes for
(03:22):
the podcast, I'm so honored anda little bit in awe that people
value uh what we are doing.
I love doing this podcast.
I love all the greatconversations we get to have,
and I'm so honored that otherssee the value in them because
that means so much to me,because I want this to be a
(03:42):
useful tool for our community,for our audience.
I just, it means a lot.
So, we'll find out if we won ina couple weeks, but until then,
we there is a Listener's Choicewhere you can vote for us.
We'll make sure to have linkson social and we'll put them in
the show notes as well, of whereyou can go and vote to support
(04:05):
rePROs for an Anthem Award.
I am just so very excited andgrateful to all of you for your
support, to Meg, who does ourediting and does such a great
job editing this podcast, toRachel and Elena, who do so much
work behind the scenes and getnowhere near as much credit as
they deserve for all of theamazing work they do.
(04:26):
But I see all the work they doevery day, and I am so grateful
to them and they make thispodcast so much better.
Elena does such an outstandingjob on our social media, so that
is the way you and I see herthe most.
And Rachel does so much workmaking sure that you all get
your emails if you are signed upfor our newsletter.
(04:47):
If you're not, you should.
She does all of our show notesto make sure that you have a
short little blurb about whatthe podcast is about that makes
sense and puts all the shownotes together with all of the
links and stuff and the takeaction items.
Just so grateful for all of herwork as well.
Yeah, I'm just so proud of ourvery small but very, very mighty
(05:10):
team and so proud of them.
So, thank you to Rachel andElena.
They are just amazing.
Okay, with that, let's go tothis week's interview.
So, y'all, I got back lateTuesday night and recorded this
episode on Thursday, which meansI really have not had time to
get all caught up on the news.
(05:30):
So I thought, what a great wayto come back to schedule an
interview with Garnet Hendersonand Susan Rinkunas with Autonomy
News to talk about the things Imissed while I was gone and
some of the reporting that theyhave done.
So, I am so excited to havethis week's episode focusing on
what they have been working onwhile I have been gone, and we
(05:50):
talk about a couple differentthings.
So, with that, let's go to thisweek's interview.
Hi, Garnet and Susan.
Thank you so much for beinghere today.
Garnet (05:59):
Hi, Jennie.
Thank you so much for having usback.
Jennie (06:02):
Yeah, I'm excited to have you.
Before we get started, do youwant to do a quick round of
introductions?
Susan, why don't you go first?
Susan (06:10):
I am Susan Rinkunas.
I'm co-founder of Autonomy Newswith Garnet, and that is our
worker-owned publication wherewe cover all things reproductive
rights and justice.
Garnet (06:20):
And my name is Garnet.
I am an investigativejournalist, the other co-founder
of Autonomy News.
Both Susan and I have been onthe repro beat for a very long
time, and we joined Forces andlaunched Autonomy News at the
beginning of the summer in June.
Jennie (06:37):
I'm still so excited for y'all.
And you just had a big storythat came out as we were talking
yesterday, but when y'all arehearing this, so it'll be last
week.
And I'm really excited to talkabout it, but it felt like maybe
there was a place we needed tostep back a little bit,
particularly if there's any newaudience who are unfamiliar with
some of these things.
So, let's start with a coupleof definitions or like what
(06:59):
things are.
So, it's focused on "crisispregnancy centers," sometimes
called anti-abortion centers,and then abortion pill
"reversal," which heavy airquotes around all of that.
Does one of you want to liketackle what are these things?
Garnet (07:15):
Sure, I'll jump in.
"Crisis pregnancy centers" areanti-abortion facilities that
primarily exist to mislead orconfuse people who are seeking
abortion care.
Sometimes trying to outrightconvince them not to have an
abortion, but often just usingtactics to delay them in
accessing abortion.
(07:35):
As many people know, moststates have some kind of
restriction on abortion access,and so delays can actually
affect people's ability toultimately get the abortion that
they want to have.
And CPCs are also oftenreferred to as fake clinics, but
this is something that comesinto play in our story.
(07:58):
More and more of them arestarting to offer at least some
medical services, and in atleast the case of one small CPC
chain in California, um, they'reaccepting Medicaid, or in
California it's called Medi-Cal.
So that is something that'shappening.
Unfortunately, the fake clinicmoniker no longer applies to all
CPCs because some of themreally are trying to become, you
(08:20):
know, reproductive healthfacilities that just don't
provide abortion.
Susan, do you want to explainabortion pill reversal?
Susan (08:26):
I sure will.
And to explain abortion pillreversal, just a brief overview
of how medication abortionworks.
It typically involves takingtwo medications.
The first is mifepristone,which halts a pregnancy from
continuing, and the second ismisoprostol, which makes the
uterus contract and expel thepregnancy, essentially mimicking
(08:47):
a miscarriage.
So, what crisis pregnancycenters are claiming, without
good evidence, is that peoplewho are in between taking the
first medication and the secondone could halt an in-progress
abortion.
They claim that after takingmifepristone, if if someone is
(09:07):
prescribed a drug calledprogesterone, which mifepristone
worked as a block in medicationabortion, that they could halt
the abortion from continuing.
Now they are basing this ideaon the fact that this flawed
concept, this pseudoscience,this gobbledygook, like let's be
quite honest, on the flawedidea that people regret their
(09:30):
abortions, and that if someonetook the first pill and changes
their mind all of a sudden, thatsomeone could contact a crisis
pregnancy center and beprescribed progesterone to kind
of try to undo what theystarted.
And we know from research thatpeople are extremely certain on
their decision of an abortion,and like by the time they make
(09:52):
the appointment, or you know,that people are very, very
certain.
So, it is based on this myththat people regret their choice
and it actually could bedangerous to be giving people
progesterone after takingmifepristone before taking
misoprostol.
There was one study that wasstarted in 2019 that tried to
(10:15):
follow people through this quoteunquote "protocol"— again,
scare quotes.
It was led by OBGYN's, likelegitimate people, not the
ideologues who are promotingreversal.
And that study actually had tobe halted because there were
people who were experiencingbleeding and needed to get
emergency medical care.
So ethically, the the studyadvisors said we can't continue
(10:39):
this.
So, that's kind of an overview.
We can get into more laterabout crisis pregnancy centers
are harping on reversal.
It does have to do with thefact that medication abortion
has become so much more commonin the past, five years, even
before that, 10 years, but butthey are kind of preying on
people with this pseudoscienceand trying to say that it's
(11:03):
totally fine and safe, and maybeyou could even have a
continuing pregnancy after youdo reversal.
Jennie (11:08):
Okay, now that we have some of the basics that are at
the center of your article laidout, let's talk about this piece
that you just co-published withMother Jones.
I found it really interesting.
So I would love to hear y'alltalk about it.
Garnet (11:21):
Sure.
So there are three big nationaland in some cases international
umbrella organizations forcrisis pregnancy centers.
So, there's HeartbeatInternational, CareNet, and
NIFLA, which stands for NationalInstitute of Family and Life
Advocates.
There are others, but those aresort of the big three.
(11:42):
And a lot of people will maybebe familiar with the name NIFLA
because there was a SupremeCourt case called NIFLA v.
Becerra.
That was when Xavier Becerrawas the Health Secretary in
California, or the AttorneyGeneral of California, excuse
me, before he became HHSsecretary under Joe Biden.
(12:03):
And so, that was a case whereNIFLA, on behalf of Crisis
Pregnancy Centers, sued tooverturn a California law that
forced unlicensed crisispregnancy centers to disclose
that they were not licensed.
And it forced licensed ones—like the ones I mentioned, that
are providing some medicalservices and even maybe
(12:24):
accepting insurance— it forcedthem to actually provide people
with information about low-costfamily planning services
available to them from the stateof California.
And NIFLA was successful in itschallenge to that law.
It got the law overturned.
And this was before the SupremeCourt had its current
conservative supermajority, bythe way.
(12:44):
So, it was a really big blow toefforts to regulate crisis
pregnancy centers.
And so, an idea that emerged inthe wake of that case is that
instead states could try toregulate crisis pregnancy
centers on the basis of theirdeceptive speech.
So instead of regulating thembased on what they do, regulate
(13:06):
them based on essentially falseadvertising.
And abortion pill reversal isone of the things that made this
approach seem like a slam dunkbecause the medical consensus on
this is so clear (13:17):
it does not work, it's potentially
dangerous, and it's illegal toadvertise something to someone
that could harm them under allkinds of different federal and
state laws.
And so, a bunch of stateattorneys general have tried to
do this.
There have been efforts in NewYork, California, New Jersey,
(13:38):
Washington, and then inColorado.
Colorado actually passed thefirst ban on abortion pill
reversal.
Unfortunately, that law iscurrently blocked, enforcement
of it is currently blocked.
And basically, what our storyreveals...
someone shared recordings withus from a NIFLA conference that
(14:03):
happened in March, and there aretwo panels that our story is
really focused on (14:09):
one of them was a legal Q & A, and the other
one was a medical director'sround table, a CPC medical
director's roundtable.
And the legal Q & A features anattorney from Alliance
Defending Freedom, which is theconservative legal super firm
that is behind so many of theattacks on civil rights at the
(14:29):
moment.
They're the people who wrotethe Mississippi abortion ban
that was ultimately used tooverturn Roe v.
Wade.
And there's a lot of very frankdiscussion about how important
abortion pill reversal hasactually been to their legal
strategy and how they're usingthese attempts by blue state
attorneys general who are tryingto regulate CPCs, how they've
(14:51):
kind of flipped those andthey've been able to use them
against the state and are tryingto set up another Supreme Court
case that could actually expandthe rights of CPCs to spread
medical disinformation.
I don't know what you'd want toadd, Susan.
Susan (15:09):
Yeah, I think hearing that we got audio from this
conference is interesting, butthen you really kind of need to
look at the quotes that we'vehighlighted, which are quite
surprising, awling.
Garnet mentioned that there'sthe statements from Alliance
(15:30):
Defending Freedom attorneys, andalso Thomas More Society is
another law firm that's involvedhere.
So, just to give listeners anidea of what I'm talking about,
basically there's another caseout of California now.
So the current Attorney GeneralRob Bonta sued Crisis Pregnancy
(15:50):
Centers.
He sued Heartbeat Internationalin 2023 for deceptive
advertising, for deception.
And they have that case going.
But a year later, AllianceDefending Freedom turned around
and sued Bonta, representingNIFLA and one of its member
CPCs, one in I think SantaClarita Valley.
(16:12):
So, now there are people onthis panel in March 2025: okay,
well, can we advertise abortionpill reversal?
Can we provide referrals forit?
What should we be doing giventhis litigation?
And basically, someone, anattorney from NIFLA, one of
their vice presidents, toldattendees at this legal panel
that the organization's quote,official recommendation, quote,
(16:35):
is for CPCs in California not toactually prescribe abortion
pill reversal, which a few ofthem do.
There's actually a hotline runby Heartbeat so that the any
providers that actually arewilling to do this can send
prescriptions via telemedicine.
But this attorney, AnnO'Connor, she said, ADF,
referring to Alliance ofDefending Freedom, ADF
(16:57):
recommended, you know, it'sbetter to go conservative in
that to allege that our FirstAmendment rights have been
chilled by what the AG is doing.
Then an audience member asks,so would you suggest not telling
clients about it, abortion pillreversal?
And then O'Connor responds, Itold you that's the official.
And in the audio, you can hearthe audience laughing.
(17:18):
So it's crazy to me.
And then basically, thenAlliance Defending Freedom
attorney who was on the panel,Kevin Theriot, piped in and said
that there was a differencebetween giving out information
and actually prescribingabortion pill reversal.
And he said, quote, "there's adifference between advertising
(17:39):
it and giving people informationabout the possible
availability." SoAlliance Defending Freedom is
arguing that the state ofCalifornia is censoring
basically the crisis pregnancycenters, that their First
Amendment rights are beingchilled by this regulation.
But behind closed doors,they're talking about how, well,
you can still make referrals.
It's fine.
It's information.
They can't do anything aboutthat.
(18:00):
And and we're going to see themargue in court that basically
the opposite.
And there was actually ahearing at the Ninth Circuit
Court of Appeals last week, Ibelieve, in this case, this ADF
case against Bonta.
So, after there's a ruling inthat, that could potentially get
appealed up to the SupremeCourt, and we'd be, like Garnet
said, have another case at theSupreme Court that could in fact
(18:22):
give crisis pregnancy centersmore license to spread
disinformation.
Jennie (18:27):
This is all just so wild.
Like, this is one, I find itjust amazing that they are still
recommending this procedure topeople and telling people about
it when, as you said, therethere was a study that had to be
discontinued because ofbleeding and that it clearly is
(18:50):
a problem, but they still haveno problem telling pregnant
people that that's somethingthat they should consider that
is wild in and of itself, butalso that the precedent that
this lawsuit could set up isalso just like so concerning.
Garnet (19:05):
Yeah, I mean, Susan just read one of the really kind of
shocking quotes, but there'sanother one where a different
attorney from NIFLA, AngieThomas said, "I think everyone
should just go get a t-shirtthat says it's just
progesterone." And that'sanother moment where the
audience laughed.
In fact, when I was goingthrough and transcribing these
(19:27):
conversations, I had to notelaughter a lot.
It was a very, it was like afun conversation for them,
talking about things that couldreally endanger people.
And in fact, in the medicaldirector's roundtable, there's a
lot of acknowledgement of someof these risks, a surprising
amount, I would say.
Karen Poehailos, who is ananti-abortion physician and the
(19:49):
assistant medical director atNIFLA, who is also one of those
telemedicine providers for theHeartbeat International hotline,
she acknowledged that there area lot of providers who are not
willing themselves to prescribeabortion pill reversal, and they
will only do an ultrasound foranother provider who wants to
prescribe.
She said that most of herpatients, I think she said only
(20:11):
three of them have ever beenlocal to her, and the rest have
all been through telemedicine,which is very ironic considering
the anti-abortion movement'sopposition to telehealth for
abortion, which we actually knowis safe, whereas we have zero
information that abortion pillreversal via telemedicine or in
general is safe; and in fact, weknow it's probably dangerous.
(20:33):
And she even mentioned a sideeffect that is not listed in any
of the papers thatanti-abortion physicians have
published about abortion pillreversal.
So, she talks about somethingcalled subchorionic hemorrhage
or hematoma, which is a commoncondition, usually in early
pregnancy, where bloodessentially collects between the
gestational sac and the wall ofthe uterus.
(20:55):
And usually that's mild andresolves on its own.
However, it is a really commoncause of bleeding in early
pregnancy and it doesn't alwaysresolve on its own.
And she actually said that mostpeople who do abortion pill
reversal will have bleeding, andthat if you see one of these
subchorionic hemorrhages, youpray it's not a big one.
(21:15):
And in fact, she said, "I praythat God protects me," when
she's doing abortion pillreversal via telemedicine, which
I found to be telling.
And yeah, the other thing Iwanted to mention is that there
is a case in this Supreme Courtterm, which just started in
October, called First ChoiceWomen's Resource Centers v.
(21:36):
Platkin.
So, this is stemming from oneof these efforts to regulate
CPCs.
New Jersey Attorney GeneralMatt Platkin tried to subpoena
First Choice, which is a smallchain of CPCs.
He wanted information fromthem, including he asked for
information to back up theirclaims about abortion pill
reversal.
(21:56):
They have never complied withthe subpoena.
They sued to block it.
And technically, this case isabout a really boring question,
which is can a CPC run straightto federal court to fight a
subpoena like this, or do theyneed to sue in state court
first?
So, I realize that seems likewhatever, who cares, but it's
actually incrediblyconsequential given how
(22:19):
conservative the federal courtsare now and how many Trump
appointees are sitting in ourfederal courts.
Federal court is a much morefavorable venue for any case
from a crisis pregnancy centerthan a state court in, you know,
New York, New Jersey,California would be.
And so, what is probably goingto happen is a favorable
(22:42):
decision in this first choicecase will then set up success in
the other cases that are makingtheir way to the Supreme Court.
So, Susan mentioned the one inCalifornia.
NIFLA is also suing LetitiaJames, the attorney general of
New York.
So, that case will be makingits way through the appellate
courts as well.
In fact, that could result inwhat's called a circuit split
(23:04):
where two appellate courtsdisagree with each other and the
Supreme Court then has to stepin and resolve the disagreement.
And then there's also thatColorado case about their
abortion pill reversal ban.
Like I said earlier,enforcement of that is blocked.
Technically, it's only blockedfor the people who sued over the
law, which is one crisispregnancy center and one nurse
(23:25):
practitioner.
However, it would be prettyeasy for anybody else who wanted
to sue and get the law blockedfor themselves as well on the
basis of that decision.
And if Colorado appeals thedecision, then that case could
also be working its way to theSupreme Court.
So basically, there's kind of aboring, seemingly
inconsequential case in thisSupreme Court term that does
(23:49):
really matter because it's goingto set up what will actually be
a Supreme Court decision aboutabortion pill reversal and
whether or not CPCs are allowedto promote medical
disinformation.
Susan (24:01):
And I just want to jump in and add one thing about the
New Jersey case that is going tobe heard this term.
Garnet mentioned that the FirstChoice Center is running right
to federal court, trying toargue that they do not have to
comply with an attorney generalsubpoena.
And again, the normal courtsession there would be state
(24:23):
court.
But again, as Garnet mentioned,the federal court has so many
Trump-appointed justices thatconservatives are going there as
often as they can.
I do want to point out to folksthat this is not unlike another
Alliance Defending Freedomcase, actually, two cases, the
303 Creative Web Designer casefrom...
(24:46):
what is time?
I think that was 2023.
But basically in that case,the web designer had never not
only had she never beendisciplined by the state, she
never actually designed, wasasked to design a website for a
gay couple.
She claimed that someonereached out to her, but
reporting from The New Republicfound that that was fake.
(25:07):
The person who reached out toher was a straight man who'd
been married for years before uhthat request was ever made.
So, she was never had noinjury, right?
You had you need to have aninjury to go to court and sue,
and she had no injury.
And then a case in this term—another Alliance Defending
Freedom case— is Chiles v.
Salazar, which is trying tooverturn Colorado's ban on
(25:30):
conversion therapy, aka tryingto tell LGBTQ kids that they are
trying to force LGBTQ kids tobe straight or be cisgender.
A counselor has also not beendisciplined by the state, and
she is going into court andsaying that the law harms her
free speech.
So, this is when we look atthese things in broad patterns,
(25:54):
this New Jersey case has theechoes of these other things
where right-wing law firms likeAlliance Defending Freedom know
that this strategy has workedfor them in the past, that the
Supreme Court will be like,yeah, sure, you've got standing,
it's fine, we'll overturn thislaw.
And that isn't how it shouldgo, but because this
supermajority on the court hasrewarded them in the past, like,
yeah, let's do it again.
Let's do it for crisispregnancy centers.
Jennie (26:16):
Okay, before we move on to another story, is there
anything else you wanted to say?
I feel like there was so muchin this article that we could
talk about.
I just wanted to flag if therewas anything else y'all wanted
to raise.
I found the numbers reallyshocking of like that they had
like two to three calls a yearat that hotline like a couple
years ago, which is wild tothink that there's so few.
(26:41):
That that was just somethingthat stood out.
Garnet (26:43):
Yeah, I think one thing that I would add is that we do
have an anecdote from CallaHales, who runs a
Preferred Women's Health Center,which has clinics in North
Carolina and Georgia.
And she says that post-Dobbs,she has actually started to see
patients at her clinics getensnared by abortion pill
(27:03):
reversal.
About one a month is kind ofthe rate that they're
experiencing this right now.
And so, what's happening isthat people are calling back to
her clinic and saying, now Iwant to reverse my reversal.
And they kind of just have totell those patients to come back
in, right?
Because those patients need tobe seen to make sure that
(27:24):
they're okay and to decide onthe best course of treatment.
And so, that means often thatpeople have to travel again out
of whatever banned state theymay have traveled to North
Carolina from.
You know, it's really awful.
And so, yes, HeartbeatInternational, which runs the
hotline.
Well, let me back up one step.
So, there's a study that cameout that was published this year
(27:47):
by the folks behind CPC Map,which found that only 3.8% of
CPCs are offering abortion pillreversal on site.
So most of them are providinginformation about it, and then
they're referring people to this"Heartbeat" Hotline.
So the Heartbeat Hotlinecomplains that it has quote
unquote "saved thousands ofbabies," although I think
(28:08):
they're saying it's 7,000 sincethe start in 2012.
So that still doesn't breakdown, even if we accept that
number, which I don't believe weshould, but even if we did, it
doesn't actually work out tolike that many cases a year.
And we know that CPCs have ahabit of counting every single
contact as a client.
(28:29):
So, I'm gonna bet that if thatnumber is real, it's the number
of contacts, probably not thenumber of people who've gone
through with a quote-unquote"reversal" treatment.
But medication abortion isexploding in popularity, right?
The rate of medicationabortions in the US doubled from
2014 to 2023.
It's now almost two-thirds ofall abortions.
(28:50):
And so it does make sense thateven if there's a very small
number of people who kind of getensnared by this reversal myth,
that that number would haveincreased at least somewhat as
the medication abortion rateincreases.
And so, I just think it'simportant to keep in mind the
human impact of that becausepeople who have to travel out of
(29:10):
state to have abortions, whichis most of Calla's patients in
particularly North Carolina, andalso to an extent in Georgia,
are already going through anincredibly difficult time.
And then the fact that thosepeople are getting drawn in by
complete scam and guilted.
We know from the Turnaway Studythat people who are are more
likely to experience negativefeelings about their abortions
(29:32):
are ones who have higher levelsof abortion stigma in their
communities.
So, people who are alreadyprobably feeling guilt and
shame, and then that is beingused against them.
It's not only dangerous, it'sreally manipulative and cruel.
Jennie (29:46):
Okay, so let's turn to another thing that y'all have
been doing is following what weare seeing is the fallout from
the one big terrible bill thatdefunded Planned Parenthood and.
And I'm from Wisconsin, so thatwas that hit close to home, as
seeing how some of the PlannedParenthood affiliates are
(30:08):
deciding to react to thatinformation.
Let's talk about what you havefound.
Susan (30:14):
Yes, we found that Planned Parenthood of Wisconsin
is halting abortions, has haltedabortions as of October 1st,
and that was in response to thefederal law that defunds
abortion providers.
And defunding, as yourlisteners likely know, is about
kicking abortion providers outof the Medicaid program.
(30:36):
And that puts abortionproviders in a tough situation
because they have to choose whatthey're going to do after a law
like that goes into effect.
They either have to haltproviding abortions so that they
can remain in Medicaid, or theywould continue providing
abortions and then no longer beeligible to participate so that
(30:58):
they wouldn't get anyreimbursement for Medicaid
patients coming in for otherservices like birth control, STI
screening, and basicreproductive health care.
The problem is that abortionclinics do often see a high
amount of Medicaid patients, sothat if they do not get that
reimbursement, that reallythreatens their ability to stay
open.
So, it's like you either chooseto keep clinics open or you
(31:20):
choose to keep providingabortions, is the short summary
of the choice here.
And we've been following thislaw from when it was being
debated in Congress and going,you know, getting signed and
going through lawsuits.
We had been informed thatPlanned Parenthood was actually
going to allow some of itsaffiliates to drop abortion care
(31:42):
if they so chose in order toremain eligible in Medicaid.
Now there are roughly fourdozen affiliates around the
country.
So it wasn't clear how manywould actually opt for that.
But what we did find is thatPlanned Parenthood Wisconsin has
done so and it appears to bethe only one thus far.
And this is interesting becauseit is one, it's just, you know,
(32:06):
a real example of the falloutof this bill and how it's going
to harm people, but alsoWisconsin still has legal
abortion.
This is what we believe is thefirst time that Planned
Parenthood is halting abortionsin a state where abortion is
legal after the Dobbs decision.
Obviously, a lot of states havehad to- clinics and states have
(32:28):
had to stop providing abortion,but that's because of a ban.
There is no early gestationban on abortion in Wisconsin,
but Planned Parenthood haschosen not to provide abortions
in response to this law.
And one thing that we know fromtheir previous statements is
that 60%, so nearly two-thirdsof their patients have Medicaid
for insurance.
(32:49):
So, that was one point ofinformation that the affiliate
was drawing attention to duringthe fight over the law because
they said if this law does takeeffect, it would really harm
that affiliate in particular.
Garnet (33:00):
Yeah, and so we reported the news that Planned
Parenthood of Wisconsin wasgoing to and ultimately did
pause abortion care.
We have also contacted everysingle Planned Parenthood
affiliate in the country to askwhether they are still providing
abortions and whether they canstill see Medicaid patients.
Because another thing thathappened shortly after Planned
(33:23):
Parenthood of Wisconsin saidwe'll no longer provide
abortions, Planned ParenthoodArizona came out and said we can
no longer see patients withMedicaid.
So, we contacted every singleaffiliate.
There are a few we haven'theard back from.
So, if you're listening to thisand you work for one of those
affiliates, please get back tous because we want the public to
have information about yourservices.
(33:44):
We believe that that'simportant.
And what I would say themajority of affiliates have told
us for now is that they'restill seeing patients with
Medicaid.
Let me see.
Yeah, so 25 affiliates havetold us that they're still
providing abortions and stillseeing patients who have
Medicaid insurance on a low-costor no cost basis.
(34:08):
Like, they either have freeservices or some kind of sliding
scale, which is great, exceptin many cases that came with a
for now caveat, right?
Because it's been interesting.
We've asked every affiliate: what percentage of patients with (34:21):
undefined
Medicaid do you see?
As Susan mentioned, PlannedParenthood of Wisconsin has a
really high percentage at 60.
There are a few affiliateswhere the percentage is even
higher than that, but a fewwhere it was much lower, like
even 5%, which is interestingbecause you know we think about
Planned Parenthood as a safetynet health provider, and
(34:41):
certainly it is, but clearlyit's just not the same in every
state and every region how manyMedicaid patients are relying on
Planned Parenthood.
So, some of those affiliatesthat have a lower proportion of
Medicaid patients really mightbe able to absorb that cost,
especially if they can get someextra donation revenue.
But some of these affiliatesthat are telling us they had,
(35:02):
you know, 70, 80, like, 90%patients on Medicaid who are
still seeing those patients butnot billing Medicaid, they are
not going to be able to do thatforever.
And so unfortunately, I thinkthere's a big caveat there, and
there's really no telling howlong that can last.
And I think that's why someaffiliates told us, yes, we're
(35:23):
still seeing patients who haveMedicaid, but they have to
self-pay, you know, and we dohave a discount for self-pay,
but that then puts thosepatients in the position of
maybe trying to go somewhereelse where their Medicaid is
accepted, but there can often bevery long wait times,
especially if you're trying toget something like an IUD.
A lot of the community healthfacilities that treat low-income
(35:45):
people and are primarilycatered to low-income people
have much longer wait times thanPlanned Parenthood historically
has.
So it's just a real loss,really, any way you slice it.
Susan (35:55):
Absolutely.
And I just want to add onething to what Garnet said, which
is yes, we got a lot of thosecomments that affiliates who are
continuing to see patientswith, you know, discounts or
financial assistance did say fornow, the "defund" provision in
the law is for one year.
And having it be quote unquote"only one year" was better than
(36:17):
a previous version of the billthat had a defund for 10 years.
But even so, the amount ofreimbursement that these clinics
will be losing in a one-yearperiod is very, very high.
So, it's not even clear ifclinics will be able to sustain
this for a year.
I think that we should assumethat clinics will not be able to
(36:37):
sustain this for a year.
So, there will be more weanticipate there will be more
changes in the coming months,which is why we contacted these
affiliates, why we have thislist.
And yes, like Garnet said, ifyou work for one of these
affiliates, please respond toour uh email.
It is a public service, notjust patients, but also for
workers at abortion funds andeven supporters of certain
(37:00):
affiliates, right, who want toknow what's what's going on in
their community.
So, this is a resource that wechose to publish for everyone to
have.
Jennie (37:07):
And then I'll just also flag for Wisconsin.
Yes, Planned Parenthood is notproviding abortions, but they
are not the only abortionproviders in the state.
There are two independentabortion providers.
Unfortunately, they are both inMilwaukee, in the Milwaukee
area, so that leaves a hugeswath of the state without easy
access.
But there are two independentabortion providers who are still
(37:27):
providing abortion in theMilwaukee area.
So, just wanted to make sureyou can still it is still legal,
you can still get it.
It's just you can't get it atPlanned Parenthood right now.
Okay, Garnet, Susan, thank youso much for being here.
It was so much fun to get totalk to you about the great new
reporting you have going on andjust to see your faces.
Susan (37:48):
Thanks, Jennie.
Garnet (37:49):
Thank you so much for having us, Jennie.
Jennie (37:51):
Okay, y'all.
I hope you enjoyed myconversation with Susan and
Garnet.
I always have so much funtalking to them, and it was
great to hear about some of thethings that have been happening
while I was gone.
And with that, I will seeeverybody next week.
If you have any questions,comments, or topics you would
like us to cover, always feelfree to shoot me an email.
You can reach me atjennie@reprosfightback.com, or
(38:16):
you can find us on social mediaor at rePROs Fight Back on
Facebook and Twitter, or@reprosfb on Instagram.
If you love our podcast andwant to make sure more people
find it, take the time to rateand review us on your favorite
podcast platform.
Or if you want to make sure tosupport the podcast, you can
also donate on our website atreprosfightback.com.
(38:37):
Thanks, all.
Welcome to rePROs Fight Back, a podcast on
all things related to sexual andreproductive health, rights,
and justice.
Hi, rePROs.
How's everybody doing?
I'm your host, Jennie Wetter,and my pronouns are she/her.
Hey y'all, I am back fromItaly.
I am, as you can hear, notcompletely healthy.
(00:24):
I we we went all over, we had agreat trip, and when we hit
Venice, my allergies likeexploded like crazy.
Like, I ended up not getting todo the Venice tour because I
just stayed in the hotel roomlike feeling pretty miserable
(00:46):
that day.
The good news is like I slept alittle, took some drugs, and
then I was able to walk aroundMurano, which was the island we
were staying on, and got to goshopping and buy some Murano
glass jewelry and just have achill day.
I'm really bummed that I didn'tget to go and explore Venice,
but that's okay.
(01:07):
I enjoyed my day anyway.
But we had so much fun.
It was great to spend time withmy cousins and my aunt, ate so
much amazing food, drank wine,discovered Hugo Spritzes, which
were delightful, had a BlueProsecco, which was also
delightful, had Limoncello, andgot to spend some time in Amalfi
(01:34):
and have a Limoncello Spritzwhen I was there in honor of my
old boss, which was also reallynice.
Yeah, it was so much fun.
We traveled all over.
We were in Rome and Florenceand Cinque Terre and Venice and
Naples and Sorrento, Positano,and Pompeii.
(01:54):
Like, it was so much fun.
I got to see so many wonderfulthings.
It was exhausting.
Like, it was a lot of travelall over Italy and early days
and long days, and I am readyfor a vacation for my vacation.
So I'm very much lookingforward to over the weekend
doing absolutely nothing, butjust taking some time to
(02:15):
recover.
So that is my plan for thislast weekend is to do nothing.
I'm very much looking forwardto it.
And yeah.
But it was a great trip.
We met so many wonderfulpeople, had a lot of fun.
Some people that I'm sure Iwill keep in touch with, some
that will probably also belistening to the podcast.
Hi, Julie and Tim.
I had so much fun hanging outwith y'all.
(02:36):
It was just a wonderful trip,and I'm really glad we did it.
Like I said, amazing food andtook so many pictures.
I took a number on my phone,but I also took my good camera
with me and took a ton on that.
So, I cannot wait to downloadall of those onto my computer
and see see those pictures.
(02:57):
I haven't had a chance to lookat them yet.
So maybe among my doingnothing, maybe something else I
will do this weekend.
We'll see.
I really feel like doingabsolutely nothing.
But yeah, I had a great trip.
And then I came back and foundout that we are a finalist for
an Anthem Award.
I am so excited.
I am so as always, when anysort of recognition comes for
(03:22):
the podcast, I'm so honored anda little bit in awe that people
value uh what we are doing.
I love doing this podcast.
I love all the greatconversations we get to have,
and I'm so honored that otherssee the value in them because
that means so much to me,because I want this to be a
(03:42):
useful tool for our community,for our audience.
I just, it means a lot.
So, we'll find out if we won ina couple weeks, but until then,
we there is a Listener's Choicewhere you can vote for us.
We'll make sure to have linkson social and we'll put them in
the show notes as well, of whereyou can go and vote to support
(04:05):
rePROs for an Anthem Award.
I am just so very excited andgrateful to all of you for your
support, to Meg, who does ourediting and does such a great
job editing this podcast, toRachel and Elena, who do so much
work behind the scenes and getnowhere near as much credit as
they deserve for all of theamazing work they do.
(04:26):
But I see all the work they doevery day, and I am so grateful
to them and they make thispodcast so much better.
Elena does such an outstandingjob on our social media, so that
is the way you and I see herthe most.
And Rachel does so much workmaking sure that you all get
your emails if you are signed upfor our newsletter.
(04:47):
If you're not, you should.
She does all of our show notesto make sure that you have a
short little blurb about whatthe podcast is about that makes
sense and puts all the shownotes together with all of the
links and stuff and the takeaction items.
Just so grateful for all of herwork as well.
Yeah, I'm just so proud of ourvery small but very, very mighty
(05:10):
team and so proud of them.
So, thank you to Rachel andElena.
They are just amazing.
Okay, with that, let's go tothis week's interview.
So, y'all, I got back lateTuesday night and recorded this
episode on Thursday, which meansI really have not had time to
get all caught up on the news.
(05:30):
So I thought, what a great wayto come back to schedule an
interview with Garnet Hendersonand Susan Rinkunas with Autonomy
News to talk about the things Imissed while I was gone and
some of the reporting that theyhave done.
So, I am so excited to havethis week's episode focusing on
what they have been working onwhile I have been gone, and we
(05:50):
talk about a couple differentthings.
So, with that, let's go to thisweek's interview.
Hi, Garnet and Susan.
Thank you so much for beinghere today.
Garnet (05:59):
Hi, Jennie.
Thank you so much for having usback.
Jennie (06:02):
Yeah, I'm excited to have you.
Before we get started, do youwant to do a quick round of
introductions?
Susan, why don't you go first?
Susan (06:10):
I am Susan Rinkunas.
I'm co-founder of Autonomy Newswith Garnet, and that is our
worker-owned publication wherewe cover all things reproductive
rights and justice.
Garnet (06:20):
And my name is Garnet.
I am an investigativejournalist, the other co-founder
of Autonomy News.
Both Susan and I have been onthe repro beat for a very long
time, and we joined Forces andlaunched Autonomy News at the
beginning of the summer in June.
Jennie (06:37):
I'm still so excited for y'all.
And you just had a big storythat came out as we were talking
yesterday, but when y'all arehearing this, so it'll be last
week.
And I'm really excited to talkabout it, but it felt like maybe
there was a place we needed tostep back a little bit,
particularly if there's any newaudience who are unfamiliar with
some of these things.
So, let's start with a coupleof definitions or like what
(06:59):
things are.
So, it's focused on "crisispregnancy centers," sometimes
called anti-abortion centers,and then abortion pill
"reversal," which heavy airquotes around all of that.
Does one of you want to liketackle what are these things?
Garnet (07:15):
Sure, I'll jump in.
"Crisis pregnancy centers" areanti-abortion facilities that
primarily exist to mislead orconfuse people who are seeking
abortion care.
Sometimes trying to outrightconvince them not to have an
abortion, but often just usingtactics to delay them in
accessing abortion.
(07:35):
As many people know, moststates have some kind of
restriction on abortion access,and so delays can actually
affect people's ability toultimately get the abortion that
they want to have.
And CPCs are also oftenreferred to as fake clinics, but
this is something that comesinto play in our story.
(07:58):
More and more of them arestarting to offer at least some
medical services, and in atleast the case of one small CPC
chain in California, um, they'reaccepting Medicaid, or in
California it's called Medi-Cal.
So that is something that'shappening.
Unfortunately, the fake clinicmoniker no longer applies to all
CPCs because some of themreally are trying to become, you
(08:20):
know, reproductive healthfacilities that just don't
provide abortion.
Susan, do you want to explainabortion pill reversal?
Susan (08:26):
I sure will.
And to explain abortion pillreversal, just a brief overview
of how medication abortionworks.
It typically involves takingtwo medications.
The first is mifepristone,which halts a pregnancy from
continuing, and the second ismisoprostol, which makes the
uterus contract and expel thepregnancy, essentially mimicking
(08:47):
a miscarriage.
So, what crisis pregnancycenters are claiming, without
good evidence, is that peoplewho are in between taking the
first medication and the secondone could halt an in-progress
abortion.
They claim that after takingmifepristone, if if someone is
(09:07):
prescribed a drug calledprogesterone, which mifepristone
worked as a block in medicationabortion, that they could halt
the abortion from continuing.
Now they are basing this ideaon the fact that this flawed
concept, this pseudoscience,this gobbledygook, like let's be
quite honest, on the flawedidea that people regret their
(09:30):
abortions, and that if someonetook the first pill and changes
their mind all of a sudden, thatsomeone could contact a crisis
pregnancy center and beprescribed progesterone to kind
of try to undo what theystarted.
And we know from research thatpeople are extremely certain on
their decision of an abortion,and like by the time they make
(09:52):
the appointment, or you know,that people are very, very
certain.
So, it is based on this myththat people regret their choice
and it actually could bedangerous to be giving people
progesterone after takingmifepristone before taking
misoprostol.
There was one study that wasstarted in 2019 that tried to
(10:15):
follow people through this quoteunquote "protocol"— again,
scare quotes.
It was led by OBGYN's, likelegitimate people, not the
ideologues who are promotingreversal.
And that study actually had tobe halted because there were
people who were experiencingbleeding and needed to get
emergency medical care.
So ethically, the the studyadvisors said we can't continue
(10:39):
this.
So, that's kind of an overview.
We can get into more laterabout crisis pregnancy centers
are harping on reversal.
It does have to do with thefact that medication abortion
has become so much more commonin the past, five years, even
before that, 10 years, but butthey are kind of preying on
people with this pseudoscienceand trying to say that it's
(11:03):
totally fine and safe, and maybeyou could even have a
continuing pregnancy after youdo reversal.
Jennie (11:08):
Okay, now that we have some of the basics that are at
the center of your article laidout, let's talk about this piece
that you just co-published withMother Jones.
I found it really interesting.
So I would love to hear y'alltalk about it.
Garnet (11:21):
Sure.
So there are three big nationaland in some cases international
umbrella organizations forcrisis pregnancy centers.
So, there's HeartbeatInternational, CareNet, and
NIFLA, which stands for NationalInstitute of Family and Life
Advocates.
There are others, but those aresort of the big three.
(11:42):
And a lot of people will maybebe familiar with the name NIFLA
because there was a SupremeCourt case called NIFLA v.
Becerra.
That was when Xavier Becerrawas the Health Secretary in
California, or the AttorneyGeneral of California, excuse
me, before he became HHSsecretary under Joe Biden.
(12:03):
And so, that was a case whereNIFLA, on behalf of Crisis
Pregnancy Centers, sued tooverturn a California law that
forced unlicensed crisispregnancy centers to disclose
that they were not licensed.
And it forced licensed ones—like the ones I mentioned, that
are providing some medicalservices and even maybe
(12:24):
accepting insurance— it forcedthem to actually provide people
with information about low-costfamily planning services
available to them from the stateof California.
And NIFLA was successful in itschallenge to that law.
It got the law overturned.
And this was before the SupremeCourt had its current
conservative supermajority, bythe way.
(12:44):
So, it was a really big blow toefforts to regulate crisis
pregnancy centers.
And so, an idea that emerged inthe wake of that case is that
instead states could try toregulate crisis pregnancy
centers on the basis of theirdeceptive speech.
So instead of regulating thembased on what they do, regulate
(13:06):
them based on essentially falseadvertising.
And abortion pill reversal isone of the things that made this
approach seem like a slam dunkbecause the medical consensus on
this is so clear (13:17):
it does not work, it's potentially
dangerous, and it's illegal toadvertise something to someone
that could harm them under allkinds of different federal and
state laws.
And so, a bunch of stateattorneys general have tried to
do this.
There have been efforts in NewYork, California, New Jersey,
(13:38):
Washington, and then inColorado.
Colorado actually passed thefirst ban on abortion pill
reversal.
Unfortunately, that law iscurrently blocked, enforcement
of it is currently blocked.
And basically, what our storyreveals...
someone shared recordings withus from a NIFLA conference that
(14:03):
happened in March, and there aretwo panels that our story is
really focused on (14:09):
one of them was a legal Q & A, and the other
one was a medical director'sround table, a CPC medical
director's roundtable.
And the legal Q & A features anattorney from Alliance
Defending Freedom, which is theconservative legal super firm
that is behind so many of theattacks on civil rights at the
(14:29):
moment.
They're the people who wrotethe Mississippi abortion ban
that was ultimately used tooverturn Roe v.
Wade.
And there's a lot of very frankdiscussion about how important
abortion pill reversal hasactually been to their legal
strategy and how they're usingthese attempts by blue state
attorneys general who are tryingto regulate CPCs, how they've
(14:51):
kind of flipped those andthey've been able to use them
against the state and are tryingto set up another Supreme Court
case that could actually expandthe rights of CPCs to spread
medical disinformation.
I don't know what you'd want toadd, Susan.
Susan (15:09):
Yeah, I think hearing that we got audio from this
conference is interesting, butthen you really kind of need to
look at the quotes that we'vehighlighted, which are quite
surprising, awling.
Garnet mentioned that there'sthe statements from Alliance
(15:30):
Defending Freedom attorneys, andalso Thomas More Society is
another law firm that's involvedhere.
So, just to give listeners anidea of what I'm talking about,
basically there's another caseout of California now.
So the current Attorney GeneralRob Bonta sued Crisis Pregnancy
(15:50):
Centers.
He sued Heartbeat Internationalin 2023 for deceptive
advertising, for deception.
And they have that case going.
But a year later, AllianceDefending Freedom turned around
and sued Bonta, representingNIFLA and one of its member
CPCs, one in I think SantaClarita Valley.
(16:12):
So, now there are people onthis panel in March 2025: okay,
well, can we advertise abortionpill reversal?
Can we provide referrals forit?
What should we be doing giventhis litigation?
And basically, someone, anattorney from NIFLA, one of
their vice presidents, toldattendees at this legal panel
that the organization's quote,official recommendation, quote,
(16:35):
is for CPCs in California not toactually prescribe abortion
pill reversal, which a few ofthem do.
There's actually a hotline runby Heartbeat so that the any
providers that actually arewilling to do this can send
prescriptions via telemedicine.
But this attorney, AnnO'Connor, she said, ADF,
referring to Alliance ofDefending Freedom, ADF
(16:57):
recommended, you know, it'sbetter to go conservative in
that to allege that our FirstAmendment rights have been
chilled by what the AG is doing.
Then an audience member asks,so would you suggest not telling
clients about it, abortion pillreversal?
And then O'Connor responds, Itold you that's the official.
And in the audio, you can hearthe audience laughing.
(17:18):
So it's crazy to me.
And then basically, thenAlliance Defending Freedom
attorney who was on the panel,Kevin Theriot, piped in and said
that there was a differencebetween giving out information
and actually prescribingabortion pill reversal.
And he said, quote, "there's adifference between advertising
(17:39):
it and giving people informationabout the possible
availability." SoAlliance Defending Freedom is
arguing that the state ofCalifornia is censoring
basically the crisis pregnancycenters, that their First
Amendment rights are beingchilled by this regulation.
But behind closed doors,they're talking about how, well,
you can still make referrals.
It's fine.
It's information.
They can't do anything aboutthat.
(18:00):
And and we're going to see themargue in court that basically
the opposite.
And there was actually ahearing at the Ninth Circuit
Court of Appeals last week, Ibelieve, in this case, this ADF
case against Bonta.
So, after there's a ruling inthat, that could potentially get
appealed up to the SupremeCourt, and we'd be, like Garnet
said, have another case at theSupreme Court that could in fact
(18:22):
give crisis pregnancy centersmore license to spread
disinformation.
Jennie (18:27):
This is all just so wild.
Like, this is one, I find itjust amazing that they are still
recommending this procedure topeople and telling people about
it when, as you said, therethere was a study that had to be
discontinued because ofbleeding and that it clearly is
(18:50):
a problem, but they still haveno problem telling pregnant
people that that's somethingthat they should consider that
is wild in and of itself, butalso that the precedent that
this lawsuit could set up isalso just like so concerning.
Garnet (19:05):
Yeah, I mean, Susan just read one of the really kind of
shocking quotes, but there'sanother one where a different
attorney from NIFLA, AngieThomas said, "I think everyone
should just go get a t-shirtthat says it's just
progesterone." And that'sanother moment where the
audience laughed.
In fact, when I was goingthrough and transcribing these
(19:27):
conversations, I had to notelaughter a lot.
It was a very, it was like afun conversation for them,
talking about things that couldreally endanger people.
And in fact, in the medicaldirector's roundtable, there's a
lot of acknowledgement of someof these risks, a surprising
amount, I would say.
Karen Poehailos, who is ananti-abortion physician and the
(19:49):
assistant medical director atNIFLA, who is also one of those
telemedicine providers for theHeartbeat International hotline,
she acknowledged that there area lot of providers who are not
willing themselves to prescribeabortion pill reversal, and they
will only do an ultrasound foranother provider who wants to
prescribe.
She said that most of herpatients, I think she said only
(20:11):
three of them have ever beenlocal to her, and the rest have
all been through telemedicine,which is very ironic considering
the anti-abortion movement'sopposition to telehealth for
abortion, which we actually knowis safe, whereas we have zero
information that abortion pillreversal via telemedicine or in
general is safe; and in fact, weknow it's probably dangerous.
(20:33):
And she even mentioned a sideeffect that is not listed in any
of the papers thatanti-abortion physicians have
published about abortion pillreversal.
So, she talks about somethingcalled subchorionic hemorrhage
or hematoma, which is a commoncondition, usually in early
pregnancy, where bloodessentially collects between the
gestational sac and the wall ofthe uterus.
(20:55):
And usually that's mild andresolves on its own.
However, it is a really commoncause of bleeding in early
pregnancy and it doesn't alwaysresolve on its own.
And she actually said that mostpeople who do abortion pill
reversal will have bleeding, andthat if you see one of these
subchorionic hemorrhages, youpray it's not a big one.
(21:15):
And in fact, she said, "I praythat God protects me," when
she's doing abortion pillreversal via telemedicine, which
I found to be telling.
And yeah, the other thing Iwanted to mention is that there
is a case in this Supreme Courtterm, which just started in
October, called First ChoiceWomen's Resource Centers v.
(21:36):
Platkin.
So, this is stemming from oneof these efforts to regulate
CPCs.
New Jersey Attorney GeneralMatt Platkin tried to subpoena
First Choice, which is a smallchain of CPCs.
He wanted information fromthem, including he asked for
information to back up theirclaims about abortion pill
reversal.
(21:56):
They have never complied withthe subpoena.
They sued to block it.
And technically, this case isabout a really boring question,
which is can a CPC run straightto federal court to fight a
subpoena like this, or do theyneed to sue in state court
first?
So, I realize that seems likewhatever, who cares, but it's
actually incrediblyconsequential given how
(22:19):
conservative the federal courtsare now and how many Trump
appointees are sitting in ourfederal courts.
Federal court is a much morefavorable venue for any case
from a crisis pregnancy centerthan a state court in, you know,
New York, New Jersey,California would be.
And so, what is probably goingto happen is a favorable
(22:42):
decision in this first choicecase will then set up success in
the other cases that are makingtheir way to the Supreme Court.
So, Susan mentioned the one inCalifornia.
NIFLA is also suing LetitiaJames, the attorney general of
New York.
So, that case will be makingits way through the appellate
courts as well.
In fact, that could result inwhat's called a circuit split
(23:04):
where two appellate courtsdisagree with each other and the
Supreme Court then has to stepin and resolve the disagreement.
And then there's also thatColorado case about their
abortion pill reversal ban.
Like I said earlier,enforcement of that is blocked.
Technically, it's only blockedfor the people who sued over the
law, which is one crisispregnancy center and one nurse
(23:25):
practitioner.
However, it would be prettyeasy for anybody else who wanted
to sue and get the law blockedfor themselves as well on the
basis of that decision.
And if Colorado appeals thedecision, then that case could
also be working its way to theSupreme Court.
So basically, there's kind of aboring, seemingly
inconsequential case in thisSupreme Court term that does
(23:49):
really matter because it's goingto set up what will actually be
a Supreme Court decision aboutabortion pill reversal and
whether or not CPCs are allowedto promote medical
disinformation.
Susan (24:01):
And I just want to jump in and add one thing about the
New Jersey case that is going tobe heard this term.
Garnet mentioned that the FirstChoice Center is running right
to federal court, trying toargue that they do not have to
comply with an attorney generalsubpoena.
And again, the normal courtsession there would be state
(24:23):
court.
But again, as Garnet mentioned,the federal court has so many
Trump-appointed justices thatconservatives are going there as
often as they can.
I do want to point out to folksthat this is not unlike another
Alliance Defending Freedomcase, actually, two cases, the
303 Creative Web Designer casefrom...
(24:46):
what is time?
I think that was 2023.
But basically in that case,the web designer had never not
only had she never beendisciplined by the state, she
never actually designed, wasasked to design a website for a
gay couple.
She claimed that someonereached out to her, but
reporting from The New Republicfound that that was fake.
(25:07):
The person who reached out toher was a straight man who'd
been married for years before uhthat request was ever made.
So, she was never had noinjury, right?
You had you need to have aninjury to go to court and sue,
and she had no injury.
And then a case in this term—another Alliance Defending
Freedom case— is Chiles v.
Salazar, which is trying tooverturn Colorado's ban on
(25:30):
conversion therapy, aka tryingto tell LGBTQ kids that they are
trying to force LGBTQ kids tobe straight or be cisgender.
A counselor has also not beendisciplined by the state, and
she is going into court andsaying that the law harms her
free speech.
So, this is when we look atthese things in broad patterns,
(25:54):
this New Jersey case has theechoes of these other things
where right-wing law firms likeAlliance Defending Freedom know
that this strategy has workedfor them in the past, that the
Supreme Court will be like,yeah, sure, you've got standing,
it's fine, we'll overturn thislaw.
And that isn't how it shouldgo, but because this
supermajority on the court hasrewarded them in the past, like,
yeah, let's do it again.
Let's do it for crisispregnancy centers.
Jennie (26:16):
Okay, before we move on to another story, is there
anything else you wanted to say?
I feel like there was so muchin this article that we could
talk about.
I just wanted to flag if therewas anything else y'all wanted
to raise.
I found the numbers reallyshocking of like that they had
like two to three calls a yearat that hotline like a couple
years ago, which is wild tothink that there's so few.
(26:41):
That that was just somethingthat stood out.
Garnet (26:43):
Yeah, I think one thing that I would add is that we do
have an anecdote from CallaHales, who runs a
Preferred Women's Health Center,which has clinics in North
Carolina and Georgia.
And she says that post-Dobbs,she has actually started to see
patients at her clinics getensnared by abortion pill
(27:03):
reversal.
About one a month is kind ofthe rate that they're
experiencing this right now.
And so, what's happening isthat people are calling back to
her clinic and saying, now Iwant to reverse my reversal.
And they kind of just have totell those patients to come back
in, right?
Because those patients need tobe seen to make sure that
(27:24):
they're okay and to decide onthe best course of treatment.
And so, that means often thatpeople have to travel again out
of whatever banned state theymay have traveled to North
Carolina from.
You know, it's really awful.
And so, yes, HeartbeatInternational, which runs the
hotline.
Well, let me back up one step.
So, there's a study that cameout that was published this year
(27:47):
by the folks behind CPC Map,which found that only 3.8% of
CPCs are offering abortion pillreversal on site.
So most of them are providinginformation about it, and then
they're referring people to this"Heartbeat" Hotline.
So the Heartbeat Hotlinecomplains that it has quote
unquote "saved thousands ofbabies," although I think
(28:08):
they're saying it's 7,000 sincethe start in 2012.
So that still doesn't breakdown, even if we accept that
number, which I don't believe weshould, but even if we did, it
doesn't actually work out tolike that many cases a year.
And we know that CPCs have ahabit of counting every single
contact as a client.
(28:29):
So, I'm gonna bet that if thatnumber is real, it's the number
of contacts, probably not thenumber of people who've gone
through with a quote-unquote"reversal" treatment.
But medication abortion isexploding in popularity, right?
The rate of medicationabortions in the US doubled from
2014 to 2023.
It's now almost two-thirds ofall abortions.
(28:50):
And so it does make sense thateven if there's a very small
number of people who kind of getensnared by this reversal myth,
that that number would haveincreased at least somewhat as
the medication abortion rateincreases.
And so, I just think it'simportant to keep in mind the
human impact of that becausepeople who have to travel out of
(29:10):
state to have abortions, whichis most of Calla's patients in
particularly North Carolina, andalso to an extent in Georgia,
are already going through anincredibly difficult time.
And then the fact that thosepeople are getting drawn in by
complete scam and guilted.
We know from the Turnaway Studythat people who are are more
likely to experience negativefeelings about their abortions
(29:32):
are ones who have higher levelsof abortion stigma in their
communities.
So, people who are alreadyprobably feeling guilt and
shame, and then that is beingused against them.
It's not only dangerous, it'sreally manipulative and cruel.
Jennie (29:46):
Okay, so let's turn to another thing that y'all have
been doing is following what weare seeing is the fallout from
the one big terrible bill thatdefunded Planned Parenthood and.
And I'm from Wisconsin, so thatwas that hit close to home, as
seeing how some of the PlannedParenthood affiliates are
(30:08):
deciding to react to thatinformation.
Let's talk about what you havefound.
Susan (30:14):
Yes, we found that Planned Parenthood of Wisconsin
is halting abortions, has haltedabortions as of October 1st,
and that was in response to thefederal law that defunds
abortion providers.
And defunding, as yourlisteners likely know, is about
kicking abortion providers outof the Medicaid program.
(30:36):
And that puts abortionproviders in a tough situation
because they have to choose whatthey're going to do after a law
like that goes into effect.
They either have to haltproviding abortions so that they
can remain in Medicaid, or theywould continue providing
abortions and then no longer beeligible to participate so that
(30:58):
they wouldn't get anyreimbursement for Medicaid
patients coming in for otherservices like birth control, STI
screening, and basicreproductive health care.
The problem is that abortionclinics do often see a high
amount of Medicaid patients, sothat if they do not get that
reimbursement, that reallythreatens their ability to stay
open.
So, it's like you either chooseto keep clinics open or you
(31:20):
choose to keep providingabortions, is the short summary
of the choice here.
And we've been following thislaw from when it was being
debated in Congress and going,you know, getting signed and
going through lawsuits.
We had been informed thatPlanned Parenthood was actually
going to allow some of itsaffiliates to drop abortion care
(31:42):
if they so chose in order toremain eligible in Medicaid.
Now there are roughly fourdozen affiliates around the
country.
So it wasn't clear how manywould actually opt for that.
But what we did find is thatPlanned Parenthood Wisconsin has
done so and it appears to bethe only one thus far.
And this is interesting becauseit is one, it's just, you know,
(32:06):
a real example of the falloutof this bill and how it's going
to harm people, but alsoWisconsin still has legal
abortion.
This is what we believe is thefirst time that Planned
Parenthood is halting abortionsin a state where abortion is
legal after the Dobbs decision.
Obviously, a lot of states havehad to- clinics and states have
(32:28):
had to stop providing abortion,but that's because of a ban.
There is no early gestationban on abortion in Wisconsin,
but Planned Parenthood haschosen not to provide abortions
in response to this law.
And one thing that we know fromtheir previous statements is
that 60%, so nearly two-thirdsof their patients have Medicaid
for insurance.
(32:49):
So, that was one point ofinformation that the affiliate
was drawing attention to duringthe fight over the law because
they said if this law does takeeffect, it would really harm
that affiliate in particular.
Garnet (33:00):
Yeah, and so we reported the news that Planned
Parenthood of Wisconsin wasgoing to and ultimately did
pause abortion care.
We have also contacted everysingle Planned Parenthood
affiliate in the country to askwhether they are still providing
abortions and whether they canstill see Medicaid patients.
Because another thing thathappened shortly after Planned
(33:23):
Parenthood of Wisconsin saidwe'll no longer provide
abortions, Planned ParenthoodArizona came out and said we can
no longer see patients withMedicaid.
So, we contacted every singleaffiliate.
There are a few we haven'theard back from.
So, if you're listening to thisand you work for one of those
affiliates, please get back tous because we want the public to
have information about yourservices.
(33:44):
We believe that that'simportant.
And what I would say themajority of affiliates have told
us for now is that they'restill seeing patients with
Medicaid.
Let me see.
Yeah, so 25 affiliates havetold us that they're still
providing abortions and stillseeing patients who have
Medicaid insurance on a low-costor no cost basis.
(34:08):
Like, they either have freeservices or some kind of sliding
scale, which is great, exceptin many cases that came with a
for now caveat, right?
Because it's been interesting.
We've asked every affiliate: what percentage of patients with (34:21):
undefined
Medicaid do you see?
As Susan mentioned, PlannedParenthood of Wisconsin has a
really high percentage at 60.
There are a few affiliateswhere the percentage is even
higher than that, but a fewwhere it was much lower, like
even 5%, which is interestingbecause you know we think about
Planned Parenthood as a safetynet health provider, and
(34:41):
certainly it is, but clearlyit's just not the same in every
state and every region how manyMedicaid patients are relying on
Planned Parenthood.
So, some of those affiliatesthat have a lower proportion of
Medicaid patients really mightbe able to absorb that cost,
especially if they can get someextra donation revenue.
But some of these affiliatesthat are telling us they had,
(35:02):
you know, 70, 80, like, 90%patients on Medicaid who are
still seeing those patients butnot billing Medicaid, they are
not going to be able to do thatforever.
And so unfortunately, I thinkthere's a big caveat there, and
there's really no telling howlong that can last.
And I think that's why someaffiliates told us, yes, we're
(35:23):
still seeing patients who haveMedicaid, but they have to
self-pay, you know, and we dohave a discount for self-pay,
but that then puts thosepatients in the position of
maybe trying to go somewhereelse where their Medicaid is
accepted, but there can often bevery long wait times,
especially if you're trying toget something like an IUD.
A lot of the community healthfacilities that treat low-income
(35:45):
people and are primarilycatered to low-income people
have much longer wait times thanPlanned Parenthood historically
has.
So it's just a real loss,really, any way you slice it.
Susan (35:55):
Absolutely.
And I just want to add onething to what Garnet said, which
is yes, we got a lot of thosecomments that affiliates who are
continuing to see patientswith, you know, discounts or
financial assistance did say fornow, the "defund" provision in
the law is for one year.
And having it be quote unquote"only one year" was better than
(36:17):
a previous version of the billthat had a defund for 10 years.
But even so, the amount ofreimbursement that these clinics
will be losing in a one-yearperiod is very, very high.
So, it's not even clear ifclinics will be able to sustain
this for a year.
I think that we should assumethat clinics will not be able to
(36:37):
sustain this for a year.
So, there will be more weanticipate there will be more
changes in the coming months,which is why we contacted these
affiliates, why we have thislist.
And yes, like Garnet said, ifyou work for one of these
affiliates, please respond toour uh email.
It is a public service, notjust patients, but also for
workers at abortion funds andeven supporters of certain
(37:00):
affiliates, right, who want toknow what's what's going on in
their community.
So, this is a resource that wechose to publish for everyone to
have.
Jennie (37:07):
And then I'll just also flag for Wisconsin.
Yes, Planned Parenthood is notproviding abortions, but they
are not the only abortionproviders in the state.
There are two independentabortion providers.
Unfortunately, they are both inMilwaukee, in the Milwaukee
area, so that leaves a hugeswath of the state without easy
access.
But there are two independentabortion providers who are still
(37:27):
providing abortion in theMilwaukee area.
So, just wanted to make sureyou can still it is still legal,
you can still get it.
It's just you can't get it atPlanned Parenthood right now.
Okay, Garnet, Susan, thank youso much for being here.
It was so much fun to get totalk to you about the great new
reporting you have going on andjust to see your faces.
Susan (37:48):
Thanks, Jennie.
Garnet (37:49):
Thank you so much for having us, Jennie.
Jennie (37:51):
Okay, y'all.
I hope you enjoyed myconversation with Susan and
Garnet.
I always have so much funtalking to them, and it was
great to hear about some of thethings that have been happening
while I was gone.
And with that, I will seeeverybody next week.
If you have any questions,comments, or topics you would
like us to cover, always feelfree to shoot me an email.
You can reach me atjennie@reprosfightback.com, or
(38:16):
you can find us on social mediaor at rePROs Fight Back on
Facebook and Twitter, or@reprosfb on Instagram.
If you love our podcast andwant to make sure more people
find it, take the time to rateand review us on your favorite
podcast platform.
Or if you want to make sure tosupport the podcast, you can
also donate on our website atreprosfightback.com.
(38:37):
Thanks, all.
Popular Podcasts
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
CrimeLess: Hillbilly Heist
It’s 1996 in rural North Carolina, and an oddball crew makes history when they pull off America’s third largest cash heist. But it’s all downhill from there. Join host Johnny Knoxville as he unspools a wild and woolly tale about a group of regular ‘ol folks who risked it all for a chance at a better life. CrimeLess: Hillbilly Heist answers the question: what would you do with 17.3 million dollars? The answer includes diamond rings, mansions, velvet Elvis paintings, plus a run for the border, murder-for-hire-plots, and FBI busts.