April 22, 2025 • 35 mins
There’s a grab bag of sexual and reproductive health news from around the U.S. From the wins to celebrate to the updates to keep an eye on, Garnet Henderson, investigative reporter specializing in sexual and reproductive health and disinformation, sits down to talk with us about a host of SRHR issues that are moving through the political and judicial landscape.
Issues discussed include: Nevada’s parental notification law, blocked since 1985 and made permanent in 1991, was overturned recently by a judge and will go into effect on April 30th; the Trump administration has been citing “DEI” as a reason Planned Parenthood and other affiliate’s Title X funding is being “reviewed” and threatened; the Supreme Court recently heard the arguments for Medina v. Planned Parenthood South Atlantic at the beginning of the month; and Wisconsin voters elected a Democratically-backed candidate to serve on the state’s Supreme Court, despite Elon Musk’s fundraising and $100 million dollars invested in the opposing candidate.
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 y'all, I have
been keeping something fromyou. I have, you may have heard
some vague intros the lastcouple weeks and some kind of
(00:27):
more evergreen episodes. Thatis because I have been on
vacation when you're hearingthis, I will have just gotten
back a day or two before. Uh ,my mom and I are going on a fun
trip. We are doing a cruiseexploring the British Isles and
I'm very excited. I obviously,I'm recording this before I
leave, so I can't tell you howit went, but I am excited to
(00:50):
see all of the amazing sites .
And honestly, I'm just soexcited to just step away from
everything. Things have been sohectic and, and busy and just
chaotic. Honestly, my inbox isalready chaos before I go away
for two and a half weeks. LikeI cannot imagine what it looks
(01:11):
like right now as you , asy'all are hearing this. It's
gonna be a disaster. But I amvery much looking forward to
this trip. I am looking forwardto turning off all the push
notifications on my phone andnot checking my email and doing
a lot of fun reading, I hope,and just seeing lovely sites
and eating great food and justhaving some time away from all
(01:34):
of the things that arehappening , um, right now here.
So I hope it's a great trip.
I'm very excited. I'm justreally looking forward to the
time away. But I am back nowy'all, and I am sure I'm
catching up on all the thingsthat have happened while I've
been gone. And we will have alot to talk about. I am sure in
the next couple episodes tocatch up on all the things I
(01:58):
missed. So I am very muchlooking forward to it. My
kitties are not happy that I'mgoing to be gone. They're
starting to figure out I'mleaving. So they are a little
unhappy, but these thingshappen. They will survive. They
will be mad, but it'll be okay.
I'm sure I am in the midst ofhaving cats attached to me as
you're listening , uh, to makesure I never leave them ever
(02:21):
again. Yeah, I guess I'm justgonna leave it there 'cause I
don't know how the trip wentand I don't have things to tell
you yet, other than I've beengone and hopefully had a
wonderful time. And hopefullyI'm rested and recharged. I
think having this long vacationinstead of like a short week,
being able to take like two anda half weeks off will be really
(02:41):
restorative for my mentalhealth. And just a really nice
break to just reset and to justrecharge. Uh , so I , I am back
y'all. Uh , and we will keepgoing. Okay. With that, I am
very excited to have with metoday Garnet Henderson. She is
(03:03):
an investigative reporter andwe are talking about some
things that happened the weekbefore I left. There were a
number of actions this week, soit's kind of a bit of a grab
bag episode. And so we arecatching up on a couple
different attacks onreproductive healthcare that
happened that first week ofApril. So with that, let's go
(03:24):
to my interview with Garnet. HiGarnet. Thank you so much for
being here.
Speaker 2 (03:29):
Hi. Thank you as always for having me.
Speaker 1 (03:31):
I'm so excited to have you and kind of doing kind
of a grab bag of things 'causethere's so much happening. Yes.
Um, but before we get started,do you wanna introduce yourself
and include your pronouns?
Speaker 2 (03:42):
Sure. My name is Garnet Henderson. My pronouns
are she, her and I am aninvestigative reporter
specializing in reproductiveand sexual health, and also a
lot in disinformation becausethere's a lot of interation
there.
Speaker 1 (03:57):
There's
Speaker 2 (03:57):
So much. Yes.
Speaker 1 (03:58):
So I figured we need to do a little bit of time
stamping and we are recordingthis on April 2nd because y'all
don't know , but I've been wayon vacation when you were
hearing this, and so you , youare hearing this on the day
after I get back. Uh , so,which is why I'm comfortable
telling you all I've all, I'vebeen gone. So things may have
(04:19):
changed since then, all thecaveats, but very excited to
have guarded on to talk about abunch of things that have been
happening recently. Always
Speaker 2 (04:27):
Excited to be here.
Speaker 1 (04:28):
Let's start with the one that I think got buried
because as we got on the call,you were telling me about it
and I hadn't heard. So whathappened in Nevada?
Speaker 2 (04:37):
So I'm sure that many of your listeners are
aware that a lot of states haverequirements where people under
18 either have to get theirparents' permission to have an
abortion, or they at least haveto, the parents at least have
to be notified. And so Nevadahas had one of these parental
notification laws, except ithas been blocked since 1985.
(04:58):
That is when , uh, the firstpreliminary injunction was
issued, and then that was madepermanent in 1991 , uh, which
is the year I was born, by theway. So for as long as I have
been alive, this law in Nevadahas been blocked. And this
week, so again, we're speakingon April 2nd. On April 1st, a
judge , uh, overturned thatinjunction and that parental
(05:21):
notification law is gonna gointo effect in Nevada on April
30th. And
Speaker 1 (05:25):
Maybe just because I feel like we've talked about
parental notification andconsent laws before, but like I
feel like it's been a while .
Maybe we should just touch onreal quick like why this is a
problem. Like why are we, are ,are , are we talking about it?
Speaker 2 (05:40):
Sure. I mean, first of all, not everyone is able to
contact a parent, right? Somepeople are estranged from their
parents and also may just notwant their parents to know that
they're having an abortion. Youknow, maybe if having an
abortion is a decision that ateenager wants to make for
themselves, but they know theirparent is not gonna agree with
(06:02):
that decision, or they knowthat their parent finding out
that they're having an abortionor that they're pregnant,
perhaps, you know, being the,the big thing, they don't want
their parents to find out thatthat might just make life much
more difficult for them,especially in a home that is
abusive or very controllingthese parental. And this is not
a parental consent requirement,so it's maybe slightly less
(06:24):
onerous in that way, but stillfor a teenager to have to
notify their parents , um, isnot easy for everyone. And it's
also just invasive, right? It,it really takes the decision
making away from the personwho's having an abortion and
involves family members thatthey may not want involved in
the decision. And then there isa judicial bypass process,
(06:47):
meaning that you canpotentially bypass this
parental notificationrequirement with permission
from a judge. But, you know,I've interviewed people who
went through the judicialbypass process and found it
just incredibly dehumanizing tohave to go and plead your case
before a judge is, as I said,dehumanizing. It's
embarrassing, it'sinconvenient. And it delays
(07:11):
abortion care, which is alreadytime sensitive in nature. So
this is just a really invasiveand onerous requirement. And
also since it hasn't been inplace in Nevada for all this
time, I imagine that to getthings up and running to help
teenagers get those judicialbypasses when they're
necessary, that's gonna be awhole project in and of itself.
(07:33):
And all the attorneys andadvocacy organizations in
Nevada, they only have about amonth to, to try and prepare to
do that.
Speaker 1 (07:40):
Oh man , I didn't even think of that part. And
like even like the judges whoare going to hear them and like
mm-hmm .
Familiarizing themselves onlike the process. Like there's
a lot of work that needs to bedone before that. Yeah, I was
thinking as you were talking,we had a storyteller on from
Texas a while ago , um, who wastalking about going through the
(08:01):
judicial bypass process inTexas and just like, not just
like how dehumanizing and all,all of those things, but like
how onerous it was, like all ofthe things she had to be
prepped to know, like name theinstruments needed to describe
the entire process and like allof these barriers and hurdles
they had to navigate to accesscare. Like, can you imagine if
(08:24):
you like had to get your wisdomteeth out and it was like,
okay, well your parents need toagree. If they don't, you have
to go in and talk about howexactly this procedure happens,
what they are doing. Like thatis wild.
Speaker 2 (08:37):
Absolutely. And like so many other states in the us
, Nevada is a state that haslarge rural areas and abortion
clinics tend to be concentratedmore in urban or more
population dense areas. And soI also think about the young
people in rural areas whoprobably already would've had
to do some travel for theirabortion care. Maybe that was
(08:59):
already going to pose achallenge for them, especially
if they have parents who aren'tsupportive or , um, you know,
they're worried about theirparents finding out. And then
to have to go through theprocess of a judicial bypass on
top of that is such a headacheat best and at worst, you know,
any additional barrier issomething that can stand in the
way of someone actually gettingthe abortion care that they
(09:20):
need.
Speaker 1 (09:20):
Okay. So unfortunately that wasn't the
only thing that happened thisweek. Like y'all we're only
talking about one week andthere were like three huge
things that happened. ,oh boy.
Speaker 2 (09:29):
. So
Speaker 1 (09:29):
Next was the Trump administration's actions around
Title 10 . So what did theadmin do?
Speaker 2 (09:35):
Right? So we have been expecting action in this
area, right in during Trump'sfirst presidency. He withheld
Title 10 family planning fundsfrom Planned Parenthood and
from other abortion providers.
As I'm sure all the listenersto this podcast, know, federal
funds cannot be used to pay forabortions except in extremely
(09:56):
limited circumstances. So weare not even talking about
money that was ever going toabortion care. It's family
planning funds, it's paying forbirth control and counseling
basically. But a lot of ourcountry's Title 10 providers,
first of all, a large number ofthem are Planned Parenthood
affiliates. And many, if notmost of them are organizations
(10:16):
that also provide abortioncare. They just don't use the
Title 10 money to pay for theabortions. So already under the
first Trump administration,Trump said no more Title 10
funds for Planned Parenthood orother abortion providers. And
the Trump administration evenawarded some Title 10 funds to
(10:36):
obra , which is a network ofcrisis pregnancy centers,
anti-abortion centers. And thisis something that's outlined in
Project 2025 is quote unquotedefunding Planned Parenthood
and shifting any federal familyplanning funds to religious
organizations. So that's whatwe had been expecting. What is
(10:57):
a bit different this time isthat the Trump administration
is using a differentjustification. So this time,
instead of citing thatassociation with abortion care,
they're using their currentfavorite excuse, which is DEI.
So they notified PlannedParenthood as well as some
other Title 10 providers, notjust Planned Parenthood
(11:19):
affiliates, that they'rebasically reviewing their
receipt of Title X funds on thesuspicion that they're engaged
in DEI activities, which ofcourse the whole point of Title
X is equity. It's increasingaccess to family planning
services for low-income peoplewho are disproportionately
(11:40):
people of color, young peoplein the United States. So, I
mean, sure, I guess the wholeprogram is DEI , right?
Although the Trumpadministration has distorted
that terms to distorted thatterm to an extent where it just
makes no sense anymore. Andthey've also emphasized, you
know, my friend Kelsey MosleyMorris, who's a great reporter
(12:00):
at state's newsroom onreproductive rights, was in
contact with HHS yesterday. AndI know that they really stress
to her that no final decisionshave been made. So the Trump
administration is saying nofinal decision have been made,
but they've notified thesegrantees we're reviewing your
receipt of these funds that,that they had already won
through a grant making process.
(12:21):
So, you know, I I have toassume that those will be
permanently cut off and thatit's not just temporary as HHS
is saying,
Speaker 1 (12:30):
This has like been one of those like waiting for
the terrible thing to happen,right? Like it's kind of
amazing that it took as long asit did. I don't know, they were
too busy destroying all theother things, but like abortion
and repro is generally such ahigh priority. But to only see
the big like major thing beinglike global gag rule was kind
(12:52):
of surprising.
Speaker 2 (12:53):
It was kind of surprising. And I think there
are a lot of people who wannalook at that and say, oh well,
like maybe they're just notgonna come as hard after
abortion this time because theyknow that's unpopular. Exactly.
I agree. Uh, I don't thinkthere's any chance of that. But
what I do think, and what Ialways expected to happen,
obvious honestly, is that theywould just do it in these, it's
(13:15):
not really right to say thatit's under the radar, which is
what I was gonna say. Yeah.
Yeah. But that they wouldbasically just spin it
differently, right? So thistime, the excuse is DEI , even
though we know the real issuethat they have with these
providers is that they provideand refer for abortion care.
And you know, similarly, Ithink for example, myself and
(13:38):
many others have been waitingto see, are they gonna
implement a version of theComstock Act? Mm-hmm
. That says, youknow, now it's illegal to mail
abortion pills and uh, youknow, it's still very possible
they could do that. But alsothe federal government is
talking about privatizing thepostal service. So maybe
they're just gonna do that. Andthat's a really convenient way
to enact a Comstock like policy, uh, when, you know, it
(14:01):
becomes a private organizationand there's little to no
federal oversight. So I thinkthat we're gonna see all of
those project 2025 abortionrelated policies be carried
out. I think we're just notnecessarily gonna see them be
described in exactly the sameways that they are in the
Project 2025 document.
Speaker 1 (14:20):
Yeah. I definitely did not think it was because
they were going to be better.
Like I, I assumed it wascreative in new ways or
Speaker 2 (14:29):
Exactly. They do know it's unpopular, but that
for them is just a messagingissue. It's, it's not gonna
substantively change what theydo.
Speaker 1 (14:39):
Okay. So the next big thing I know y'all, it's
like, and the next, so we'retalking right after SCOTUS
heard , uh, a case that alsowould impact access to
reproductive healthcare . Sohow did this morning go?
Speaker 2 (14:55):
It was boring, I'm not gonna lie., these,
I have covered a lot of SupremeCourt oral arguments. The
arguments in this case, Medinaversus Planned Parenthood South
Atlantic, were among the mostboring that I have listened to
in my career. I would say it
Speaker 1 (15:12):
Just, it feels like it's kind of a wonky case. And
so it has flown so far underthe radar.
Speaker 2 (15:18):
It is very wonky.
And so, you know, I know thatyou've covered this on the show
before, but like quick recap,this is a case that is related
to South Carolina's attempt tokick Planned Parenthood out of
its Medicaid program, which thegovernor of South Carolina
tried to do via executiveorder. The problem with that is
that it clearly violatesfederal law, which says that
(15:40):
Medicaid beneficiaries shouldhave the freedom to choose a
qualified provider. And SouthCarolina has never argued that
Planned Parenthood is not aqualified provider. They're
just saying we don't like thembecause they also provide
abortions. Again, not with theMedicaid money. Right. But
kicked them out on thosegrounds. And the case is super
wonky because the question inthe case is not actually can
(16:02):
South Carolina do that? It'scan an individual sue to stop
them from doing that, or canonly the the federal government
do that? And so there was a lotof talk in the arguments this
morning , uh, because this,this freedom of choice
provision that's in theMedicaid act does not include
the actual word, right? Itdoesn't say that people have a
(16:24):
right to do X, Y, Z. Right?
It's about their freedom tochoose. And so of course the
alliance defending freedom isrepresenting South Carolina
here. And their attorney whowas arguing the case, spent so
much time talking about theabsence of the word right . In
the statute and, you know, saidall these things about how
(16:47):
basically it's not clear enoughrights conferring language,
which especially when youlisten as a lawyer, is
ridiculous. And even the jujustices thought it was pretty
ridiculous. You could tell at acertain point they were joking
about magic words. You know,like, I hate to giggle at Brett
Kavanaugh because what ahorrible person. But at one
point he did say, well, I'm notallergic to magic words. And I
(17:08):
was like, what are we five? Um,so there was a lot of
discussion of, well, whichwords could be in the statute
that would make it a rightsconferring statute. And yeah,
it was pretty absurd. You couldtell that several of the
justices, especially notsurprisingly so do Maor , Kagan
and Jackson were like that thiscase was even there. And then
(17:32):
of course, the rest of thejustices, it's really hard to
say what will happen. Right?
But Amy Coney Barrett seemed toagree with them. I find it
difficult to think that she'sgonna side with South Carolina
here. Um, based on herquestions, Kavanaugh also
seemed a little bit iffy.
Gorsuch and Roberts hard totell. It would be unusual,
(17:55):
certainly. I mean, unusual isnot a strong enough word. It
would be very surprising forthem to side with Planned
Parenthood. Um, andthen we, we do know that we can
be pretty certain that Alitoand Thomas will indeed side
against Planned Parenthood andwith South Carolina. So it, it
, it feels like a little bit ofa tossup. Uh, I think it's a
silly enough case that some ofthose conservative justices,
(18:17):
like I said, at least bear it,I think will vote with the
liberals. Um , but there'sstill a very large chance that
we'll get a ruling in favor ofSouth Carolina, which would not
be surprising from this courtworth noting that the Trump
administration sent somebodyfrom the Solicitor General's
office to argue on behalf ofSouth Carolina. So clearly the
Trump administration agreeswith this bid to kick Planned
(18:40):
Parenthood out of Medicaid. Andwe know that if the Supreme
Court ruled in South Carolina'sfavor and said only the federal
government can sue in thesecases, well we know that the
Trump administration is notgonna sue to stop anybody from
kicking Planned Parenthood outof Medicaid. Right. So we
already know how that will goif that's the outcome. Yeah.
Speaker 1 (18:58):
And it definitely won't stay in South Carolina.
Speaker 2 (19:01):
No, absolutely not.
I mean, that is exactly thetype of thing that will just
spread like wildfire if theSupreme Court , uh, rules in
South Carolina's favor.
Speaker 1 (19:10):
So one thing that I've noticed is we've had two
pack to back stories here thatwe're talking about that impact
the ability of people with lowincomes to you get access
family planning services, and alot of those services come from
the same provider, which isPlanned Parenthood. That's just
(19:32):
a lot to think about of likewhat this would mean for
Planned Parenthood, but alsofor all the people who use
them. Yeah.
Speaker 2 (19:37):
I mean, you know, planned Parenthood is in this
really interesting positionwhere they've got all the name
recognition and that is both agood and a bad thing. Yeah .
Right. It means they get a lotof donations and they get a lot
of really high dollar donationsthat other repro organizations
and smaller, maybe independentclinics simply do not have
(20:00):
access to or have access to, toa much lesser extent. But it
also means that they have atarget on their back. I mean,
how long have conservativesbeen saying Defund Planned
Parenthood? Right. Forever for, and it certainly seems like
the Trump administration isreally poised to actually
finally do that. Title 10 beinga huge one. Right. Planned
(20:25):
Parenthood affiliates are majorrecipients of Title 10 funding
in, in a number of states. Theonly Title 10 providers are
Planned Parenthood clinics. Andnow there's this additional
threat potentially to PlannedParenthood's ability to
participate in Medicaid fromSouth Carolina. Other states
have also tried similar screwystuff Yeah , right . To prevent
(20:49):
Planned Parenthood clinics fromaccepting Medicaid. So that's
already not just a , a problemin South Carolina. And I mean,
we also have a federalgovernment that's talking about
doing away with Medicaid or atleast gutting it . So yeah .
Who knows how much longerMedicaid even exists. And
Planned Parenthood is very mucha safety net provider. They are
(21:09):
caring for a patient populationthat's disproportionately low
income people of color, youngpeople, and people generally
who have nowhere else to go fortheir care, especially not
sexual and reproductivehealthcare . Also, in many,
many states, planned Parenthoodhas become a leader in
providing gender affirming careservices. Right. So they're
(21:30):
providing really importantcare. And already we can see
that a lot of PlannedParenthood affiliates are
struggling. Planned Parenthoodof Illinois has closed a number
of clinics. Recently PlannedParenthood of Greater New York
is closing its flagshipManhattan Health Center. And so
we see that a lot of affiliateswere already struggling based
on the current landscape. Andin some states that has to do
(21:54):
with abortion bans and how thathas impacted operations at
Planned Parenthood clinics. Butalso speaking of Medicaid,
partly it's because so many oftheir patients are Medicaid
beneficiaries and Medicaidreimburses at , at pretty low
rates. Right. So they'realready struggling as a safety
net provider and they're facinga lot of attacks. And so, you
(22:15):
know, it's something I'm doinga lot of reporting on, but I, I
hear a lot of concern fromsources right now that I think
unfortunately is very valid,that we could be about to see a
lot more Planned Parenthoodclinics close, and that would
just have a devastating impacton sexual and reproductive
healthcare and really likeprimary care across the
(22:35):
country. 'cause so often fromproviders who work in Planned
Parenthood clinics. Yeah. WhatI hear from them is a lot of
their patients, this is theonly doctor they've seen in ,
in who knows how long.
Speaker 1 (22:46):
I think another thing to remember when we think
about this is PlannedParenthood plays a really big
role because this is what theydo, right? They are sexual and
reproductive health experts. Sothey, they , and they take
Medicaid, not all providersexcept Medicaid, you know, that
Planned Parenthood will, theyhave method mix available. Not
(23:10):
all providers that you seeoutside of that may have, may
not have that full range ofwhatever type of birth control
you want . They probably don'thave as many appointments
available as PlannedParenthood. Planned Parenthood
can see a lot more patientsthan other providers. So I
mean, just it is if they playsuch a huge role in, in Title
(23:35):
10 and and Medicaid foraccessing sexual and
reproductive health services.
So like it's really hard tounderstate what this loss would
do.
Speaker 2 (23:44):
Yeah, absolutely.
And you know, e every PlannedParenthood affiliate is
different. But another thingI'm thinking about is because
Planned Parenthood providesspecialized sexual and
reproductive healthcare in asetting that is different from
a hospital and also differentfrom how a lot of OBGYNs or
(24:05):
family medicine providersoperate in private practice,
they were also providingcertain types of specialized
care that is really hard tocome by. For example, at that
Manhattan Health Center,planned Parenthood of Greater
New York used to provide IUDinsertion under anesthesia,
which is an option that I hearmore and more people being
(24:26):
interested in because IUDinsertion is really painful and
a lot of people are reallyscared of it because for so
long the counseling and thepain relief provided has been
so insufficient and alreadyPlanned Parenthood of Greater
New York had stopped offeringthat service last year because
of financial difficulties thatthat affiliate was already
(24:47):
experiencing. So the more theyhave to kind of scramble to
fill those basic needs for thatsafety net care they provide,
the less they are able to offerthat specialized care that they
are so well positioned tooffer.
Speaker 1 (25:02):
I've been thinking about this in terms of like
Medicaid overall, like ifthey've just like comp don't,
like completely eliminate it,but like really scale it back.
Like which services are wegoing to lose? Right? So like,
are state's gonna get rid oftheir expansions for family
planning? Are they gonna getrid of their maternal health
(25:23):
expansions? Like where are wegoing to see loss of services?
And then trying to get thebroader public to also
understand like, you may notget Medicaid, but the hospital
you go to may rely on Medicaidto stay open and if they cannot
get the Medicaid funding theyneed, that could force the
(25:46):
hospital that you are planningto go to to close
Speaker 2 (25:49):
Mm-hmm. Or to , uh,
reduce the number of providersit has on staff. Yeah . Which
makes your wait time if youhave to go to the ER even
longer. Right. Just to give oneexample, those are such
important points. And I dothink it is important to keep
in mind that Medicaid is fundedthrough a federal state
partnership. And so dependingon what happens Exactly , but
(26:14):
kind of no matter what happens,the effects will be different
from state to state. And wealready have massive health
disparities from state to statein the US in in many states
because they have not expandedMedicaid in certain ways.
Right. They didn't expand it asa result of the Affordable Care
Act, or they haven't expandedas you were saying , uh, you
(26:36):
know, postpartum coverage forexample. And so I think we will
see some states do more to tryand fill in the gap than others
for sure. But even states likeNew York and California that
have more money, they don'thave endless money. Right.
Unless we're gonna talk like atrue showdown where New York
(26:59):
and California say like, we aregonna withhold all of our , our
federal income tax, right ?
Like no more money to the IRSand we're keeping it all in
state to fill in these gaps forall the federal services that
are being cut right now. It'sdifficult to imagine that
happening. I mean thatliterally would amount to like
a certain type of civil war,right ? If if states were
(27:21):
really gonna throw down and dothat. But that's something I've
been thinking about a lotbecause we have so many federal
programs and services being cutright now. Even the biggest
states with the the largest taxrevenue are only gonna be able
to fill in so many of thosegaps. The federal government is
the purse, you know, for thewhole United States.
Speaker 1 (27:41):
Okay. So is there anything else you're like
keeping an eye on right now,either federally or at the
state level? I mean, it justfeels like it's been nonstop.
There have been like so manythings happening in the last,
honestly like two weeks eventhat we haven't had a chance to
cover. So
Speaker 2 (27:57):
It is nonstop, it's exhausting. And even as a
reporter who honestly wantspeople to read my work,
obviously , I I wantpeople to keep up with the
news. I do really encouragepeople to moderate their own
news consumption because Ithink if you feel totally
overwhelmed all the time, itactually makes it really
difficult to take in newinformation to make decisions
(28:21):
and draw conclusions based onwhat you are learning. Um, and
so just, just to put that outthere, that is something that I
do endorse. Um, I'm trying tothink if there's anything
that's not like reallydepressing.
Speaker 1 (28:37):
Yeah. Is there any good news that we're missing?
Oh , uh, let's go with thisone. I am from Wisconsin, the
Wisconsin Supreme Court race.
Uh , had a pro-abortion , uh,justice win , which is amazing.
It would've swung the court theother way if, if she had lost
being from Wisconsin, I'veheard so much about, about this
(29:01):
race and I know my mom is superexcited for it to be over. Like
she had gotten like endlessphone calls and ads and we live
in the country like way out inthe country. And so very rarely
for, I mean, I can , I don'tever remember getting door
knockers. She got a doorknocker this year for this ,
(29:21):
uh, election. So , um, was justreally excited to see a
pro-abortion candidate win.
Speaker 2 (29:26):
That is amazing.
That was great news. Uh, thatwas delivered to me by my
boyfriend last night and I waslike, wait, she won.
Speaker 1 (29:34):
I know . I just had no idea. Like I just, there was
so much money spent, like Ijust had no idea like how it
was gonna turn out.
Speaker 2 (29:41):
Me too. And particularly with Elon Musk,
you know, literally offering topay people to vote. I do
actually take that victory as agreat sign of what organizing
can do. And I will shout out myfriend David Roig , who is no
longer there, but he was avoter protection attorney in
Wisconsin during the 2020election. So important and so
(30:03):
important. And I know that heand his team helped lay a lot
of the groundwork for all ofthose, like get out the vote
and voter protection efforts.
So I wanna shout them outbecause it's hard to do that
work in general, especiallywhen you have scary people
threatening your life Yeah .
When you do that work. And so Ithought that was really cool.
(30:24):
And I do think that also showsthat people are, are paying
attention and are seeingthrough at least some of what's
happening, which is reallyimportant. So yeah, there is a
lot going on, especially at HHSnow that we have a science
denier in charge there. So I'mkeeping a really close eye on
(30:46):
that. And I'm actually going tobe doing a lot of
accountability research in thereproductive health space over
these next couple of months,including really keeping an eye
on what's going on in thosegovernment agencies like HHS.
So , uh, if anybody ever hasany ideas, any tips of things
you would like me to look into,please , uh, let me know. Yeah.
Speaker 1 (31:08):
That, that I forgot again. So many things
happening. I forgot. That wasjust this week as we are
talking, it was reallydevastating to see all of the,
like maternal health andreproductive health and
pregnancy and rape preventionand all of the things we care
about really just being guttedor eliminated.
Speaker 2 (31:30):
Absolutely devastating. And also as a
reporter , uh, you know, I havefiled a lot of freedom of
Information Act requests bothto the federal government and
also to state governments. Overthe course of my career. I'm
out here requesting documentsall the time and I have kind of
been waiting to see what wasgonna happen with the FOIA
offices at frankly everyfederal agency everywhere. Yeah
(31:52):
. But especially for me at HHSsince that is often an agency
that I'm requesting documentsfrom, not very often
successfully, they were alreadynotoriously difficult to FOIA
at HHS. And uh , so this week Isaw that the CDC FOIA office,
all those people receivedreduction in force notices even
(32:13):
though CDC is part of HHS, theyhad their own FOIA office. So
as of like two weeks ago,somebody was still answering my
emails from the HHS FOIAoffice, but unfortunately I
don't expect that to continue.
Speaker 1 (32:27):
I feel like every conversation I have with
somebody, there's like this newterrible thing I hadn't been
thinking about. Like I had notthought about FOIA offices yet.
I'm sorry,
Speaker 2 (32:37):
.
Speaker 1 (32:39):
And this is why I went on vacation, y'all so I
could forget about all thethings. Yes,. Okay. Uh,
with that, let's just do myusual ending. Is there anything
that people should be doingright now? Like how can people
get involved in some of thesefights?
Speaker 2 (32:53):
Like I said, I think it's great to moderate your
media consumption. Don't feelbad about that. No . Try to
stay informed, but there's noneed to doom scroll .
Definitely. I'm always gonnaplug, pay attention to what is
happening in your community.
For example, I live in New YorkCity, we have a mayoral
election that's really heatingup here. So don't let all of
(33:15):
the mess in the federalgovernment distract you from my
what might be happening in yourown city and state
Speaker 1 (33:20):
Garnet. As always, it was lovely to have you on.
Thank you so much for beinghere.
Speaker 2 (33:26):
Thank you so much for having me.
Speaker 1 (33:27):
Okay y'all, I hope you enjoyed my conversation
with Garnet. I'm excited to beback. I'm not really looking
forward to dealing with myinbox or seeing all of the
things that happened while Iwas gone, but I am back and ,
uh, ready to keep on with thepodcast. So I will see
everybody next week. If youhave any questions, comments,
(33:48):
or topics you would like us tocover, always feel free to
shoot me an email. You canreach me at jen jn , NI
e@reprofightback.com , or youcan find us on social media.
We're at Repro Fight back onFacebook and Twitter or re Pros
FB on Instagram. If you loveour podcast and wanna make sure
more people find it, take thetime to rate and review us on
(34:10):
your favorite podcast platform.
Or if you wanna make sure tosupport the podcast, you can
also donate on ourwebsite@reprofightback.com.
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 y'all, I have
been keeping something fromyou. I have, you may have heard
some vague intros the lastcouple weeks and some kind of
(00:27):
more evergreen episodes. Thatis because I have been on
vacation when you're hearingthis, I will have just gotten
back a day or two before. Uh ,my mom and I are going on a fun
trip. We are doing a cruiseexploring the British Isles and
I'm very excited. I obviously,I'm recording this before I
leave, so I can't tell you howit went, but I am excited to
(00:50):
see all of the amazing sites .
And honestly, I'm just soexcited to just step away from
everything. Things have been sohectic and, and busy and just
chaotic. Honestly, my inbox isalready chaos before I go away
for two and a half weeks. LikeI cannot imagine what it looks
(01:11):
like right now as you , asy'all are hearing this. It's
gonna be a disaster. But I amvery much looking forward to
this trip. I am looking forwardto turning off all the push
notifications on my phone andnot checking my email and doing
a lot of fun reading, I hope,and just seeing lovely sites
and eating great food and justhaving some time away from all
(01:34):
of the things that arehappening , um, right now here.
So I hope it's a great trip.
I'm very excited. I'm justreally looking forward to the
time away. But I am back nowy'all, and I am sure I'm
catching up on all the thingsthat have happened while I've
been gone. And we will have alot to talk about. I am sure in
the next couple episodes tocatch up on all the things I
(01:58):
missed. So I am very muchlooking forward to it. My
kitties are not happy that I'mgoing to be gone. They're
starting to figure out I'mleaving. So they are a little
unhappy, but these thingshappen. They will survive. They
will be mad, but it'll be okay.
I'm sure I am in the midst ofhaving cats attached to me as
you're listening , uh, to makesure I never leave them ever
(02:21):
again. Yeah, I guess I'm justgonna leave it there 'cause I
don't know how the trip wentand I don't have things to tell
you yet, other than I've beengone and hopefully had a
wonderful time. And hopefullyI'm rested and recharged. I
think having this long vacationinstead of like a short week,
being able to take like two anda half weeks off will be really
(02:41):
restorative for my mentalhealth. And just a really nice
break to just reset and to justrecharge. Uh , so I , I am back
y'all. Uh , and we will keepgoing. Okay. With that, I am
very excited to have with metoday Garnet Henderson. She is
(03:03):
an investigative reporter andwe are talking about some
things that happened the weekbefore I left. There were a
number of actions this week, soit's kind of a bit of a grab
bag episode. And so we arecatching up on a couple
different attacks onreproductive healthcare that
happened that first week ofApril. So with that, let's go
(03:24):
to my interview with Garnet. HiGarnet. Thank you so much for
being here.
Speaker 2 (03:29):
Hi. Thank you as always for having me.
Speaker 1 (03:31):
I'm so excited to have you and kind of doing kind
of a grab bag of things 'causethere's so much happening. Yes.
Um, but before we get started,do you wanna introduce yourself
and include your pronouns?
Speaker 2 (03:42):
Sure. My name is Garnet Henderson. My pronouns
are she, her and I am aninvestigative reporter
specializing in reproductiveand sexual health, and also a
lot in disinformation becausethere's a lot of interation
there.
Speaker 1 (03:57):
There's
Speaker 2 (03:57):
So much. Yes.
Speaker 1 (03:58):
So I figured we need to do a little bit of time
stamping and we are recordingthis on April 2nd because y'all
don't know , but I've been wayon vacation when you were
hearing this, and so you , youare hearing this on the day
after I get back. Uh , so,which is why I'm comfortable
telling you all I've all, I'vebeen gone. So things may have
(04:19):
changed since then, all thecaveats, but very excited to
have guarded on to talk about abunch of things that have been
happening recently. Always
Speaker 2 (04:27):
Excited to be here.
Speaker 1 (04:28):
Let's start with the one that I think got buried
because as we got on the call,you were telling me about it
and I hadn't heard. So whathappened in Nevada?
Speaker 2 (04:37):
So I'm sure that many of your listeners are
aware that a lot of states haverequirements where people under
18 either have to get theirparents' permission to have an
abortion, or they at least haveto, the parents at least have
to be notified. And so Nevadahas had one of these parental
notification laws, except ithas been blocked since 1985.
(04:58):
That is when , uh, the firstpreliminary injunction was
issued, and then that was madepermanent in 1991 , uh, which
is the year I was born, by theway. So for as long as I have
been alive, this law in Nevadahas been blocked. And this
week, so again, we're speakingon April 2nd. On April 1st, a
judge , uh, overturned thatinjunction and that parental
(05:21):
notification law is gonna gointo effect in Nevada on April
30th. And
Speaker 1 (05:25):
Maybe just because I feel like we've talked about
parental notification andconsent laws before, but like I
feel like it's been a while .
Maybe we should just touch onreal quick like why this is a
problem. Like why are we, are ,are , are we talking about it?
Speaker 2 (05:40):
Sure. I mean, first of all, not everyone is able to
contact a parent, right? Somepeople are estranged from their
parents and also may just notwant their parents to know that
they're having an abortion. Youknow, maybe if having an
abortion is a decision that ateenager wants to make for
themselves, but they know theirparent is not gonna agree with
(06:02):
that decision, or they knowthat their parent finding out
that they're having an abortionor that they're pregnant,
perhaps, you know, being the,the big thing, they don't want
their parents to find out thatthat might just make life much
more difficult for them,especially in a home that is
abusive or very controllingthese parental. And this is not
a parental consent requirement,so it's maybe slightly less
(06:24):
onerous in that way, but stillfor a teenager to have to
notify their parents , um, isnot easy for everyone. And it's
also just invasive, right? It,it really takes the decision
making away from the personwho's having an abortion and
involves family members thatthey may not want involved in
the decision. And then there isa judicial bypass process,
(06:47):
meaning that you canpotentially bypass this
parental notificationrequirement with permission
from a judge. But, you know,I've interviewed people who
went through the judicialbypass process and found it
just incredibly dehumanizing tohave to go and plead your case
before a judge is, as I said,dehumanizing. It's
embarrassing, it'sinconvenient. And it delays
(07:11):
abortion care, which is alreadytime sensitive in nature. So
this is just a really invasiveand onerous requirement. And
also since it hasn't been inplace in Nevada for all this
time, I imagine that to getthings up and running to help
teenagers get those judicialbypasses when they're
necessary, that's gonna be awhole project in and of itself.
(07:33):
And all the attorneys andadvocacy organizations in
Nevada, they only have about amonth to, to try and prepare to
do that.
Speaker 1 (07:40):
Oh man , I didn't even think of that part. And
like even like the judges whoare going to hear them and like
mm-hmm
Familiarizing themselves onlike the process. Like there's
a lot of work that needs to bedone before that. Yeah, I was
thinking as you were talking,we had a storyteller on from
Texas a while ago , um, who wastalking about going through the
(08:01):
judicial bypass process inTexas and just like, not just
like how dehumanizing and all,all of those things, but like
how onerous it was, like all ofthe things she had to be
prepped to know, like name theinstruments needed to describe
the entire process and like allof these barriers and hurdles
they had to navigate to accesscare. Like, can you imagine if
(08:24):
you like had to get your wisdomteeth out and it was like,
okay, well your parents need toagree. If they don't, you have
to go in and talk about howexactly this procedure happens,
what they are doing. Like thatis wild.
Speaker 2 (08:37):
Absolutely. And like so many other states in the us
, Nevada is a state that haslarge rural areas and abortion
clinics tend to be concentratedmore in urban or more
population dense areas. And soI also think about the young
people in rural areas whoprobably already would've had
to do some travel for theirabortion care. Maybe that was
(08:59):
already going to pose achallenge for them, especially
if they have parents who aren'tsupportive or , um, you know,
they're worried about theirparents finding out. And then
to have to go through theprocess of a judicial bypass on
top of that is such a headacheat best and at worst, you know,
any additional barrier issomething that can stand in the
way of someone actually gettingthe abortion care that they
(09:20):
need.
Speaker 1 (09:20):
Okay. So unfortunately that wasn't the
only thing that happened thisweek. Like y'all we're only
talking about one week andthere were like three huge
things that happened.
Speaker 2 (09:29):
Speaker 1 (09:29):
Next was the Trump administration's actions around
Title 10 . So what did theadmin do?
Speaker 2 (09:35):
Right? So we have been expecting action in this
area, right in during Trump'sfirst presidency. He withheld
Title 10 family planning fundsfrom Planned Parenthood and
from other abortion providers.
As I'm sure all the listenersto this podcast, know, federal
funds cannot be used to pay forabortions except in extremely
(09:56):
limited circumstances. So weare not even talking about
money that was ever going toabortion care. It's family
planning funds, it's paying forbirth control and counseling
basically. But a lot of ourcountry's Title 10 providers,
first of all, a large number ofthem are Planned Parenthood
affiliates. And many, if notmost of them are organizations
(10:16):
that also provide abortioncare. They just don't use the
Title 10 money to pay for theabortions. So already under the
first Trump administration,Trump said no more Title 10
funds for Planned Parenthood orother abortion providers. And
the Trump administration evenawarded some Title 10 funds to
(10:36):
obra , which is a network ofcrisis pregnancy centers,
anti-abortion centers. And thisis something that's outlined in
Project 2025 is quote unquotedefunding Planned Parenthood
and shifting any federal familyplanning funds to religious
organizations. So that's whatwe had been expecting. What is
(10:57):
a bit different this time isthat the Trump administration
is using a differentjustification. So this time,
instead of citing thatassociation with abortion care,
they're using their currentfavorite excuse, which is DEI.
So they notified PlannedParenthood as well as some
other Title 10 providers, notjust Planned Parenthood
(11:19):
affiliates, that they'rebasically reviewing their
receipt of Title X funds on thesuspicion that they're engaged
in DEI activities, which ofcourse the whole point of Title
X is equity. It's increasingaccess to family planning
services for low-income peoplewho are disproportionately
(11:40):
people of color, young peoplein the United States. So, I
mean, sure, I guess the wholeprogram is DEI , right?
Although the Trumpadministration has distorted
that terms to distorted thatterm to an extent where it just
makes no sense anymore. Andthey've also emphasized, you
know, my friend Kelsey MosleyMorris, who's a great reporter
(12:00):
at state's newsroom onreproductive rights, was in
contact with HHS yesterday. AndI know that they really stress
to her that no final decisionshave been made. So the Trump
administration is saying nofinal decision have been made,
but they've notified thesegrantees we're reviewing your
receipt of these funds that,that they had already won
through a grant making process.
(12:21):
So, you know, I I have toassume that those will be
permanently cut off and thatit's not just temporary as HHS
is saying,
Speaker 1 (12:30):
This has like been one of those like waiting for
the terrible thing to happen,right? Like it's kind of
amazing that it took as long asit did. I don't know, they were
too busy destroying all theother things, but like abortion
and repro is generally such ahigh priority. But to only see
the big like major thing beinglike global gag rule was kind
(12:52):
of surprising.
Speaker 2 (12:53):
It was kind of surprising. And I think there
are a lot of people who wannalook at that and say, oh well,
like maybe they're just notgonna come as hard after
abortion this time because theyknow that's unpopular. Exactly.
I agree. Uh, I don't thinkthere's any chance of that. But
what I do think, and what Ialways expected to happen,
obvious honestly, is that theywould just do it in these, it's
(13:15):
not really right to say thatit's under the radar, which is
what I was gonna say. Yeah.
Yeah. But that they wouldbasically just spin it
differently, right? So thistime, the excuse is DEI , even
though we know the real issuethat they have with these
providers is that they provideand refer for abortion care.
And you know, similarly, Ithink for example, myself and
(13:38):
many others have been waitingto see, are they gonna
implement a version of theComstock Act? Mm-hmm
abortion pills and uh, youknow, it's still very possible
they could do that. But alsothe federal government is
talking about privatizing thepostal service. So maybe
they're just gonna do that. Andthat's a really convenient way
to enact a Comstock like policy, uh, when, you know, it
(14:01):
becomes a private organizationand there's little to no
federal oversight. So I thinkthat we're gonna see all of
those project 2025 abortionrelated policies be carried
out. I think we're just notnecessarily gonna see them be
described in exactly the sameways that they are in the
Project 2025 document.
Speaker 1 (14:20):
Yeah. I definitely did not think it was because
they were going to be better.
Like I, I assumed it wascreative in new ways or
Speaker 2 (14:29):
Exactly. They do know it's unpopular, but that
for them is just a messagingissue. It's, it's not gonna
substantively change what theydo.
Speaker 1 (14:39):
Okay. So the next big thing I know y'all, it's
like, and the next, so we'retalking right after SCOTUS
heard , uh, a case that alsowould impact access to
reproductive healthcare . Sohow did this morning go?
Speaker 2 (14:55):
It was boring, I'm not gonna lie.
I have covered a lot of SupremeCourt oral arguments. The
arguments in this case, Medinaversus Planned Parenthood South
Atlantic, were among the mostboring that I have listened to
in my career. I would say it
Speaker 1 (15:12):
Just, it feels like it's kind of a wonky case. And
so it has flown so far underthe radar.
Speaker 2 (15:18):
It is very wonky.
And so, you know, I know thatyou've covered this on the show
before, but like quick recap,this is a case that is related
to South Carolina's attempt tokick Planned Parenthood out of
its Medicaid program, which thegovernor of South Carolina
tried to do via executiveorder. The problem with that is
that it clearly violatesfederal law, which says that
(15:40):
Medicaid beneficiaries shouldhave the freedom to choose a
qualified provider. And SouthCarolina has never argued that
Planned Parenthood is not aqualified provider. They're
just saying we don't like thembecause they also provide
abortions. Again, not with theMedicaid money. Right. But
kicked them out on thosegrounds. And the case is super
wonky because the question inthe case is not actually can
(16:02):
South Carolina do that? It'scan an individual sue to stop
them from doing that, or canonly the the federal government
do that? And so there was a lotof talk in the arguments this
morning , uh, because this,this freedom of choice
provision that's in theMedicaid act does not include
the actual word, right? Itdoesn't say that people have a
(16:24):
right to do X, Y, Z. Right?
It's about their freedom tochoose. And so of course the
alliance defending freedom isrepresenting South Carolina
here. And their attorney whowas arguing the case, spent so
much time talking about theabsence of the word right . In
the statute and, you know, saidall these things about how
(16:47):
basically it's not clear enoughrights conferring language,
which especially when youlisten as a lawyer, is
ridiculous. And even the jujustices thought it was pretty
ridiculous. You could tell at acertain point they were joking
about magic words. You know,like, I hate to giggle at Brett
Kavanaugh because what ahorrible person. But at one
point he did say, well, I'm notallergic to magic words. And I
(17:08):
was like, what are we five? Um,so there was a lot of
discussion of, well, whichwords could be in the statute
that would make it a rightsconferring statute. And yeah,
it was pretty absurd. You couldtell that several of the
justices, especially notsurprisingly so do Maor , Kagan
and Jackson were like that thiscase was even there. And then
(17:32):
of course, the rest of thejustices, it's really hard to
say what will happen. Right?
But Amy Coney Barrett seemed toagree with them. I find it
difficult to think that she'sgonna side with South Carolina
here. Um, based on herquestions, Kavanaugh also
seemed a little bit iffy.
Gorsuch and Roberts hard totell. It would be unusual,
(17:55):
certainly. I mean, unusual isnot a strong enough word. It
would be very surprising forthem to side with Planned
Parenthood
be pretty certain that Alitoand Thomas will indeed side
against Planned Parenthood andwith South Carolina. So it, it
, it feels like a little bit ofa tossup. Uh, I think it's a
silly enough case that some ofthose conservative justices,
(18:17):
like I said, at least bear it,I think will vote with the
liberals. Um , but there'sstill a very large chance that
we'll get a ruling in favor ofSouth Carolina, which would not
be surprising from this courtworth noting that the Trump
administration sent somebodyfrom the Solicitor General's
office to argue on behalf ofSouth Carolina. So clearly the
Trump administration agreeswith this bid to kick Planned
(18:40):
Parenthood out of Medicaid. Andwe know that if the Supreme
Court ruled in South Carolina'sfavor and said only the federal
government can sue in thesecases, well we know that the
Trump administration is notgonna sue to stop anybody from
kicking Planned Parenthood outof Medicaid. Right. So we
already know how that will goif that's the outcome. Yeah.
Speaker 1 (18:58):
And it definitely won't stay in South Carolina.
Speaker 2 (19:01):
No, absolutely not.
I mean, that is exactly thetype of thing that will just
spread like wildfire if theSupreme Court , uh, rules in
South Carolina's favor.
Speaker 1 (19:10):
So one thing that I've noticed is we've had two
pack to back stories here thatwe're talking about that impact
the ability of people with lowincomes to you get access
family planning services, and alot of those services come from
the same provider, which isPlanned Parenthood. That's just
(19:32):
a lot to think about of likewhat this would mean for
Planned Parenthood, but alsofor all the people who use
them. Yeah.
Speaker 2 (19:37):
I mean, you know, planned Parenthood is in this
really interesting positionwhere they've got all the name
recognition and that is both agood and a bad thing. Yeah .
Right. It means they get a lotof donations and they get a lot
of really high dollar donationsthat other repro organizations
and smaller, maybe independentclinics simply do not have
(20:00):
access to or have access to, toa much lesser extent. But it
also means that they have atarget on their back. I mean,
how long have conservativesbeen saying Defund Planned
Parenthood? Right. Forever for, and it certainly seems like
the Trump administration isreally poised to actually
finally do that. Title 10 beinga huge one. Right. Planned
(20:25):
Parenthood affiliates are majorrecipients of Title 10 funding
in, in a number of states. Theonly Title 10 providers are
Planned Parenthood clinics. Andnow there's this additional
threat potentially to PlannedParenthood's ability to
participate in Medicaid fromSouth Carolina. Other states
have also tried similar screwystuff Yeah , right . To prevent
(20:49):
Planned Parenthood clinics fromaccepting Medicaid. So that's
already not just a , a problemin South Carolina. And I mean,
we also have a federalgovernment that's talking about
doing away with Medicaid or atleast gutting it . So yeah .
Who knows how much longerMedicaid even exists. And
Planned Parenthood is very mucha safety net provider. They are
(21:09):
caring for a patient populationthat's disproportionately low
income people of color, youngpeople, and people generally
who have nowhere else to go fortheir care, especially not
sexual and reproductivehealthcare . Also, in many,
many states, planned Parenthoodhas become a leader in
providing gender affirming careservices. Right. So they're
(21:30):
providing really importantcare. And already we can see
that a lot of PlannedParenthood affiliates are
struggling. Planned Parenthoodof Illinois has closed a number
of clinics. Recently PlannedParenthood of Greater New York
is closing its flagshipManhattan Health Center. And so
we see that a lot of affiliateswere already struggling based
on the current landscape. Andin some states that has to do
(21:54):
with abortion bans and how thathas impacted operations at
Planned Parenthood clinics. Butalso speaking of Medicaid,
partly it's because so many oftheir patients are Medicaid
beneficiaries and Medicaidreimburses at , at pretty low
rates. Right. So they'realready struggling as a safety
net provider and they're facinga lot of attacks. And so, you
(22:15):
know, it's something I'm doinga lot of reporting on, but I, I
hear a lot of concern fromsources right now that I think
unfortunately is very valid,that we could be about to see a
lot more Planned Parenthoodclinics close, and that would
just have a devastating impacton sexual and reproductive
healthcare and really likeprimary care across the
(22:35):
country. 'cause so often fromproviders who work in Planned
Parenthood clinics. Yeah. WhatI hear from them is a lot of
their patients, this is theonly doctor they've seen in ,
in who knows how long.
Speaker 1 (22:46):
I think another thing to remember when we think
about this is PlannedParenthood plays a really big
role because this is what theydo, right? They are sexual and
reproductive health experts. Sothey, they , and they take
Medicaid, not all providersexcept Medicaid, you know, that
Planned Parenthood will, theyhave method mix available. Not
(23:10):
all providers that you seeoutside of that may have, may
not have that full range ofwhatever type of birth control
you want . They probably don'thave as many appointments
available as PlannedParenthood. Planned Parenthood
can see a lot more patientsthan other providers. So I
mean, just it is if they playsuch a huge role in, in Title
(23:35):
10 and and Medicaid foraccessing sexual and
reproductive health services.
So like it's really hard tounderstate what this loss would
do.
Speaker 2 (23:44):
Yeah, absolutely.
And you know, e every PlannedParenthood affiliate is
different. But another thingI'm thinking about is because
Planned Parenthood providesspecialized sexual and
reproductive healthcare in asetting that is different from
a hospital and also differentfrom how a lot of OBGYNs or
(24:05):
family medicine providersoperate in private practice,
they were also providingcertain types of specialized
care that is really hard tocome by. For example, at that
Manhattan Health Center,planned Parenthood of Greater
New York used to provide IUDinsertion under anesthesia,
which is an option that I hearmore and more people being
(24:26):
interested in because IUDinsertion is really painful and
a lot of people are reallyscared of it because for so
long the counseling and thepain relief provided has been
so insufficient and alreadyPlanned Parenthood of Greater
New York had stopped offeringthat service last year because
of financial difficulties thatthat affiliate was already
(24:47):
experiencing. So the more theyhave to kind of scramble to
fill those basic needs for thatsafety net care they provide,
the less they are able to offerthat specialized care that they
are so well positioned tooffer.
Speaker 1 (25:02):
I've been thinking about this in terms of like
Medicaid overall, like ifthey've just like comp don't,
like completely eliminate it,but like really scale it back.
Like which services are wegoing to lose? Right? So like,
are state's gonna get rid oftheir expansions for family
planning? Are they gonna getrid of their maternal health
(25:23):
expansions? Like where are wegoing to see loss of services?
And then trying to get thebroader public to also
understand like, you may notget Medicaid, but the hospital
you go to may rely on Medicaidto stay open and if they cannot
get the Medicaid funding theyneed, that could force the
(25:46):
hospital that you are planningto go to to close
Speaker 2 (25:49):
Mm-hmm
reduce the number of providersit has on staff. Yeah . Which
makes your wait time if youhave to go to the ER even
longer. Right. Just to give oneexample, those are such
important points. And I dothink it is important to keep
in mind that Medicaid is fundedthrough a federal state
partnership. And so dependingon what happens Exactly , but
(26:14):
kind of no matter what happens,the effects will be different
from state to state. And wealready have massive health
disparities from state to statein the US in in many states
because they have not expandedMedicaid in certain ways.
Right. They didn't expand it asa result of the Affordable Care
Act, or they haven't expandedas you were saying , uh, you
(26:36):
know, postpartum coverage forexample. And so I think we will
see some states do more to tryand fill in the gap than others
for sure. But even states likeNew York and California that
have more money, they don'thave endless money. Right.
Unless we're gonna talk like atrue showdown where New York
(26:59):
and California say like, we aregonna withhold all of our , our
federal income tax, right ?
Like no more money to the IRSand we're keeping it all in
state to fill in these gaps forall the federal services that
are being cut right now. It'sdifficult to imagine that
happening. I mean thatliterally would amount to like
a certain type of civil war,right ? If if states were
(27:21):
really gonna throw down and dothat. But that's something I've
been thinking about a lotbecause we have so many federal
programs and services being cutright now. Even the biggest
states with the the largest taxrevenue are only gonna be able
to fill in so many of thosegaps. The federal government is
the purse, you know, for thewhole United States.
Speaker 1 (27:41):
Okay. So is there anything else you're like
keeping an eye on right now,either federally or at the
state level? I mean, it justfeels like it's been nonstop.
There have been like so manythings happening in the last,
honestly like two weeks eventhat we haven't had a chance to
cover. So
Speaker 2 (27:57):
It is nonstop, it's exhausting. And even as a
reporter who honestly wantspeople to read my work,
obviously
news. I do really encouragepeople to moderate their own
news consumption because Ithink if you feel totally
overwhelmed all the time, itactually makes it really
difficult to take in newinformation to make decisions
(28:21):
and draw conclusions based onwhat you are learning. Um, and
so just, just to put that outthere, that is something that I
do endorse. Um, I'm trying tothink if there's anything
that's not like reallydepressing
Speaker 1 (28:37):
Yeah. Is there any good news that we're missing?
Oh , uh, let's go with thisone. I am from Wisconsin, the
Wisconsin Supreme Court race.
Uh , had a pro-abortion , uh,justice win , which is amazing.
It would've swung the court theother way if, if she had lost
being from Wisconsin, I'veheard so much about, about this
(29:01):
race and I know my mom is superexcited for it to be over. Like
she had gotten like endlessphone calls and ads and we live
in the country like way out inthe country. And so very rarely
for, I mean, I can , I don'tever remember getting door
knockers. She got a doorknocker this year for this ,
(29:21):
uh, election. So , um, was justreally excited to see a
pro-abortion candidate win.
Speaker 2 (29:26):
That is amazing.
That was great news. Uh, thatwas delivered to me by my
boyfriend last night and I waslike, wait, she won
Speaker 1 (29:34):
I know . I just had no idea. Like I just, there was
so much money spent, like Ijust had no idea like how it
was gonna turn out.
Speaker 2 (29:41):
Me too. And particularly with Elon Musk,
you know, literally offering topay people to vote. I do
actually take that victory as agreat sign of what organizing
can do. And I will shout out myfriend David Roig , who is no
longer there, but he was avoter protection attorney in
Wisconsin during the 2020election. So important and so
(30:03):
important. And I know that heand his team helped lay a lot
of the groundwork for all ofthose, like get out the vote
and voter protection efforts.
So I wanna shout them outbecause it's hard to do that
work in general, especiallywhen you have scary people
threatening your life Yeah .
When you do that work. And so Ithought that was really cool.
(30:24):
And I do think that also showsthat people are, are paying
attention and are seeingthrough at least some of what's
happening, which is reallyimportant. So yeah, there is a
lot going on, especially at HHSnow that we have a science
denier in charge there. So I'mkeeping a really close eye on
(30:46):
that. And I'm actually going tobe doing a lot of
accountability research in thereproductive health space over
these next couple of months,including really keeping an eye
on what's going on in thosegovernment agencies like HHS.
So , uh, if anybody ever hasany ideas, any tips of things
you would like me to look into,please , uh, let me know. Yeah.
Speaker 1 (31:08):
That, that I forgot again. So many things
happening. I forgot. That wasjust this week as we are
talking, it was reallydevastating to see all of the,
like maternal health andreproductive health and
pregnancy and rape preventionand all of the things we care
about really just being guttedor eliminated.
Speaker 2 (31:30):
Absolutely devastating. And also as a
reporter , uh, you know, I havefiled a lot of freedom of
Information Act requests bothto the federal government and
also to state governments. Overthe course of my career. I'm
out here requesting documentsall the time and I have kind of
been waiting to see what wasgonna happen with the FOIA
offices at frankly everyfederal agency everywhere. Yeah
(31:52):
. But especially for me at HHSsince that is often an agency
that I'm requesting documentsfrom, not very often
successfully, they were alreadynotoriously difficult to FOIA
at HHS. And uh , so this week Isaw that the CDC FOIA office,
all those people receivedreduction in force notices even
(32:13):
though CDC is part of HHS, theyhad their own FOIA office. So
as of like two weeks ago,somebody was still answering my
emails from the HHS FOIAoffice, but unfortunately I
don't expect that to continue.
Speaker 1 (32:27):
I feel like every conversation I have with
somebody, there's like this newterrible thing I hadn't been
thinking about. Like I had notthought about FOIA offices yet.
I'm sorry,
Speaker 2 (32:37):
Speaker 1 (32:39):
And this is why I went on vacation, y'all so I
could forget about all thethings. Yes,
with that, let's just do myusual ending. Is there anything
that people should be doingright now? Like how can people
get involved in some of thesefights?
Speaker 2 (32:53):
Like I said, I think it's great to moderate your
media consumption. Don't feelbad about that. No . Try to
stay informed, but there's noneed to doom scroll .
Definitely. I'm always gonnaplug, pay attention to what is
happening in your community.
For example, I live in New YorkCity, we have a mayoral
election that's really heatingup here. So don't let all of
(33:15):
the mess in the federalgovernment distract you from my
what might be happening in yourown city and state
Speaker 1 (33:20):
Garnet. As always, it was lovely to have you on.
Thank you so much for beinghere.
Speaker 2 (33:26):
Thank you so much for having me.
Speaker 1 (33:27):
Okay y'all, I hope you enjoyed my conversation
with Garnet. I'm excited to beback. I'm not really looking
forward to dealing with myinbox or seeing all of the
things that happened while Iwas gone, but I am back and ,
uh, ready to keep on with thepodcast. So I will see
everybody next week. If youhave any questions, comments,
(33:48):
or topics you would like us tocover, always feel free to
shoot me an email. You canreach me at jen jn , NI
e@reprofightback.com , or youcan find us on social media.
We're at Repro Fight back onFacebook and Twitter or re Pros
FB on Instagram. If you loveour podcast and wanna make sure
more people find it, take thetime to rate and review us on
(34:10):
your favorite podcast platform.
Or if you wanna make sure tosupport the podcast, you can
also donate on ourwebsite@reprofightback.com.
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