November 18, 2025 • 38 mins
Texas, long at the forefront of restrictive abortion policy in the U.S., has passed a new law (which goes into effect in early December) which would take state law and the already in-place abortion ban (SB 8) and apply it beyond its borders. Jessica Waters, Senior Scholar in Residence at the School of Public Affairs at American University, sits down with us to talk about Texas’ new law restricting telehealth medication abortion, an incredibly common and safe method of care.
Specifically, the law prohibits the manufacturing and distribution of mifepristone in the state, and outlines the inability to mail, transport, deliver, prescribe, or provide abortion-inducing drugs to anyone in the state. Currently, pregnant people in Texas cannot receive legal abortion care, so they have relied upon out-of-state abortion care. This new law, though, allows for anyone to sue an out-of-state company or medical professional which provides a person in Texas with mifepristone, even if that doctor or company is in a state where abortion is legal. This law is in direct tension with the shield laws that protect against this very scenario. This will likely create a chilling effect on doctors and abortion funds out-of-state.
For more information, check out Amicus with Dhalia Lithwick: https://slate.com/podcasts/amicus
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 (00:35):
Welcome to rePROs Fight Back, a podcast on all things
related to sexual andreproductive health rights and
justice.
[music intro] Hi rePROs.
How's everybody doing?
I'm your host, Jennie Wetter,and my pronouns are she or her.
So, y'all, big news today.
It was just announced thatrePROs Fight Pack won a gold in
(00:55):
this year's Anthem Awards.
I am so excited, y'all.
I love doing this podcast.
I love getting to talk to allof you and having these amazing
guests on.
And it just means so much to berecognized for the work that we
are doing.
I would do all of this withoutany awards, but it just really
(01:19):
means a lot to know that what weare doing matters and that
people care and appreciate thepodcast for what it is.
So, I'm just so deeply honored.
Our team is so deeply honored.
We really, really appreciatedit.
It means so much.
I am so grateful to the entireteam behind rePROs Fight Back.
(01:41):
It is a true joy and honor toget to work with Rachel and
Elena every day.
They do such amazing work forthe podcast in all of its forms
and all of the ways, whetherit's making us look good on
social media or being a truethought partner on how we do the
podcast in so many large andsmall ways.
(02:03):
And to Elena, who has been withus, it feels like forever, but
(02:32):
I think it's actually only beenmaybe like two years.
But I'm just so grateful tohave them on our team.
And I yeah, I am still justvery overwhelmed and filled with
joy, and my heart is full.
And thank you all.
And we're so grateful to winanother award.
So yay! We will share pictureswhen we have them.
(02:56):
Um, I'm going to be up in NewYork today for a reception for
the Anthem Award winners.
So looking forward to that andgetting to meet some of the
other winners.
So much to look forward to.
I will talk to you guys aboutit when I get back.
Just very excited.
And yeah, our team is justreally happy and just so
(03:17):
grateful and honored to have oneagain.
And oh, I so I thank this forour in-house team, but I forgot
to thank Meg, our amazingeditor.
She does the fantastic job ofmaking sure I sound my best, our
guests sound their best.
Um, and so again, the podcastwould not be what it is without
(03:39):
Meg.
So thank you so much, Meg.
And also to our team at Tink,who's been doing a great job
helping promote the podcast andgetting the podcast out there
just so more people can enjoyit.
So thank you for our wonderfulfriends at Tink as well.
Okay, I think that's like mostof the people.
We should also probably thankthe Population Institute staff,
(04:00):
uh, some of the team there hasreally also been really involved
with the podcast.
Heidi has done a lot to help uswith the work we do with Tink.
So very grateful for that.
And our executive director,Kathleen, who's also just been
such a big supporter of thepodcast.
So just thank you to everybody,and we are so excited to be
doing this podcast.
We are so honored to win theaward and just yeah, thank you.
(04:24):
Okay, let's see what else do Ihave to talk about.
I am recording this earlybecause I am going to New York
last weekend when you werehearing this.
Yes, I went to New York for theweekend and then went back up
on Tuesday.
I'm going to be in New Yorkthree times in like the next
like couple weeks.
It's it's a lot, but that'sokay.
I'm looking forward to it.
(04:45):
But this weekend, or this pastweekend, I went up to go see
Waiting for Godot with my cousinand an old roommate and spend
the weekend with them.
And I'm very excited for that.
So I will tell you about thatwhen I get back.
But looking forward to that andlooking forward to going up to
New York for the awardsreception on today when you are
hearing this.
(05:06):
I think we'll go ahead andpause there because I don't feel
like there's much else that Ireally want to talk about right
now.
Just again, so grateful andhonored for this award.
So thank you.
With that, let's turn to thisweek's interview.
I am very excited to talk toJessica Waters, who is a senior
scholar at American University,to talk about a new abortion
(05:29):
restriction in Texas that istaking effect on December 4th.
And you can hear all about itin my conversation with Jessica.
Hi, Jessica.
Thank you so much for beinghere today.
Hello, and thank you for havingme.
Before we dig into this week'stopic, would you like to take a
second and introduce yourself?
Jessica (05:47):
Sure.
So, I'm Jessica Waters.
I am a senior scholar inresidence at the School of
Public Affairs at AmericanUniversity in Washington, D.C.
And I have been working in thereproductive health law and
policy field for about 25 yearsnow.
Jennie (06:01):
So, I'm so happy to have you here today to talk about
another new terrible thing, butto talk about this new law in
Texas that is gonna impactmedication abortion.
Can you tell us a little bitabout this new law?
Jessica (06:15):
Everything we talk about is joyful, right?
Jennie (06:17):
I know, right?
Jessica (06:18):
I'm sorry, y'all.
I taught a class over theweekend on like reproductive
rights, law, and policy, andthey walked in and I was like,
your weekend's not gonna getbetter.
Like, just so you know.
I'm sorry, I'm gonna be a realbummer.
Yeah, yeah, we're fun atparties.
Yeah.
So, this new Texas law, in thevein of things that we need to
talk about.
So you know, Texas has longbeen at the forefront of
(06:40):
restrictive abortion policy.
That's nothing new, right?
And it's important to point outthat even before this new law,
which is known as HB7, Texas hadan abortion ban in place.
It's not like abortions werehappening in Texas, right?
But what HB7 does is seek totake Texas state law and the
abortion ban in place in Texasand essentially apply it beyond
(07:04):
its borders.
So, what it specifically doesis it prohibits the
manufacturing or distribution ofmifepristone in the state, but
it also says that you cannotmail, transport, deliver,
prescribe, or provideabortion-inducing drugs to
anyone in the state.
So what that's doing istargeting out-of-state activity,
(07:25):
right?
So, if there is a doctor who isprescribing abortion
medication, often known asmifepristone, to someone in the
state of Texas, this law allowspeople to sue that doctor.
Or if there is someone who iswho is delivering it into the
state, this law allows people tosue the company that is
delivering mifepristone into thestate of Texas.
(07:48):
Even if that doctor, or there'speople are in a state where
abortion is legal.
So, say, for example, you're adoctor in New York and you want
to prescribe mifepristone for apregnant person in Texas.
This law says you can't dothat.
Jennie (08:04):
This reminds me a lot of SB8, feels very much like it
was modeled on that, uh, withkind of this bounty hunter type
provision.
Jessica (08:12):
Yeah, they they both it this is an interesting wrinkle,
and I fear though, sort of abellwether for what we're about
to see around the nation.
But Texas law, you know, notonly says, hey, we're going to
say like you can't provideabortions in the state, but
we're also going to say, let'sdeputize individual citizens to
(08:33):
basically turn each other in andsue each other and rat each
other out, right?
And so, it uses individualcitizens sort of as an arm of
the state and allows them toprofit from it financially.
You know, this new law, HB7, itallows private individuals to
bring these suits.
So, like, for example, if youhave the ex-boyfriend of someone
(08:55):
who is pregnant in Texas and heis upset that she received
abortion care from anout-of-state doctor, it allows
him to go and sue thatout-of-state doctor.
But it also allows someonewho's just like mad that she did
it, who is not at all relatedto the pregnancy, to similarly
bring a civil suit.
That's like a suit for money.
(09:16):
So it's there's a there's abribery incentive here of like
you can get money if you bringthese suits.
So, you know, Texas isessentially asking citizens to
do its dirty work for it.
Jennie (09:29):
Yeah, and I feel like part of why they did that under
SB8 is it made it harder foroutside groups to then sue to
stop the implementation of thelaw.
Yeah.
I assume that this is similar.
Jessica (09:38):
It's very similar because it's like, who do you
sue?
Right?
Like, any individual in thestate, you know, HP7 calls it a
key TAM action, whichessentially what that means is
an individual can sue, right?
Um, sort of on behalf of thegovernment.
So you'd have to, it makes itvery, very challenging to stop
enforcement of this beforesomething actually happens.
Um, and that's key, right?
(09:58):
Because now what's happening isthis is just like hanging like
a sword over people's heads thatthis law is out there and you
know any individual can sueunder it.
Jennie (10:08):
I know supposedly this has like protections written
into it, but I do just see thisas like something as a tool in
an abuser's toolbox that theycan use to harass their partner
or former partner.
You know, I haven't gone intolike the super close details,
but I I can just think of themany ways around it, whether
(10:29):
it's like you have to beconvicted of domestic violence
or something like that.
And if that hasn't happened,you could still like I just see
many ways that this can still bea strong tool that abusers are
using against their partners.
Jessica (10:43):
Yeah, I mean let's let's be clear.
This now is not law is notdesigned to protect women.
It's just not, right?
And it's not designed toprotect women who may be
experiencing violence orstalking or, you know, some form
of sexual assault.
There are nominal exceptionswritten into the law, but I have
literally zero faith that thiswill be used to protect women in
(11:06):
those types of situations.
Jennie (11:07):
So, what are we talked a little bit as we've gone
forward, but maybe we can focusa little bit on the impacts and
who is going to be impactedunder this.
Jessica (11:16):
Yeah, yeah, right.
I mean, it feels like everyone.
All right, so I think like wecan break it down into a few
buckets, right?
So when we think about theimpacts of this law, first there
are pregnant people in Texas.
They cannot, except in very,very limited situations, almost
non existent situations, receivelegal abortion care in Texas.
(11:39):
So what people in Texas havebegun to do is rely on
out-of-state abortion care.
Some people travel out of stateat considerable time and
expense.
Others have relied ontelehealth abortion provision.
So telehealth abortionprovision allows someone, a
doctor outside of the state, aphysician outside of the state,
(12:01):
to talk to the patient, reviewthe patient's records, and say,
yeah, I can provide this likevery safe early abortion method
for you and prescribe it fromout of state.
So it allowed for some form ofaccess for people in states
where abortion is banned.
So in Texas is one of those,right?
So what this means is that ifyou are a pregnant person in
(12:23):
Texas, you can't get an abortionin Texas.
And now you can't get likelyabortion medication mailed into
the state for you.
So if you need an abortion, youwill have to physically leave
the state to receive any type ofabortion care.
So, like one pocket is directlythough the women who may need
abortion care, you know, in theimmediate future.
(12:45):
I think another huge pocket ofimpact is the chilling effect on
doctors or abortion funds whoare in other states and legally
operating under, for example,their state shield law, right?
So, like New York, for example,has a state law that says if
(13:05):
you are providing abortion care,abortion is legal in Texas, and
we will protect you fromcriminal prosecution from other
states, right?
So you have doctors in otherstates who want to provide this
necessary health care and noware living under the specter of
both criminal prosecution andcivil liability if they provide
(13:26):
that care, right?
So that's another bucket ofimpact.
But I think a third is Texaswon't be the last state to do
this.
We have seen historically whatTexas does first, other states
then do.
So, you know, the the the fourthe third bucket is other states
are going to put copycat lawsinto place.
And, you know, then I'd say thefourth bucket, and this might
(13:48):
be another line of questioning,but this is not the only thing
happening with mifepristoneaccess, right?
So you have Texas putting thesestate laws in place that say
you can't get in Texas and youcan't get it via telehealth.
But then Texas is also, youknow, joining a lawsuit to try
to take miphopristone off themarket entirely for the entire
(14:09):
country, under the argument thatthe FDA never should have
approved it.
So we we are seeing attacks onmifepristone at the state level,
at the federal level.
We're seeing RFK, Secretary ofHealth and Human Services
directing an investigation intothe study into the safety of
mifepristone.
So, it's like coming from everyangle, right?
(14:31):
So, when we think about theimpact, I think it's really
important just to put this inthe context of Texas is not
acting in isolation.
This is not just about peoplein Texas.
This is a nationwide effort.
Jennie (14:44):
This is such an interesting conversation to
have, especially last week.
Although for my audience,there's gonna be a couple
episodes that are gonna come outin between.
Last week I just interviewed[Rebecca] Kelliher about her
book, Just Pills.
So, reading the history of thismovement and, like, all of the
testing and all of the hurdlesto try and get it approved by
the FDA.
And then, so seeing them tryingto attack it on like safety,
(15:07):
like we know it's safe.
There are so many studiesshowing it is safe in so many
different ways.
And it just feels verysynchronous to have these
conversations so close togetherbecause you know there's so much
in that book talking about howcountries in Latin America have
been getting around bans andjust the history of trying to
(15:30):
get it approved in the US.
The long and winding journeythat it was.
Jessica (15:34):
Yeah, and it is no mistake that the attack right
now is on mifepristone, right?
Because in in the UnitedStates, post-Dobbs, you know,
states can, and they are, banabortion, right?
According to the Supreme Court,they can do that.
And medication abortion andtelehealth are a way to still
preserve some access, right?
(15:55):
So they're these attempts areuh an attempt to ban abortion
care nationwide. We know that inthe United States, 63% of
abortions are via medicalabortion care, right?
So, this is a deliberate attackto u go after access
nationwide.
Jennie (16:13):
Yeah, and I think so many, I mean people who work in
the movement obviously knowthis, and people probably listen
to the podcast know thisbecause I've talked about it
before.
But, you know, even justgetting the ban not to like
completely remove mifepristone,but to get rid of that mailing
component would have such adevastating impact on abortion
access because with abortionbeing banned in so many states,
(16:35):
there are only so many clinicswith so many workers who can
only see so many patients.
And if everybody has to go backto in-person, we cannot pick up
that all those people who aregetting telehealth abortions
right now and take them backinto the system and ensure
people are getting the care theyneed.
Jessica (16:53):
No, there's no way.
The infrastructure does notsustain, right?
And this is this is anotherpart of it too.
When we look at like PlannedParenthoods being defunded,
right, and having to close, likethis is part of it.
You know, we know in the largercontext, we have a failure to
train medical students in, forexample, surgical abortion care,
(17:13):
right?
So, if we have to go back tosimply surgical abortion care in
some number of limited states,we're not gonna have the doctors
to sustain that practice, youknow, let alone if a patient can
get there.
I often say this sort ofmovement that is opposed to
abortion and trying to limitaccess nationwide, they are
(17:34):
very, very smart and they arevery, very strategic.
And they are playing the longgame.
And right now they're winning.
Jennie (17:42):
I think there's also that very good at narratives,
we're making like big thingslike this would be huge and have
a huge impact.
Make it sound like it's not.
So to the average person whoisn't steeped in this, hearing
that, oh, you can no longer geta telehealth abortion, like that
doesn't seem like you there'sstill access, abortion isn't
(18:03):
banned.
Like it to a person who isn'tas involved in this, it may not
seem like the devastating dealthat it would be.
Jessica (18:13):
I mean, the reality is that abortion access now depends
on where you live and how muchmoney you have.
Absolutely.
Bottom line, right?
And telehealth abortion, youknow, unless we start to see
these Texas type efforts,telehealth abortion helps to
combat a little bit of that,right?
Because it says you can live ina state that bans abortion
(18:35):
care, but still receive safecare.
In the absence of that, wereally do return to pre-row days
where you have to have themeans to travel to a different
state.
And, you know, that's that'svirtually impossible for the
most marginalized people in ourcountry.
Jennie (18:53):
Yeah, I was just thinking that same thing.
And like you need to have theinformation to know that that is
even an option.
Because, you know, the thepurpose of all of these bans and
changes in law is to confusepeople, to make them not aware
of their options.
If you don't know where to lookto find out where you can get
telehealth abortion, or youdon't know abortion funds exist
(19:13):
to be able to help you be ableto afford that telehealth
abortion, you know, theinformation gap can sometimes be
a huge gap that is preventingpeople from accessing the care
they need.
Jessica (19:23):
A huge gap.
And imagine if you're 17 yearsold, right?
And you're you're trying tonavigate all of this.
Or imagine if you are apregnant woman with existing
children and you're trying tofigure out like how do I
navigate all of this and I'm lowincome already.
Or imagine if you're havingsome form of health emergency
and you can't figure out wherewhere to get care.
(19:43):
But I think it's important thatthat information gap obviously
has devastating impacts forpatients, but it has devastating
impacts for the medicalprofession.
You know, imagine being adoctor in Texas and you have a
patient come to you in anemergency medical situation
where you know the standard ofcare to preserve her health and
(20:03):
preserve her fertility isabortion care, but you can't do
it.
You know, this idea that thepractice of medicine is being
overcome by draconian state lawsshould be truly frightening
outside of the abortion context,right?
This idea that a doctor's firstcall is to their hospital
general counsel, right?
Not necessarily, you know,thinking through like what is
(20:26):
the best medical standard ofcare here through no fault of
their own.
That terrifies me.
Jennie (20:31):
So, we touched on this a little bit, but can we maybe
dive a little bit deeper intosome of the tension with the
shield laws in this Texas law?
You know, we've slowly startedto see them come up in court
cases, but there's still, youknow, we don't know how well
they'll stand up as prosecutionsmove forward.
So, maybe we can dig into thata little bit.
Jessica (20:53):
Yeah, so you know, a shield law, which we see some
version of in, you know, closeto 20 states, I think, at this
point around the country.
You know, shield laws say ifyou are a medical professional
operating in our state, we willshield you from prosecution.
And some states specificallycall out um abortion care, some
specifically call out genderaffirming care.
(21:14):
But they say, like, we willprotect your right to practice
medicine in this state, and wewill protect you from outside
suit.
So you have these shield laws,and I think the one really being
teed up right now is one in NewYork.
New York has a shield law thatsays, you know, we're not going
to allow a judgment to beenforced against you in New York
from Ken Paxton in Texas.
(21:37):
But Texas knows what they'redoing, right?
And when I say Texas, I meanTexas as a tool of the
anti-abortion movement, right?
And this Texas law veryspecifically, you know, creates
liability for anyone who shipsor prescribes into Texas.
And then it very specificallysays it is not a defense to
(21:59):
liability if you are in a statewith a shield law.
And it has that language in thelaw itself in HB7.
So, you've got Texas law verysquarely saying we allow for
civil liability to the tune of$100,000 if you ship
mifepristone into Texas.
And we also are saying veryflatly, we are not going to
(22:21):
recognize the shield law ofanother state.
So Texas is very deliberatelyteeing up a federal suit, right?
Because if you have two statelaws that so squarely conflict,
that has to end up in federalcourt at some point.
And I think this fight is beingpicked intentionally, and I
(22:42):
think it's being pickedintentionally right now, given
the makeup of the current court.
So this tension with shieldlaws, we're seeing it acutely
between New York and Texas,where, you know, the attorney
general, I believe, of Texas hassaid, I'm sorry, of New York
has said, like, no, like, youknow, we're not going to allow
(23:02):
this to happen.
Texas has actually gone after adoctor in New York whose name
is Maggie Carpenter, and hassaid is trying to enforce
judgment against MaggieCarpenter for shipping
mifepristone allegedly intoTexas, you know, prescribing
mifepristone in Texas,allegedly.
And New York has said we'llshield you.
(23:23):
And Texas is saying no, youwon't, right?
These threats are nothypothetical, and the legal
challenge is very real and verydeliberate.
Jennie (23:32):
So, this isn't the only threat we are seeing to
mifepristone.
What else are you kind ofkeeping an eye on right now?
Jessica (23:38):
So, I am keeping an eye on the federal lawsuit
percolating— actually in Texas,as things do— but you may
remember about two years ago,there was a suit that went up to
the U.S.
Supreme Court that was seekingto take mifepristone off the
market nationwide.
And there was a group calledthe Alliance for Hippocratic
Medicine, which was a group ofdoctors who do not provide
(24:01):
abortion care, but believed thatthey had standing or the legal
right to sue to takemifepristone off the market.
That went all the way up to theSupreme Court, and the Supreme
Court heard oral arguments, didbriefing, did everything, and
then at the last minute threwthe case out on standing
grounds, essentially said, Youcoalition of medical
(24:24):
professionals who do not provideabortion care, you don't have
any harm here.
You're the wrong people to sue.
You don't have standing.
And importantly, they did notdecide that case, right?
If the Supreme Court says youdon't have standing, they don't
reach the merits of the case.
So the case got sort of thrownback down to the lower courts.
I think, you know, averagepublic understanding is like,
(24:45):
oh, Miphopris don't stayed onthe market.
Which it did, but that casedidn't go away.
And what's happening now isthat several states have
intervened to take over thatcase.
So the plaintiffs will nolonger be this group of abortion
of medical professionals whodon't provide abortion.
The plaintiffs will now bestates that have some form of
(25:07):
opposition to abortion.
So that case is going back upto the Supreme Court.
And, you know, as you pointedout earlier, that case seeks a
couple of things.
Like one, in their best casescenario, they reverse the FDA
decision to put mifepristone onthe market and it goes away
entirely.
But they also seek, if theycan't get that, to roll back,
(25:28):
for example, the FDA's approvalof telehealth abortion, right?
So, I'm really keeping an eyeon that case because I think
people think it's gone, but it'snot.
It's just percolating in Texas.
Jennie (25:41):
It was definitely one of those like terms that it was
like, oh, look, abortion won atthe Supreme Court twice because
of like the EMTALA case, whichalso wasn't decided, and that
case.
And so the way they werecovered was that abortion rights
won when it was actually theywere just sent back.
Like, neither of them weredecided in favor.
Jessica (26:05):
They were not long-term victories.
They were short-term likereprieves.
Yeah.
You know, so you know, butthose cases have not gone away,
and they will both be back upthere, as I suspect will this
some form of case challenging uhshield laws.
So yeah, we're not out of thewoods.
Jennie (26:26):
No, I it just it just feels like there is so much
still coming on all of this, andI'm sure things we have not
thought of yet that are going tobe tested in in states.
Jessica (26:37):
Well, and at the same time, I mean, there's the Texas
law, there's state laws, there'sthe shield law issue, there's
the federal suit percolating,which five states are attempting
to join together.
But then we also have RFKdirecting the FDA to reopen a
study of the safety ofmifepristone.
You know, we have we havedecades of clinical trials
(26:57):
demonstrating the safety ofmifepristone, and we have
decades of actual patient datademonstrating the safety of
mifepristone, but RFK has hasdirected the FDA to undertake a
study about the safety ofmifepristone.
So that's opening back up aswell, right?
Could could the FDA, under adirection from the Trump
(27:18):
administration, reverse coursecompletely, even given decades
of data proving mifepristone'ssafety.
Jennie (27:28):
And y'all, if you want to know more about the basis
they are using to challengethat, the study that was done,
all the air quotes, because it'snot a study, it's a bunch of
junk science.
There's an episode talkingabout it.
We'll link to in the show notesso you can learn more about
that supposed study.
And that's not even to get intoComstock considerations that
(27:49):
like waiting for that shoe todrop at some point.
Jessica (27:53):
Mm-hmm.
Yeah, so the Comstock Act, thisthis law from the 1870s that
prohibits the dissemination ofobscene material through the
mail, right?
And that's been amended toinclude other types of carriers.
But when you go back and youlook at the history of the
Comstock Act, there was thisguy, Anthony Comstock in the
(28:13):
1870s, who had all sorts ofthoughts about what he thought
was obscene, right?
And he was like, and he workedfor the Postal Service.
And he was like, I am going tostop this spread of obscenity
through the Postal Service andmanaged to work with federal
lawmakers and got this lawpassed and included in the
(28:35):
definition of obscene materialis anything that produces an
abortion.
So we have this law on thebooks that has never been fully
repealed, that has made thisresurgence in the past couple of
years.
And, you know, I I rememberlike, you know, a couple of
years back, I had been watchingthese suits before they went to
the Supreme Court, and I waslike, wait, what the Comstock
(28:56):
Act is back, right?
And like you find yourselfgoing into class and being like,
I would like you to read thislaw from 1873.
And they're like, what ishappening?
And I'm like, yes, I'm alsoquestioning all of my life
decisions right now, but youknow, so but that is the basis
of one of these federallawsuits, or a basis in the
federal lawsuit, is thatshipping mifepristone across
(29:18):
state lines violates theComstock Act.
And, you know, when you readthe language of the Comstock
Act, it's kind of scary becausethere is language in the
Comstock Act that seemingly barsthe shipment of mifepristone
across state lines.
Does that make any sense?
Is it good public policy?
Is it good public health?
Absolutely not.
(29:39):
But this law is still outthere.
Jennie (29:41):
And it might not just apply to mifepristone, right?
Like it could like anything toinduce an abortion, so like it
could be real bad.
Jessica (29:49):
And anything like anything anyone decides induces
abortion, even if it doesn't,right?
You know, uh the way thatparticularly I think this
administration has played fastand loose with science and
medicine and what they arecalling an "abortifacient"
versus not, you know, thisseeming conflation of things
like Plan B or contraceptivemethods with abortion, you know,
(30:12):
that's all very deliberate.
And I think any of those thingscould seemingly be banned
under, you know, the shipmentcould be banned under the
Comstock Act.
Again, does that make anysense?
No.
But a lot of this doesn't makeany sense.
Jennie (30:25):
Yeah, we saw that really, like, really strongly
from the administration a couplemonths ago when there was the
talk about.
The $10 million worth ofcontraceptives that are slated
to be burned still hasn'thappened, still pushing for it
to not happen.
But they were arguing that itthere were "abortifacients." And
they're not.
(30:46):
It is birth control.
And but that is like one of thefirst times you've really seen
an administration like publiclyreally strongly say that versus
like those rumblings underneathwhere you would hear the the
conflation.
But this was like cited assource in the like New York
Times, or I think, if I remembercorrectly.
Jessica (31:05):
Yeah, and I mean the absence of science and medicine
in in a lot of these policies.
I mean, I think the the pressconference about Tylenol is a
perfect example. We areseemingly in a time when the
president can go on national TVand give a press conference with
the power of the office behindhim and give misinformation to
(31:31):
the American people.
And if you are a person whodoesn't follow these issues
every second like we do, and youhear the president of the
United States say Tylenol isn'tsafe for your pregnancy, you're
not gonna take Tylenol.
And then you're gonna have afever that spikes.
And that's gonna lead to allsorts of horrible outcomes for
(31:51):
pregnancies, right?
So I just, it is remarkable tome how far we've come from like
let's have a reasonablediscussion about the safety of
different drugs duringpregnancy.
That's an important discussionto have, right?
If that had been the pressconference, if the press
conference had been like weshould think about this.
(32:13):
And there has been a study thatshows a possible association,
maybe sort of, and like let'sdig deeper.
Fine, right?
But that that's not what we'redoing.
Jennie (32:23):
I also found it interesting that Tylenol was the
thing they picked because whatis the usual talking point,
right?
That medication abortion issafer than Tylenol.
Jessica (32:34):
Safer than Tylenol.
Yep.
I said the same thing.
This the day it came out.
I was like, mark my words.
They're related.
This is coming.
This is the talking point.
Yep.
I know.
I have I have nothing to backme up unless I don't think's
true.
No, no, I I remember talking tosome friends and saying, y'all
are gonna think I'm nuts.
Jennie (32:52):
Well, because it could have been a C the metaphine,
right?
Like that could have been thething, right?
Because that is the drug,right?
Not Tylenol.
Jessica (32:59):
Right.
Or it could have beenvasectomies, but you know any
number of things.
Yeah.
Jennie (33:05):
Okay.
So, I always like to wrap upour conversations, not just
talking about the things thatare bad, but ways our audience
can get involved.
So what can the audience doright now to get involved in
these issues?
Jessica (33:16):
Well, vote, vote, vote, vote, and vote, right?
That's that's that's a big one.
But you know, I think it isalso really taking the time to
understand these issues, right?
I think sometimes you can feelinsane trying to argue against
some of the rhetoric that's putout there, right?
You know, when you hearrhetoric of like, you know, this
(33:39):
this law is to protect women,or, you know, this law, you
know, or this like pressconference around Tylenol and
pregnancy is because we careabout women and children.
And I think it's reallyeducating ourselves to be like,
actually, wait, let's step backand let's talk about like what
the science shows, let's talkabout what the facts are, let's
(33:59):
talk about what the medicine is.
And I think it's important thatwe're situating this in the
larger conversation, right?
There's a there's an element oflike abortion exceptionalism,
of like we're going to talkabout abortion care and
reproductive health care issomehow different than health
care.
And we should be very clear.
If there is precedent for drugsto be taken off of the market
(34:23):
because of political whims,that's going to go much farther
than just the question ofmifepristone.
So, like, we need to besituating it in that way and be
thinking about, you know, howmuch ground are we willing to
cede to political pressures whenit comes to questions of
medicine and science.
So, you know, I would say thevoting, I would say the
educating.
(34:44):
And then I would say donatingto abortion funds.
There is so much happening inthis administration that I've
had so many people who arerelatively steeped in these
issues saying there doesn't seemto be much happening around
reproductive health care.
There doesn't seem to be muchhappening around abortion.
And there is, right?
(35:05):
But what we're seeing isthere's been like a drop-off in
donations to, for example,abortion funds.
So people need to redoubletheir efforts there.
This issue has not gone away.
The number of unplannedpregnancies is not going down.
The need for abortion is notgoing down.
So we really do need people tostay invested in keeping that
(35:26):
care available.
And one way to do that isdonations to abortion funds,
particularly as people need totravel more.
You know, if you can't get anIfrapristin via telehealth and
you have to travel to anotherstate, that costs a lot of
money.
So being able to helpfacilitate care in that way.
Jennie (35:44):
That's great.
Because just before this, I ama usual monthly donor to a
couple abortion funds.
But I was like, you know, Ihaven't done like a one-off in a
while.
So right before ourconversation, I actually did
donate to the DC Abortion Fund.
So look at that.
Love it.
Just it felt like a day Ineeded to show them a little
(36:05):
love today.
I don't know why.
Jessica (36:06):
Yeah, I do.
I have my monthly donations setup to various things, but yes,
every once in a while, yeah.
Jennie (36:11):
I used to do that with the rage donating, right?
Like I had my monthlies, butthen there was the rage
donating, and that is what hasfallen off, right?
I think it has nationwide.
I'm trying to be better aboutthat.
Jessica (36:23):
Yeah, absolutely.
Well, because there's only likeyou can only be enraged for so
long, right?
And then you're exhausted.
And I think we're in theexhausted phase as a country,
and we have to find a way to notbe there because these issues
are not going away.
Jennie (36:38):
And as always, what I do, my usual pitch for abortion
funds is if you can, it isalways super helpful to be a
monthly donor.
That doesn't mean you'redonating $100 a month or
whatever, you even if it's justa couple dollars a month because
they know they are getting thatmoney every month and it's
easier for them to budget.
Absolutely.
Jessica, thank you so much forbeing here.
Jessica (37:00):
I had such a great time talking to you.
Thank you for having me.
I had a great time talking toyou, even though this is not
joyful subject matter.
Jennie (37:08):
Okay, y'all.
I hope you enjoyed myconversation with Jessica.
I had a great time talking toher about what this new law
means.
Like I said in the interview,it has not gone into effect yet.
It goes into effect December4th.
So keep an eye out.
And with that, just again, ourjust huge gratitude for the
award.
We are just so deeply honored,and thank you all for being such
(37:30):
an amazing audience.
We love you all, and we willsee you 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
you can find us on social media.
We're at rePROs Fight Back onFacebook and Twitter, or
(37:53):
@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.
Thanks all.
Welcome to rePROs Fight Back, a podcast on all things
related to sexual andreproductive health rights and
justice.
[music intro] Hi rePROs.
How's everybody doing?
I'm your host, Jennie Wetter,and my pronouns are she or her.
So, y'all, big news today.
It was just announced thatrePROs Fight Pack won a gold in
(00:55):
this year's Anthem Awards.
I am so excited, y'all.
I love doing this podcast.
I love getting to talk to allof you and having these amazing
guests on.
And it just means so much to berecognized for the work that we
are doing.
I would do all of this withoutany awards, but it just really
(01:19):
means a lot to know that what weare doing matters and that
people care and appreciate thepodcast for what it is.
So, I'm just so deeply honored.
Our team is so deeply honored.
We really, really appreciatedit.
It means so much.
I am so grateful to the entireteam behind rePROs Fight Back.
(01:41):
It is a true joy and honor toget to work with Rachel and
Elena every day.
They do such amazing work forthe podcast in all of its forms
and all of the ways, whetherit's making us look good on
social media or being a truethought partner on how we do the
podcast in so many large andsmall ways.
(02:03):
And to Elena, who has been withus, it feels like forever, but
(02:32):
I think it's actually only beenmaybe like two years.
But I'm just so grateful tohave them on our team.
And I yeah, I am still justvery overwhelmed and filled with
joy, and my heart is full.
And thank you all.
And we're so grateful to winanother award.
So yay! We will share pictureswhen we have them.
(02:56):
Um, I'm going to be up in NewYork today for a reception for
the Anthem Award winners.
So looking forward to that andgetting to meet some of the
other winners.
So much to look forward to.
I will talk to you guys aboutit when I get back.
Just very excited.
And yeah, our team is justreally happy and just so
(03:17):
grateful and honored to have oneagain.
And oh, I so I thank this forour in-house team, but I forgot
to thank Meg, our amazingeditor.
She does the fantastic job ofmaking sure I sound my best, our
guests sound their best.
Um, and so again, the podcastwould not be what it is without
(03:39):
Meg.
So thank you so much, Meg.
And also to our team at Tink,who's been doing a great job
helping promote the podcast andgetting the podcast out there
just so more people can enjoyit.
So thank you for our wonderfulfriends at Tink as well.
Okay, I think that's like mostof the people.
We should also probably thankthe Population Institute staff,
(04:00):
uh, some of the team there hasreally also been really involved
with the podcast.
Heidi has done a lot to help uswith the work we do with Tink.
So very grateful for that.
And our executive director,Kathleen, who's also just been
such a big supporter of thepodcast.
So just thank you to everybody,and we are so excited to be
doing this podcast.
We are so honored to win theaward and just yeah, thank you.
(04:24):
Okay, let's see what else do Ihave to talk about.
I am recording this earlybecause I am going to New York
last weekend when you werehearing this.
Yes, I went to New York for theweekend and then went back up
on Tuesday.
I'm going to be in New Yorkthree times in like the next
like couple weeks.
It's it's a lot, but that'sokay.
I'm looking forward to it.
(04:45):
But this weekend, or this pastweekend, I went up to go see
Waiting for Godot with my cousinand an old roommate and spend
the weekend with them.
And I'm very excited for that.
So I will tell you about thatwhen I get back.
But looking forward to that andlooking forward to going up to
New York for the awardsreception on today when you are
hearing this.
(05:06):
I think we'll go ahead andpause there because I don't feel
like there's much else that Ireally want to talk about right
now.
Just again, so grateful andhonored for this award.
So thank you.
With that, let's turn to thisweek's interview.
I am very excited to talk toJessica Waters, who is a senior
scholar at American University,to talk about a new abortion
(05:29):
restriction in Texas that istaking effect on December 4th.
And you can hear all about itin my conversation with Jessica.
Hi, Jessica.
Thank you so much for beinghere today.
Hello, and thank you for havingme.
Before we dig into this week'stopic, would you like to take a
second and introduce yourself?
Jessica (05:47):
Sure.
So, I'm Jessica Waters.
I am a senior scholar inresidence at the School of
Public Affairs at AmericanUniversity in Washington, D.C.
And I have been working in thereproductive health law and
policy field for about 25 yearsnow.
Jennie (06:01):
So, I'm so happy to have you here today to talk about
another new terrible thing, butto talk about this new law in
Texas that is gonna impactmedication abortion.
Can you tell us a little bitabout this new law?
Jessica (06:15):
Everything we talk about is joyful, right?
Jennie (06:17):
I know, right?
Jessica (06:18):
I'm sorry, y'all.
I taught a class over theweekend on like reproductive
rights, law, and policy, andthey walked in and I was like,
your weekend's not gonna getbetter.
Like, just so you know.
I'm sorry, I'm gonna be a realbummer.
Yeah, yeah, we're fun atparties.
Yeah.
So, this new Texas law, in thevein of things that we need to
talk about.
So you know, Texas has longbeen at the forefront of
(06:40):
restrictive abortion policy.
That's nothing new, right?
And it's important to point outthat even before this new law,
which is known as HB7, Texas hadan abortion ban in place.
It's not like abortions werehappening in Texas, right?
But what HB7 does is seek totake Texas state law and the
abortion ban in place in Texasand essentially apply it beyond
(07:04):
its borders.
So, what it specifically doesis it prohibits the
manufacturing or distribution ofmifepristone in the state, but
it also says that you cannotmail, transport, deliver,
prescribe, or provideabortion-inducing drugs to
anyone in the state.
So what that's doing istargeting out-of-state activity,
(07:25):
right?
So, if there is a doctor who isprescribing abortion
medication, often known asmifepristone, to someone in the
state of Texas, this law allowspeople to sue that doctor.
Or if there is someone who iswho is delivering it into the
state, this law allows people tosue the company that is
delivering mifepristone into thestate of Texas.
(07:48):
Even if that doctor, or there'speople are in a state where
abortion is legal.
So, say, for example, you're adoctor in New York and you want
to prescribe mifepristone for apregnant person in Texas.
This law says you can't dothat.
Jennie (08:04):
This reminds me a lot of SB8, feels very much like it
was modeled on that, uh, withkind of this bounty hunter type
provision.
Jessica (08:12):
Yeah, they they both it this is an interesting wrinkle,
and I fear though, sort of abellwether for what we're about
to see around the nation.
But Texas law, you know, notonly says, hey, we're going to
say like you can't provideabortions in the state, but
we're also going to say, let'sdeputize individual citizens to
(08:33):
basically turn each other in andsue each other and rat each
other out, right?
And so, it uses individualcitizens sort of as an arm of
the state and allows them toprofit from it financially.
You know, this new law, HB7, itallows private individuals to
bring these suits.
So, like, for example, if youhave the ex-boyfriend of someone
(08:55):
who is pregnant in Texas and heis upset that she received
abortion care from anout-of-state doctor, it allows
him to go and sue thatout-of-state doctor.
But it also allows someonewho's just like mad that she did
it, who is not at all relatedto the pregnancy, to similarly
bring a civil suit.
That's like a suit for money.
(09:16):
So it's there's a there's abribery incentive here of like
you can get money if you bringthese suits.
So, you know, Texas isessentially asking citizens to
do its dirty work for it.
Jennie (09:29):
Yeah, and I feel like part of why they did that under
SB8 is it made it harder foroutside groups to then sue to
stop the implementation of thelaw.
Yeah.
I assume that this is similar.
Jessica (09:38):
It's very similar because it's like, who do you
sue?
Right?
Like, any individual in thestate, you know, HP7 calls it a
key TAM action, whichessentially what that means is
an individual can sue, right?
Um, sort of on behalf of thegovernment.
So you'd have to, it makes itvery, very challenging to stop
enforcement of this beforesomething actually happens.
Um, and that's key, right?
(09:58):
Because now what's happening isthis is just like hanging like
a sword over people's heads thatthis law is out there and you
know any individual can sueunder it.
Jennie (10:08):
I know supposedly this has like protections written
into it, but I do just see thisas like something as a tool in
an abuser's toolbox that theycan use to harass their partner
or former partner.
You know, I haven't gone intolike the super close details,
but I I can just think of themany ways around it, whether
(10:29):
it's like you have to beconvicted of domestic violence
or something like that.
And if that hasn't happened,you could still like I just see
many ways that this can still bea strong tool that abusers are
using against their partners.
Jessica (10:43):
Yeah, I mean let's let's be clear.
This now is not law is notdesigned to protect women.
It's just not, right?
And it's not designed toprotect women who may be
experiencing violence orstalking or, you know, some form
of sexual assault.
There are nominal exceptionswritten into the law, but I have
literally zero faith that thiswill be used to protect women in
(11:06):
those types of situations.
Jennie (11:07):
So, what are we talked a little bit as we've gone
forward, but maybe we can focusa little bit on the impacts and
who is going to be impactedunder this.
Jessica (11:16):
Yeah, yeah, right.
I mean, it feels like everyone.
All right, so I think like wecan break it down into a few
buckets, right?
So when we think about theimpacts of this law, first there
are pregnant people in Texas.
They cannot, except in very,very limited situations, almost
non existent situations, receivelegal abortion care in Texas.
(11:39):
So what people in Texas havebegun to do is rely on
out-of-state abortion care.
Some people travel out of stateat considerable time and
expense.
Others have relied ontelehealth abortion provision.
So telehealth abortionprovision allows someone, a
doctor outside of the state, aphysician outside of the state,
(12:01):
to talk to the patient, reviewthe patient's records, and say,
yeah, I can provide this likevery safe early abortion method
for you and prescribe it fromout of state.
So it allowed for some form ofaccess for people in states
where abortion is banned.
So in Texas is one of those,right?
So what this means is that ifyou are a pregnant person in
(12:23):
Texas, you can't get an abortionin Texas.
And now you can't get likelyabortion medication mailed into
the state for you.
So if you need an abortion, youwill have to physically leave
the state to receive any type ofabortion care.
So, like one pocket is directlythough the women who may need
abortion care, you know, in theimmediate future.
(12:45):
I think another huge pocket ofimpact is the chilling effect on
doctors or abortion funds whoare in other states and legally
operating under, for example,their state shield law, right?
So, like New York, for example,has a state law that says if
(13:05):
you are providing abortion care,abortion is legal in Texas, and
we will protect you fromcriminal prosecution from other
states, right?
So you have doctors in otherstates who want to provide this
necessary health care and noware living under the specter of
both criminal prosecution andcivil liability if they provide
(13:26):
that care, right?
So that's another bucket ofimpact.
But I think a third is Texaswon't be the last state to do
this.
We have seen historically whatTexas does first, other states
then do.
So, you know, the the the fourthe third bucket is other states
are going to put copycat lawsinto place.
And, you know, then I'd say thefourth bucket, and this might
(13:48):
be another line of questioning,but this is not the only thing
happening with mifepristoneaccess, right?
So you have Texas putting thesestate laws in place that say
you can't get in Texas and youcan't get it via telehealth.
But then Texas is also, youknow, joining a lawsuit to try
to take miphopristone off themarket entirely for the entire
(14:09):
country, under the argument thatthe FDA never should have
approved it.
So we we are seeing attacks onmifepristone at the state level,
at the federal level.
We're seeing RFK, Secretary ofHealth and Human Services
directing an investigation intothe study into the safety of
mifepristone.
So, it's like coming from everyangle, right?
(14:31):
So, when we think about theimpact, I think it's really
important just to put this inthe context of Texas is not
acting in isolation.
This is not just about peoplein Texas.
This is a nationwide effort.
Jennie (14:44):
This is such an interesting conversation to
have, especially last week.
Although for my audience,there's gonna be a couple
episodes that are gonna come outin between.
Last week I just interviewed[Rebecca] Kelliher about her
book, Just Pills.
So, reading the history of thismovement and, like, all of the
testing and all of the hurdlesto try and get it approved by
the FDA.
And then, so seeing them tryingto attack it on like safety,
(15:07):
like we know it's safe.
There are so many studiesshowing it is safe in so many
different ways.
And it just feels verysynchronous to have these
conversations so close togetherbecause you know there's so much
in that book talking about howcountries in Latin America have
been getting around bans andjust the history of trying to
(15:30):
get it approved in the US.
The long and winding journeythat it was.
Jessica (15:34):
Yeah, and it is no mistake that the attack right
now is on mifepristone, right?
Because in in the UnitedStates, post-Dobbs, you know,
states can, and they are, banabortion, right?
According to the Supreme Court,they can do that.
And medication abortion andtelehealth are a way to still
preserve some access, right?
(15:55):
So they're these attempts areuh an attempt to ban abortion
care nationwide. We know that inthe United States, 63% of
abortions are via medicalabortion care, right?
So, this is a deliberate attackto u go after access
nationwide.
Jennie (16:13):
Yeah, and I think so many, I mean people who work in
the movement obviously knowthis, and people probably listen
to the podcast know thisbecause I've talked about it
before.
But, you know, even justgetting the ban not to like
completely remove mifepristone,but to get rid of that mailing
component would have such adevastating impact on abortion
access because with abortionbeing banned in so many states,
(16:35):
there are only so many clinicswith so many workers who can
only see so many patients.
And if everybody has to go backto in-person, we cannot pick up
that all those people who aregetting telehealth abortions
right now and take them backinto the system and ensure
people are getting the care theyneed.
Jessica (16:53):
No, there's no way.
The infrastructure does notsustain, right?
And this is this is anotherpart of it too.
When we look at like PlannedParenthoods being defunded,
right, and having to close, likethis is part of it.
You know, we know in the largercontext, we have a failure to
train medical students in, forexample, surgical abortion care,
(17:13):
right?
So, if we have to go back tosimply surgical abortion care in
some number of limited states,we're not gonna have the doctors
to sustain that practice, youknow, let alone if a patient can
get there.
I often say this sort ofmovement that is opposed to
abortion and trying to limitaccess nationwide, they are
(17:34):
very, very smart and they arevery, very strategic.
And they are playing the longgame.
And right now they're winning.
Jennie (17:42):
I think there's also that very good at narratives,
we're making like big thingslike this would be huge and have
a huge impact.
Make it sound like it's not.
So to the average person whoisn't steeped in this, hearing
that, oh, you can no longer geta telehealth abortion, like that
doesn't seem like you there'sstill access, abortion isn't
(18:03):
banned.
Like it to a person who isn'tas involved in this, it may not
seem like the devastating dealthat it would be.
Jessica (18:13):
I mean, the reality is that abortion access now depends
on where you live and how muchmoney you have.
Absolutely.
Bottom line, right?
And telehealth abortion, youknow, unless we start to see
these Texas type efforts,telehealth abortion helps to
combat a little bit of that,right?
Because it says you can live ina state that bans abortion
(18:35):
care, but still receive safecare.
In the absence of that, wereally do return to pre-row days
where you have to have themeans to travel to a different
state.
And, you know, that's that'svirtually impossible for the
most marginalized people in ourcountry.
Jennie (18:53):
Yeah, I was just thinking that same thing.
And like you need to have theinformation to know that that is
even an option.
Because, you know, the thepurpose of all of these bans and
changes in law is to confusepeople, to make them not aware
of their options.
If you don't know where to lookto find out where you can get
telehealth abortion, or youdon't know abortion funds exist
(19:13):
to be able to help you be ableto afford that telehealth
abortion, you know, theinformation gap can sometimes be
a huge gap that is preventingpeople from accessing the care
they need.
Jessica (19:23):
A huge gap.
And imagine if you're 17 yearsold, right?
And you're you're trying tonavigate all of this.
Or imagine if you are apregnant woman with existing
children and you're trying tofigure out like how do I
navigate all of this and I'm lowincome already.
Or imagine if you're havingsome form of health emergency
and you can't figure out wherewhere to get care.
(19:43):
But I think it's important thatthat information gap obviously
has devastating impacts forpatients, but it has devastating
impacts for the medicalprofession.
You know, imagine being adoctor in Texas and you have a
patient come to you in anemergency medical situation
where you know the standard ofcare to preserve her health and
(20:03):
preserve her fertility isabortion care, but you can't do
it.
You know, this idea that thepractice of medicine is being
overcome by draconian state lawsshould be truly frightening
outside of the abortion context,right?
This idea that a doctor's firstcall is to their hospital
general counsel, right?
Not necessarily, you know,thinking through like what is
(20:26):
the best medical standard ofcare here through no fault of
their own.
That terrifies me.
Jennie (20:31):
So, we touched on this a little bit, but can we maybe
dive a little bit deeper intosome of the tension with the
shield laws in this Texas law?
You know, we've slowly startedto see them come up in court
cases, but there's still, youknow, we don't know how well
they'll stand up as prosecutionsmove forward.
So, maybe we can dig into thata little bit.
Jessica (20:53):
Yeah, so you know, a shield law, which we see some
version of in, you know, closeto 20 states, I think, at this
point around the country.
You know, shield laws say ifyou are a medical professional
operating in our state, we willshield you from prosecution.
And some states specificallycall out um abortion care, some
specifically call out genderaffirming care.
(21:14):
But they say, like, we willprotect your right to practice
medicine in this state, and wewill protect you from outside
suit.
So you have these shield laws,and I think the one really being
teed up right now is one in NewYork.
New York has a shield law thatsays, you know, we're not going
to allow a judgment to beenforced against you in New York
from Ken Paxton in Texas.
(21:37):
But Texas knows what they'redoing, right?
And when I say Texas, I meanTexas as a tool of the
anti-abortion movement, right?
And this Texas law veryspecifically, you know, creates
liability for anyone who shipsor prescribes into Texas.
And then it very specificallysays it is not a defense to
(21:59):
liability if you are in a statewith a shield law.
And it has that language in thelaw itself in HB7.
So, you've got Texas law verysquarely saying we allow for
civil liability to the tune of$100,000 if you ship
mifepristone into Texas.
And we also are saying veryflatly, we are not going to
(22:21):
recognize the shield law ofanother state.
So Texas is very deliberatelyteeing up a federal suit, right?
Because if you have two statelaws that so squarely conflict,
that has to end up in federalcourt at some point.
And I think this fight is beingpicked intentionally, and I
(22:42):
think it's being pickedintentionally right now, given
the makeup of the current court.
So this tension with shieldlaws, we're seeing it acutely
between New York and Texas,where, you know, the attorney
general, I believe, of Texas hassaid, I'm sorry, of New York
has said, like, no, like, youknow, we're not going to allow
(23:02):
this to happen.
Texas has actually gone after adoctor in New York whose name
is Maggie Carpenter, and hassaid is trying to enforce
judgment against MaggieCarpenter for shipping
mifepristone allegedly intoTexas, you know, prescribing
mifepristone in Texas,allegedly.
And New York has said we'llshield you.
(23:23):
And Texas is saying no, youwon't, right?
These threats are nothypothetical, and the legal
challenge is very real and verydeliberate.
Jennie (23:32):
So, this isn't the only threat we are seeing to
mifepristone.
What else are you kind ofkeeping an eye on right now?
Jessica (23:38):
So, I am keeping an eye on the federal lawsuit
percolating— actually in Texas,as things do— but you may
remember about two years ago,there was a suit that went up to
the U.S.
Supreme Court that was seekingto take mifepristone off the
market nationwide.
And there was a group calledthe Alliance for Hippocratic
Medicine, which was a group ofdoctors who do not provide
(24:01):
abortion care, but believed thatthey had standing or the legal
right to sue to takemifepristone off the market.
That went all the way up to theSupreme Court, and the Supreme
Court heard oral arguments, didbriefing, did everything, and
then at the last minute threwthe case out on standing
grounds, essentially said, Youcoalition of medical
(24:24):
professionals who do not provideabortion care, you don't have
any harm here.
You're the wrong people to sue.
You don't have standing.
And importantly, they did notdecide that case, right?
If the Supreme Court says youdon't have standing, they don't
reach the merits of the case.
So the case got sort of thrownback down to the lower courts.
I think, you know, averagepublic understanding is like,
(24:45):
oh, Miphopris don't stayed onthe market.
Which it did, but that casedidn't go away.
And what's happening now isthat several states have
intervened to take over thatcase.
So the plaintiffs will nolonger be this group of abortion
of medical professionals whodon't provide abortion.
The plaintiffs will now bestates that have some form of
(25:07):
opposition to abortion.
So that case is going back upto the Supreme Court.
And, you know, as you pointedout earlier, that case seeks a
couple of things.
Like one, in their best casescenario, they reverse the FDA
decision to put mifepristone onthe market and it goes away
entirely.
But they also seek, if theycan't get that, to roll back,
(25:28):
for example, the FDA's approvalof telehealth abortion, right?
So, I'm really keeping an eyeon that case because I think
people think it's gone, but it'snot.
It's just percolating in Texas.
Jennie (25:41):
It was definitely one of those like terms that it was
like, oh, look, abortion won atthe Supreme Court twice because
of like the EMTALA case, whichalso wasn't decided, and that
case.
And so the way they werecovered was that abortion rights
won when it was actually theywere just sent back.
Like, neither of them weredecided in favor.
Jessica (26:05):
They were not long-term victories.
They were short-term likereprieves.
Yeah.
You know, so you know, butthose cases have not gone away,
and they will both be back upthere, as I suspect will this
some form of case challenging uhshield laws.
So yeah, we're not out of thewoods.
Jennie (26:26):
No, I it just it just feels like there is so much
still coming on all of this, andI'm sure things we have not
thought of yet that are going tobe tested in in states.
Jessica (26:37):
Well, and at the same time, I mean, there's the Texas
law, there's state laws, there'sthe shield law issue, there's
the federal suit percolating,which five states are attempting
to join together.
But then we also have RFKdirecting the FDA to reopen a
study of the safety ofmifepristone.
You know, we have we havedecades of clinical trials
(26:57):
demonstrating the safety ofmifepristone, and we have
decades of actual patient datademonstrating the safety of
mifepristone, but RFK has hasdirected the FDA to undertake a
study about the safety ofmifepristone.
So that's opening back up aswell, right?
Could could the FDA, under adirection from the Trump
(27:18):
administration, reverse coursecompletely, even given decades
of data proving mifepristone'ssafety.
Jennie (27:28):
And y'all, if you want to know more about the basis
they are using to challengethat, the study that was done,
all the air quotes, because it'snot a study, it's a bunch of
junk science.
There's an episode talkingabout it.
We'll link to in the show notesso you can learn more about
that supposed study.
And that's not even to get intoComstock considerations that
(27:49):
like waiting for that shoe todrop at some point.
Jessica (27:53):
Mm-hmm.
Yeah, so the Comstock Act, thisthis law from the 1870s that
prohibits the dissemination ofobscene material through the
mail, right?
And that's been amended toinclude other types of carriers.
But when you go back and youlook at the history of the
Comstock Act, there was thisguy, Anthony Comstock in the
(28:13):
1870s, who had all sorts ofthoughts about what he thought
was obscene, right?
And he was like, and he workedfor the Postal Service.
And he was like, I am going tostop this spread of obscenity
through the Postal Service andmanaged to work with federal
lawmakers and got this lawpassed and included in the
(28:35):
definition of obscene materialis anything that produces an
abortion.
So we have this law on thebooks that has never been fully
repealed, that has made thisresurgence in the past couple of
years.
And, you know, I I rememberlike, you know, a couple of
years back, I had been watchingthese suits before they went to
the Supreme Court, and I waslike, wait, what the Comstock
(28:56):
Act is back, right?
And like you find yourselfgoing into class and being like,
I would like you to read thislaw from 1873.
And they're like, what ishappening?
And I'm like, yes, I'm alsoquestioning all of my life
decisions right now, but youknow, so but that is the basis
of one of these federallawsuits, or a basis in the
federal lawsuit, is thatshipping mifepristone across
(29:18):
state lines violates theComstock Act.
And, you know, when you readthe language of the Comstock
Act, it's kind of scary becausethere is language in the
Comstock Act that seemingly barsthe shipment of mifepristone
across state lines.
Does that make any sense?
Is it good public policy?
Is it good public health?
Absolutely not.
(29:39):
But this law is still outthere.
Jennie (29:41):
And it might not just apply to mifepristone, right?
Like it could like anything toinduce an abortion, so like it
could be real bad.
Jessica (29:49):
And anything like anything anyone decides induces
abortion, even if it doesn't,right?
You know, uh the way thatparticularly I think this
administration has played fastand loose with science and
medicine and what they arecalling an "abortifacient"
versus not, you know, thisseeming conflation of things
like Plan B or contraceptivemethods with abortion, you know,
(30:12):
that's all very deliberate.
And I think any of those thingscould seemingly be banned
under, you know, the shipmentcould be banned under the
Comstock Act.
Again, does that make anysense?
No.
But a lot of this doesn't makeany sense.
Jennie (30:25):
Yeah, we saw that really, like, really strongly
from the administration a couplemonths ago when there was the
talk about.
The $10 million worth ofcontraceptives that are slated
to be burned still hasn'thappened, still pushing for it
to not happen.
But they were arguing that itthere were "abortifacients." And
they're not.
(30:46):
It is birth control.
And but that is like one of thefirst times you've really seen
an administration like publiclyreally strongly say that versus
like those rumblings underneathwhere you would hear the the
conflation.
But this was like cited assource in the like New York
Times, or I think, if I remembercorrectly.
Jessica (31:05):
Yeah, and I mean the absence of science and medicine
in in a lot of these policies.
I mean, I think the the pressconference about Tylenol is a
perfect example. We areseemingly in a time when the
president can go on national TVand give a press conference with
the power of the office behindhim and give misinformation to
(31:31):
the American people.
And if you are a person whodoesn't follow these issues
every second like we do, and youhear the president of the
United States say Tylenol isn'tsafe for your pregnancy, you're
not gonna take Tylenol.
And then you're gonna have afever that spikes.
And that's gonna lead to allsorts of horrible outcomes for
(31:51):
pregnancies, right?
So I just, it is remarkable tome how far we've come from like
let's have a reasonablediscussion about the safety of
different drugs duringpregnancy.
That's an important discussionto have, right?
If that had been the pressconference, if the press
conference had been like weshould think about this.
(32:13):
And there has been a study thatshows a possible association,
maybe sort of, and like let'sdig deeper.
Fine, right?
But that that's not what we'redoing.
Jennie (32:23):
I also found it interesting that Tylenol was the
thing they picked because whatis the usual talking point,
right?
That medication abortion issafer than Tylenol.
Jessica (32:34):
Safer than Tylenol.
Yep.
I said the same thing.
This the day it came out.
I was like, mark my words.
They're related.
This is coming.
This is the talking point.
Yep.
I know.
I have I have nothing to backme up unless I don't think's
true.
No, no, I I remember talking tosome friends and saying, y'all
are gonna think I'm nuts.
Jennie (32:52):
Well, because it could have been a C the metaphine,
right?
Like that could have been thething, right?
Because that is the drug,right?
Not Tylenol.
Jessica (32:59):
Right.
Or it could have beenvasectomies, but you know any
number of things.
Yeah.
Jennie (33:05):
Okay.
So, I always like to wrap upour conversations, not just
talking about the things thatare bad, but ways our audience
can get involved.
So what can the audience doright now to get involved in
these issues?
Jessica (33:16):
Well, vote, vote, vote, vote, and vote, right?
That's that's that's a big one.
But you know, I think it isalso really taking the time to
understand these issues, right?
I think sometimes you can feelinsane trying to argue against
some of the rhetoric that's putout there, right?
You know, when you hearrhetoric of like, you know, this
(33:39):
this law is to protect women,or, you know, this law, you
know, or this like pressconference around Tylenol and
pregnancy is because we careabout women and children.
And I think it's reallyeducating ourselves to be like,
actually, wait, let's step backand let's talk about like what
the science shows, let's talkabout what the facts are, let's
(33:59):
talk about what the medicine is.
And I think it's important thatwe're situating this in the
larger conversation, right?
There's a there's an element oflike abortion exceptionalism,
of like we're going to talkabout abortion care and
reproductive health care issomehow different than health
care.
And we should be very clear.
If there is precedent for drugsto be taken off of the market
(34:23):
because of political whims,that's going to go much farther
than just the question ofmifepristone.
So, like, we need to besituating it in that way and be
thinking about, you know, howmuch ground are we willing to
cede to political pressures whenit comes to questions of
medicine and science.
So, you know, I would say thevoting, I would say the
educating.
(34:44):
And then I would say donatingto abortion funds.
There is so much happening inthis administration that I've
had so many people who arerelatively steeped in these
issues saying there doesn't seemto be much happening around
reproductive health care.
There doesn't seem to be muchhappening around abortion.
And there is, right?
(35:05):
But what we're seeing isthere's been like a drop-off in
donations to, for example,abortion funds.
So people need to redoubletheir efforts there.
This issue has not gone away.
The number of unplannedpregnancies is not going down.
The need for abortion is notgoing down.
So we really do need people tostay invested in keeping that
(35:26):
care available.
And one way to do that isdonations to abortion funds,
particularly as people need totravel more.
You know, if you can't get anIfrapristin via telehealth and
you have to travel to anotherstate, that costs a lot of
money.
So being able to helpfacilitate care in that way.
Jennie (35:44):
That's great.
Because just before this, I ama usual monthly donor to a
couple abortion funds.
But I was like, you know, Ihaven't done like a one-off in a
while.
So right before ourconversation, I actually did
donate to the DC Abortion Fund.
So look at that.
Love it.
Just it felt like a day Ineeded to show them a little
(36:05):
love today.
I don't know why.
Jessica (36:06):
Yeah, I do.
I have my monthly donations setup to various things, but yes,
every once in a while, yeah.
Jennie (36:11):
I used to do that with the rage donating, right?
Like I had my monthlies, butthen there was the rage
donating, and that is what hasfallen off, right?
I think it has nationwide.
I'm trying to be better aboutthat.
Jessica (36:23):
Yeah, absolutely.
Well, because there's only likeyou can only be enraged for so
long, right?
And then you're exhausted.
And I think we're in theexhausted phase as a country,
and we have to find a way to notbe there because these issues
are not going away.
Jennie (36:38):
And as always, what I do, my usual pitch for abortion
funds is if you can, it isalways super helpful to be a
monthly donor.
That doesn't mean you'redonating $100 a month or
whatever, you even if it's justa couple dollars a month because
they know they are getting thatmoney every month and it's
easier for them to budget.
Absolutely.
Jessica, thank you so much forbeing here.
Jessica (37:00):
I had such a great time talking to you.
Thank you for having me.
I had a great time talking toyou, even though this is not
joyful subject matter.
Jennie (37:08):
Okay, y'all.
I hope you enjoyed myconversation with Jessica.
I had a great time talking toher about what this new law
means.
Like I said in the interview,it has not gone into effect yet.
It goes into effect December4th.
So keep an eye out.
And with that, just again, ourjust huge gratitude for the
award.
We are just so deeply honored,and thank you all for being such
(37:30):
an amazing audience.
We love you all, and we willsee you 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
you can find us on social media.
We're at rePROs Fight Back onFacebook and Twitter, or
(37:53):
@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.
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.
Las Culturistas with Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang
Ding dong! Join your culture consultants, Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang, on an unforgettable journey into the beating heart of CULTURE. Alongside sizzling special guests, they GET INTO the hottest pop-culture moments of the day and the formative cultural experiences that turned them into Culturistas. Produced by the Big Money Players Network and iHeartRadio.
Crime Junkie
Does hearing about a true crime case always leave you scouring the internet for the truth behind the story? Dive into your next mystery with Crime Junkie. Every Monday, join your host Ashley Flowers as she unravels all the details of infamous and underreported true crime cases with her best friend Brit Prawat. From cold cases to missing persons and heroes in our community who seek justice, Crime Junkie is your destination for theories and stories you won’t hear anywhere else. Whether you're a seasoned true crime enthusiast or new to the genre, you'll find yourself on the edge of your seat awaiting a new episode every Monday. If you can never get enough true crime... Congratulations, you’ve found your people. Follow to join a community of Crime Junkies! Crime Junkie is presented by audiochuck Media Company.