May 6, 2025 • 40 mins
T/W: Discussions of suicide in the last 1/3 of this conversation
The health, rights, and wellbeing of the LGBTQI+ community are under increasingly distressing strain, with a collection of new court cases only cementing the burden. Preston Mitchum, writer, policy analyst, consultant, star of Summer House: Martha’s Vineyard, and Senior Fellow with rePROs Fight Back, sits down to talk with us about a host of Supreme Court cases that have broad and damaging implications for the health and rights of the LGBTQI+ community.
Kennedy v. Braidwood Management, Inc. is a SCOTUS case surrounding the Affordable Care Act’s requirements for low-cost coverage of preventative services, including pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP), which is used by many different populations. This could threaten the affordability of an essential and effective medicinal treatment, pushing the price high enough that PrEP becomes inaccessible to many. Mahmoud v. Taylor revolves around school boards’ inclusion of books featuring LGBTQI+ storylines in the school curriculum, citing a violation of religious rights.
In addition to the above Supreme Court cases, A leaked budget showed that there would be significant funding cuts and elimination of services for 988— a three-digit number to reach the national suicide and crisis hotline. Preston’s work was instrumental in the legislation that developed this number, which passed the House, passed the Senate, and was signed by President Trump in his first term. The line has counselors specifically for high-risk groups, including LGBTQI+ folks. 988 is still available if you need someone to talk to.
For more information check outThe Nocturnists: https://thenocturnists.org/
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 repro. How'severybody doing? I'm your host
Jenny Wetter , and my pronounsare she her. So y'all, I feel
like I am finally starting toget from under the mountain of
email from when I was gone. Ijust, I feel like there's so
(00:26):
much that happened and I'mstill just trying to catch up,
but I think things are likefinally moving a little bit and
I'm feeling like I'm, I can seethe bottom of my inbox, which
is exciting and it , it'sgetting to be in a much better
place. So that's good. And Ihave been busy trying to edit
all of my pictures fromvacation, which has also been a
(00:49):
lot of fun. But I , y'all , Itook so many pictures. It is
wild. I definitely got carriedaway. I had a new camera, so I
was like definitely playingaround with it. And there were
so many. And then when Iuploaded them, for some reason,
I don't know what happened,they like uploaded in utter
(01:12):
chaos. So as I was likeclicking through them to edit
them, it was like just in noorder whatsoever. Luckily when
I finished like my finished andgot them like all in a folder,
they were named correctly. So Iwas able to sort them by name
and now they're back in order.
But man, I was really worriedas I was editing that it was
(01:33):
just gonna be chaos and I wasnever gonna figure out like
which photos were from whichday and which location and
things like that. But now thatI have them separated and in a
folder I can, I can do thatbetter. So that was a big
relief for me just 'cause thechaos was kind of making my
mind a little crazy. My twolittle monsters are getting a
(01:55):
little bit better about notbeing quite as clingy. Like as
I am recording this, Luna isactually sleeping on my bed in
a different room , uh, insteadof right by me, which is nice.
On the other hand, cinder islike parked right next to me on
my desk, although she's likelives on my desk when I work
(02:16):
anyway, so that's not really ahuge change. But they are both
very, still very attached andlike to the point of if like, I
go in my bathroom and close thedoor, like somebody is sitting
out there crying. Uh , so theyare still dealing with me being
gone for two and a half weeks,but they're getting better and
being good. So that's, that's,that's something that is , that
(02:39):
is something right now. Otherthan that, I feel like there's
just been a lot going on and ,um, and I am just still trying
to find my footing a little bitafter being back. So maybe
we'll just leave it there andturn to this week's episode.
And I'm very excited for thisweek's episode. We are having
(03:01):
our brand new repro seniorfellow Preston Michelman to
talk about a range of issues.
Um, I'm so excited to have himon. It has been quite a while
since he's been on the podcast.
Uh, so it was great to have himand I'm so excited to have him
, um, as part of the repro teamas a senior fellow. So, you
know, keep your eyes open forsome writing by him that we'll
(03:21):
have coming soon. And also,just a thing , something for
this episode, we're gonna put atrigger warning on it just so
that you are aware. We do talk, talk about suicide. We're
talking about the 9 8 8 suicideprevention hotline. So we don't
talk details about suicide, butsuicide is a, a large part of
the last third of ourconversation. So if you need to
(03:44):
step away, please step away.
Um, if you need to come back toit at a later time, we'll see
you then and or if you justcan't listen to it, we'll see
you next week in a differentepisode. But that is the last
third of our conversation. Soif you wanna listen to the
first part where we weretalking about some of the
L-G-B-T-Q cases that were infront of the Supreme Court this
past couple weeks. Um, so itwas one about , uh, having
(04:08):
inclusive books at schoolthat's being challenged and a
case that WA is challenging atthe core of it. Challenging the
preventative services groupthat , uh, decides what
preventative services arecovered under the a CA and the
part that the group that issuing is challenging was having
(04:28):
to cover prep. Um, so we talkabout that. So it's a really
great conversation. Of course,it's a great conversation. It's
Preston, but yeah, the lastthird we do talk about suicide.
So just a , a little bit of atrigger warning. Okay, with
that, let's go to my interviewwith Preston. Hi Preston. Thank
you so much for being heretoday.
Speaker 2 (04:50):
Hi Jenny . Thank you. I'm so excited to be back
after what feels like forever,but I'm really happy to be
here. I know
Speaker 1 (04:57):
, I was like
thinking back and I think the
last time you're on was maybethe episode we did, like right
after you had Covid and wetalked about Covid and your
personal experience.
Speaker 2 (05:06):
Yes, that was, oh my gosh, that was one of the last
times . That'd be five yearsago , thank goodness at that
time. Well, it hasn't reallycome and gone. It's still here
whether we discuss it or not,but in my body it has gone
thankfully..
Speaker 1 (05:18):
Yeah, I that is shocking to think that it has
been so long. Yes. Um , butyou've been up to so much and
I've been doing so manywonderful things. You thank ,
I'm so excited to have you on.
But before we like jump intoall the conversation, which I
sometimes do when I getexcited, would you like to
introduce yourself , uh, beforewe get going?
Speaker 2 (05:37):
Yes, happy to. Hey y'all. Preston Mitchum, I use
he , him pronouns. I am basedin Washington DC I am a black
writer, policy analyst , uh,reality TV star , some would
say, and all things nerd andBeyonce. So I'm so excited to
be back here.
Speaker 1 (05:58):
I have to say I did not watch Summer House 'cause I
just, I couldn't do it. I waslike, I , he is my friend. I
cannot watch any sort of mess.
Like I just can't. But Ienjoyed clips I saw and the
amazing , uh, gifts that youhave of you.
Speaker 2 (06:15):
Yes, I would joke and tell people, I'm like, I
promise you will like me inreal life. And on the show
,
Speaker 1 (06:21):
It's just the , it's hard to watch a friend in that
in that
Speaker 2 (06:24):
Like No, I get it.
Speaker 1 (06:25):
But I was like, I was so excited for you. Thank
Speaker 2 (06:28):
You.
Speaker 1 (06:28):
Uh, okay, so there was so much happening in the
news in the last couple weeksthat the only person I could
think of to have on was you,'cause it relates to so much of
your work and broader L-G-B-T-Qissues that you were like the
ideal person to talk to. Solet's start with the Kennedy
(06:49):
versus Braidwood case that wasin front of the Supreme Court .
Supreme . Do you wanna tell usa little bit about what this
case is about? Sure.
Speaker 2 (06:56):
So most recently the Supreme Court heard our
arguments in Kennedy versusBraidwood management in this
case in particular. So we haveBraidwood Management who is a
Christian owned business , um,and then six individuals in
Texas. And what they've done isthey challenge Dun Dun done the
Affordable Care Act again,right ? Again , because there's
(07:18):
been so much litigation and rerelitigation of the Affordable
Care Act. But specifically whatthey actually challenge are the
requirement to coverpreventative services. So for
those who don't know, there's astructure called the US
Preventative Services TaskForce and they're an
independent entity thatactually can , is convened by
the federal government and theymake recommendations for
(07:38):
preventative services such asprep pre-exposure prophylaxis.
We can get to that in a minute,but nearly all private
insurances must cover withoutcost sharing . And so that is
specifically, what's thatquestion? Is it , it's whether
the independent entity that'sconvened by the federal
government violates the USConstitution's appointments
clause. And that's the casebecause according to the
(08:01):
Constitution, offices of theUnited States may only be
appointed by the presidentsubject to advice and consent
by the Senate . And thelitigants here, Brentwood
Management that is, areclaiming that the U-S-P-S-T-F ,
the Preventative Services TaskForce does not have an
appointment or advice orconsent by the Senate and
therefore violates that clause.
(08:23):
Why that's a deeper issue hereagain, it's because they are
the structure that discussesthings around preventative
services. And so one of thethings that ultimately will be
questioned then is if thereforeprep and the low cost coverage
given by the A CA thereforeviolates braidwood management
(08:43):
under what they're alleging tobe a violation of their freedom
of religion. Meaning that theydon't believe that there are
certain things that theyactually have to cover or
certain things that people haveto, to cover even though they
are, and sometimes especiallybecause they are preventative
services. And
Speaker 1 (09:00):
This may all be familiar to our guests, our our
audience because this has comeup before in a little bit of a
different way with the birthcontrol benefit. This is the
same place where we see had thebirth control benefit come up
and when it was challenged forsimilar like companies saying
that they didn't have to coverbirth control for religious
(09:23):
reasons, they went after itthat way. But this is going a
little further and going afterthe structure. Correct. Um ,
the preventative services taskforce .
Speaker 2 (09:32):
Correct. And it , I I think another point that your
audience may be interested inis that, you know, we know
President Trump has supported aCA repeal many times, but
especially during his firstterm in office. But his
administration is actuallydefending the lawsuit. But I
wanna be clear, there's nothingto be proud of. The only reason
why his team is defending thelawsuit is because he is
(09:55):
currently the president. Right.
And so, you know, it's gonnaallow him to actually have
broader appeal and reallybroader latitude to some of the
recommendations that ultimately, uh, some of his entities that
are independent, but again, runthrough the federal government
can actually push through atthis point. So I , I know
someone, you know , I talked tosomeone recently, they're like,
that's a good thing, right? AndI'm like, I know we're looking
(10:16):
for wins, but I assure you itis not a good thing. .
Speaker 1 (10:19):
Yeah. Like it, it's, it is like a bit messy, right?
Because like mm-hmm . We wanna make
sure that the preventative taskforce is able to do their job
and like have that be supportedand not have to go through the
Senate and like all these extrahoops to get people in place.
'cause sometimes that makes ithard to get good people.
Speaker 2 (10:39):
Exactly. But
Speaker 1 (10:40):
Also if you have this very anti-science and anti
L-G-B-T-Q and anti rightsadministration, that also is
mess.
Speaker 2 (10:51):
Exactly. Exactly.
Especially when you layer onso-called religious freedom on
top of that. And so, you know,ultimately what we're talking
about here is not only the USPreventative Services task
force , but things like theReligious Freedom Restoration
Act, which again here they'realleging, is being violated
because they don't believe thatmedication to prevent HIV from
(11:16):
sex or injection drug use issomething that actually aligns
with their religion, if youwill. So
Speaker 1 (11:22):
I guess that leads me just to think like what
would this mean? Like what arethe implications of like a bad
decision in this case?
Speaker 2 (11:30):
There are tons of implications in this case. I
mean, I've been a prep user forabout 10 years now. Um, so
yeah, I think my , I actuallystarted prep in 2015 and um,
one prep is, but before , um,you have pharmaceutical
companies like Gilead offeringcodes , um, for people who
(11:51):
cannot afford prep to actuallyactually get prepped to lower
the cost to $0. Then again, ofcourse because of the acas low
cost or no cost coverage forprep, you have people who
ordinarily would've been paying2000 a month for 30 or 60 or 90
day supply to now where thenumbers are $0 for many people.
Um , and sometimes, you know,I've talked to some friends who
(12:14):
maybe paying 10 and $15, sostill like an incredibly low
cost coverage for prep, youknow, if, you know, these
numbers could skyrocket quitefrankly. And we don't really
know exactly what that lookslike yet. But that's one of the
implications of what happens ifthe conservative justice sway a
little too conservatively inthis instance , um, we could be
looking at prep becomingextremely unavailable for
(12:37):
people for no other reasonbecause of the cost , obviously
making it incrediblyunavailable , um, because it's
so exorbitantly priced. I willnever forget actually before ,
um, you know, seeing thesticker shock of $2,100 ring up
at CVS pharmacy when Iinitially got on prep and I'm
like, there's no way I canafford to pay this. And it was
(12:59):
a pharmacist who actually toldme about ways to actually
reduce it to $0 or low costcoverage. And so that's a huge
implication there. Frankly, Ithink about specific things
like what happens when youdon't have access to prep. I
mean prep in terms ofpreventing HIV from sex is
about 99% effective forejection drug use is about 74,
(13:22):
70 5%. But still that's, that'san incredibly high rate of
effectiveness, particularlywhen you're discussing things
like most at risk populationsor, or marginalized
communities. So like men whohave sex with men, sex workers,
trans women, people inconfinement settings, you know,
things like prep and havingaccess to prep is, is a
(13:42):
lifesaving , um, interventionfor, for them . Um, and
especially when you couple itwith the fact of like HIV
prevalence and incidence rates.
I think a damning thing here,quite frankly is many of these
people, be it the far rightextreme or Christian
nationalist movement, I meansome of the stereotypes that
(14:03):
are happening here is one, theybelieve that the only people
who are even using prep are gayand people or people who are
promiscuous if you will. Butwhen it's really people who
actually are just protectingthemselves, right? Straight
women also could be diagnosedwith HIV people who have sex
for the first time could um ,acquire HIV, right? Like this
(14:23):
is not something that is justfor one group of people. And
that is really the stereotypesaround a lot of this, quite
frankly. Two, I think a lot ofwhat we're seeing here are
people who believe that if youdon't make prep available, then
people probably will stophaving sex when again, we know
that that's not true. In thesame way that made of them
(14:44):
thought that if abortion accesswould not be made available,
the rate of abortions woulddecrease. Again, we're seeing
the opposite. And so, you know,I I think ultimately there are
many implications happeninghere and all of them, quite
frankly are rooted in fallaciesand things that are just quite
frankly illogical. Yeah.
Speaker 1 (15:03):
It just makes me think of the people who are
like , if we don't teach kidssex ed, they won't have sex.
Speaker 2 (15:07):
Exactly. Exactly.
It's like no, they're actuallyhaving sex and they're doing it
in more sexually riskier waysbecause we're not giving them
the tools and the resources toactually make informed
decisions for their bodies andtheir partner's bodies. Yeah.
Speaker 1 (15:22):
The other thing I was thinking of as you were
telling your story is that yougot lucky, right? You went to a
pharmacist who was willing togive you that information that
enabled you to access prep. Youcould afford, if you went to
like an unsupportivepharmacist, they may have never
told you and you wouldn't havebeen able to access the care.
(15:42):
Um, and like I know youwould've probably navigated the
system and figured it out, butthere are a lot of people like
that would've been the end.
Well, and
Speaker 2 (15:49):
That's important to mention, right? Because I am
someone who at this point in mylife, I mean even back then I
had three degrees. I was doingwork in research and policy on
issues related to health equitywork. Yeah . Right? And there
were still things I didn't evenknow to ask the questions about
or how to navigate the systems.
Now being as diligent as I am,again, to your point, I
(16:10):
would've figured it outultimately. But there are many
people who don't have access tothose resources and quite
frankly, who don't have accessto affirming people like that.
Pharmacists who said, wait,especially as she noticed I was
about to walk away. Right? Andso like, when you don't have
people in your life who cannavigate those systems in that
way for you or you know, don'thave anyone who's affirming to
(16:34):
you and your identities, theywill let you walk away and then
you're still going to continueto engage sexually. 'cause many
of us do , um, in the ways thatstill feels best for you. And I
think the problem with a lot ofthis is there's still a one
size fits all model inhealthcare at large, right?
Most of it is notindividualized care. Most of it
(16:54):
is not culturally clinicallycompetent in order for people
to actually have a safe andlearning environment even
through things like medicineand medical interventions. And
that is what we're gonna see alot here. I really fear because
even the conversations of whypeople take prep is so a
fascinating one to me becausefor me, a lot of people can ask
(17:15):
the question in love, why doyou take prep as an example?
But the reality is we know whymost people take prep, right?
We know what prep is for. So Ireally want people to lean more
into love of asking questionsand genuine curiosity as
opposed to what sometimes feelslike a gotcha moment or a
moment of saying like, well,you know, you could just reduce
(17:36):
your sexual partners becausethe reality is that's a one
size fits all model approachthat's unhelpful. And in
clinical setting, people are,they're gonna engage in the
ways that feel best to them.
The question should there behow do we actually make sure
we're building up interventionsthat honors those people's
lived experiences as opposed tosometimes just what the books
say.
Speaker 1 (17:55):
Yeah. And it like pushes people away from
accessing that care if theyfeel like they're being
stigmatized or not listened toor heard or or ashamed .
Speaker 2 (18:05):
Yeah. I mean, and there's tons of data on it,
right? Like we, we should notbe having to tell these stories
again. I mean there's there ,there's been data on this for
decades and I wish that washyperbole , but there
has been data on for decadesabout how judge shame and
stigma actually really feedsunfortunately this really bad
healthcare infrastructure andpeople's experiences within it.
Speaker 1 (18:27):
Okay. So unfortunately this wasn't the
only time things related toL-G-B-T-Q issues were at the
court last week. Well, I guesswhen people hear this two weeks
ago, and I know we're not gonnaspend a ton of time on this,
but it just hits like a specialniche issue for me. 'cause I'm
a big book person I love andI'm make sure to read band
books. So this like hit meright in my sweet spot and that
(18:51):
is the Mahmud versus Taylorcase. Do you just wanna do like
a really quick, like what itwas about, 'cause it was
dealing with books related toL-G-B-T-Q. I mean, I don't even
wanna say issues. Like it wasjust like representation.
Speaker 2 (19:04):
Yeah, I mean I ultimately think this is gonna
always have a sweet spot for mein particular if for no other
reason. Because my very bestfriend George Johnson, who
wrote All Boys on Blue, had thenumber one that had the number
one most band book in 2024.
Like bigger than literallyevery other book. It was number
(19:25):
one on the list. And we jokeabout it sometimes and say
we're number one ,right? like good old
America. But there's actually areally sad situation when you
really have people actuallydiscussing and litigating
against what can be heard ortaught or what your children
can read. Like it's really sadand it's
Speaker 1 (19:44):
Such a beautiful book. So y'all, if you haven't
read it, please read it. Mm-hmm
Speaker 2 (19:49):
. I
mean it's really, it's really
sad. I think also 'cause thecase Ud b Taylor speaks from
home in several ways, right?
It's, you know, it's really agroup of parents that's brought
in Montgomery County, MarylandYeah . Which is in DC it's our
backyard. Yep . Um, and it'sagainst the board of education
of the school districtspecifically. But you know, the
reality is it revolves aroundthe district's decision to
(20:10):
include certain books withLGBTQ plus characters and
themes and the schoolcurriculum and specifically the
parents here are arguing,right? That the religious
rights are being violated. Imean that's the thing that's
the through line with all this,right? Yeah . Religious rights,
religious freedoms. Um , butthose parents here are arguing
that their rights are beingviolated by not being able to
opt their children out of classwhen such books are to be used
(20:34):
and listen for a lot of peoplethat sounds logical and sounds
reasonable. Most people willaffirm the parent's decisions
that they're activelyattempting to parent , um, what
they believe is best for thechild . But I think the problem
is, you know, who they're notasking the children, right?
They're not asking the youngpeople if they actually want to
(20:54):
learn and be included in thoseconversations and learn more
about like, characters that arebeyond their own or maybe
characters that they actuallyare in real life, but that
these parents are refusing toactually accept. And and to me
that is gonna always be themost fundamentally frustrating
part and scary part are thatmany of these books written by
these authors are written withlove and care. We think that
(21:18):
there's an environment and weknow that there's an
environment where children andtheir parents need to see
families like their own inbooks, right? Like I think
about my first time evenreading or thinking about
characters or the first timeI've seen people in film and
television and what does thatactually mean to have your
stories told and how do youfeel seen? And I think
especially in light of whatwe're seeing regarding the
(21:41):
erosion of DEI and justice fromthe Trump Vance administration,
I mean, this is unfortunately aperfect time for people who
actually want to tout religiousfreedom while still being
hateful to people. Um, rightnow because they have the
background of the federalgovernment to affirm that
(22:01):
thinking and affirm thatdecision. And so this is
nothing more but justcensorship, right? It's
censorship, it is segregationof books. It is created an
environment where we believepeople don't exist. It's
created an environment where wedon't believe that all families
deserve to be seen. And that isgonna be the danger of this
specific case. So let , yes, inshort, all of it is because the
(22:25):
district and the board ofeducation for the county
decided to include L-G-B-T-Qbooks. I mean, what, what a
shock and horror, I guess I
Speaker 1 (22:34):
Know, right? The bottom line. They wanted kids
to be able to see themselves intheir families and the things
they were reading. Correct ?
Speaker 2 (22:41):
And , and , and not to the exclusion of other
people, right? No. Like I thinkthat is always what I'm gonna
find the most fascinating inthese situations, right? So
even thinking back to likecomprehensive sexuality
education, you know, you wouldhear people then say, we need
to teach about abstinence. AndI'm like, well, abstinence is
(23:01):
inclusive of comprehensivesexuality education. And so I'm
like, the problem, what youwant to hear is abstinence only
when we know that that isactually not rooted in science
or any data that we have.
Similarly, it's not as if wehad the school district that
stated we're gonna haveL-G-B-T-Q books with L-G-B-T-Q
(23:23):
characters and that's it. Wedon't care about straight
people. We don't care about menand women households. We don't
care about, you know, the whitepicket fence and the two and a
half kids. But they're , theybelieve many of these people
believe that the inclusion ofLGBTQ plus people is to the
exclusion of straight people.
And that is just fundamentally, um, untrue.
Speaker 1 (23:44):
Yeah. The, the point about sex ed is well taken
again, as you know, someone whohad sex ed from a nun. Like I
really feel the lack of, fully comprehensive inclusive
sex education and the impact ithas on , uh, your life.
Speaker 2 (23:59):
Yes, we all, we all need really good sex ed. And
it's amazing when you talk topeople about , um, their sex ed
and if they believe they hadgood sex ed. Many people think
that they do. And I'm like, no.
You saw a condom being put on abanana. I did not. That's not
, right ? Like , well me either to be clear
(24:19):
, I did not either. Um,but I really want us to expand
what we believe good sex ed tohave meant for us growing up.
'cause if we actually reflecton it, most of our sex ed was
like, don't get pregnant, don'tget STIs . That's
Speaker 1 (24:33):
It. That's it.
Speaker 2 (24:34):
Yep .
Speaker 1 (24:35):
. Yep . And
the perfect time to have this
conversation. 'cause whenpeople are hearing this
episode, it will be sex edmonth. So, okay. So the other
thing I wanted to talk to youabout is something that I
thought of you the second I sawit because I knew this was your
baby and that is theadministration talking about
getting rid of the 9, 8, 8system first before we get into
(24:58):
like cutting it, let's talkabout what it is and honestly
the amazing work you did tomake it happen.
Speaker 2 (25:05):
Mm , thanks friend.
So yes, 9, 8, 8 was is still ,um, the three digit number to
reach the National Suicide andCrisis Lifeline back some years
ago. It was a long form numberand so a lot of people got
together and the mental healthcrisis prevention and suicide
prevention space and said, youknow what? We need a short
(25:27):
number for people who are goingthrough crisis or suicidal
thoughts or ideations to reallyjust remember something and it
could be via text chattercalling. And , um, at this time
I served as the director ofadvocacy and government affairs
at the Trevor Project. And myjob was to really help build up
98 . And so at that time we hadgot the legislative, the
(25:49):
legislation passed, it was thefirst legislative text with the
word LGBTQ plus in it thatpassed unanimously outta
committee, it passed Congressor passed both House and Senate
and it was signed, believe itor not, actually, by President
Trump , uh, Trump 1.0 . And sothat's why all of this is
really fascinating. Maybe notsurprising, but fascinating now
(26:10):
because I think a lot of peopleactually don't realize that the
initial text was signed intolaw by President Trump. Nope .
Speaker 1 (26:17):
Totally forgot.
Speaker 2 (26:18):
Yeah . Yeah. And so it was one of the like biggest
bipartisan wins of probably thepast 10 years , um, I would
argue. And so, you know, yeah .
So while anyone in a mentalhealth crisis can text or call
nine eight and be connected toa trained counselor, the line
has specially trainedcounselors specifically for
high risk groups like veteransand LGBTQ plus youth. I'm proud
(26:40):
to say during my work at theTrevor Project, myself and
others advocated for 30, nearlyabout 29.6 uh , million dollars
in lgbtq plus specializedservices. So you call the
number, you talk to a crisiscounselor who may be , trans,
or non-binary, or at the veryleast are skilled and
(27:03):
culturally competent in thelives of LGBTQ plus youth. You
know, we are just last yearalone , um, approximately 40%
of LGBTQ plus youth consideredsuicide. Um, and that was by a
recent report from the Trumpproject. And most recently
because of a leaked budget,which is probably the scarier
part, we're learning that HHS,which is obviously now
(27:25):
spearheaded by someone who doesnot care about data, Mr. Robert
F. Kennedy Jr . Himself, we sawa leak budget that stated that
there were likely gonna be somesignificant cuts and almost the
elimination of services for BTQthrough 98 . Ultimately,
Speaker 1 (27:43):
I, it just, I mean it seems so cliche now just to
be like, it's so cruel and justthinking about all of the
things that are happening andthis moment mm-hmm
. Attacking transaccess to healthcare, trans
kids' ability to play sportsand all of these things that
(28:04):
are pushing people to needthose services even more right
now and then to take away thoseservices is just absolutely
devastating.
Speaker 2 (28:15):
Yeah. I don't know if I even have a better word
for it than evil. I mean, likewhen you, you know, we already
have again, this leak federalbudget that specifically looked
at the elimination of servicesfor L-G-B-T-Q youth. We already
know the higher rates ofsuicidal ideations and attempts
and sometimes completed suicideis , uh, L-G-B-T-Q youth and
(28:38):
young people generally, quitefrankly. We also see the
numbers increase for olderpeople. And you know, and , and
again, we can just go throughthe marginalized communities
gamut of who have experiencedsuicidal thoughts, why that
happens, why we need upstreamsuicide prevention services.
Because suicide is not justabout someone being sad, right?
Sometimes it can be because ofserious mental illnesses. Other
(29:01):
times it could be about what weknow to be the social
determinants of health. I mean,right. There are people who
experience suicidal thoughtsbecause there housing insecure
because they don't have accessto healthcare settings because
they don't have genderaffirming care because they
don't have jobs or becausethey're underemployed. Right?
So it's not just the thingsthat I think some of us just
(29:21):
think about in terms ofsuicidal thoughts and, and
suicidal ideations. And so whensomeone says, and they
acknowledge and honor that theyare going through something and
they're like, you know, Iactually need support. I'm
gonna call someone. And for theresponse to that be, actually
(29:41):
we're gonna take away your life, your literal lifeline, we're
gonna take away the fact thatyou've acknowledged that you
can be harmed, including selfharm . We're acknowledging that
you may feel depressed orlonely or have anxiety and even
though you're looking forsomeone to call, we're not even
gonna fund that . Like, that isan evil thing to do. And there
(30:02):
are times I, I just always wantto call things what they are
because it's not just, it's notjust sad, right? It's actually
like something that isultimately fundamentally evil
and will increase. And this isnot hyperbolic will increase
the death of people. Andhonestly, I think that's what
(30:24):
they want at this point. Ugh .
Speaker 1 (30:26):
That just is all so heavy. And yeah. And , but I
also think it's reallyimportant to remind people you
did when you started, but likelet's bring it back at the end
to be like, it has not happenedyet. The services are still
available. You can still access9, 8 8 if you need it and get
(30:47):
L-G-B-T-Q specific services.
Yes.
Speaker 2 (30:48):
I had to make sure I had to even say is because I
was already affirming that.
Right? So yeah, 9, 8, 8 isstill available. You definitely
can still call, text or chat ifyou need anyone to talk to if
you're going through anything.
And that means having even abad day, right? The one thing
that I always messaged around9, 8, 8 was that the moment you
(31:10):
should call is not the momentwhen you are finally in a state
of crisis. It can be just, I'vehad a bad day, I broke up with
someone, someone broke up withme. Like, any moment that can
build up to the state of crisisor paralysis should be the
moments where you start tocall. And these are trained
counselors, right? They're notjust people who, you know,
(31:33):
wanna pick up the phone andtalk, that's great and they
will, but they're also trainedand skilled in actually talking
to you about your experiences,your moments , asking you
questions, sometimes sitting insilence, hearing you cry,
crying with you, right ? Like ,these are people who really are
affirmed and believe in you andwanna make sure that you all
still see , uh, the next day tonot just survive, but to thrive
(31:57):
ultimately. So please feel freeto call text chat 98 . There
are all additional lifelinenumbers of course that people
can call too . But 98 is alwaysgonna be a through line . And
the best way to start, okay,
Speaker 1 (32:09):
So I , I know this is something that is right up
your alley. I always love toend episodes not just focusing
on the issues, but like whatcan people do, how can people
get involved in this moment? Sowhat are some things you would
recommend that people who careabout these issues, like what
can they do to take actionright now? Yeah,
Speaker 2 (32:28):
You know, these are, I think for a lot of people,
I'm gonna say this and this iswhat I've been advising a lot
of clients on , um, andprospective clients , um,
through my consulting firm, PDMconsulting. I think a lot of
things is about honoring yourrisk tolerance. For many people
in organizations, they areincredibly risk averse for a
variety of reasons. Andsometimes I think it's okay to
(32:50):
have a, to have a higher risktolerance. In other instances,
it's okay to have a lower risktolerance, particularly if you
are of a marginalized communitythat usually will be the first
to be attacked, whether it's onthe front lines, quite
literally on the ground or ifit's virtually. And so I think
one, it's always aboutassessing your risk tolerance
and what you have the capacityto do. And also sometimes
(33:13):
challenging yourself to do alittle bit more . So, you know,
if you're one of those peoplewho have, you know, additional
funds, make sure that you'reactually, you know, donating
those funds and actuallypurchasing things like the band
books. Like there's a band booklist list. Go on the band book
list, make sure that thosebooks are available to people.
Um, make sure you're providingthat within libraries or school
(33:36):
systems , um, to the extentthat they can still have them
or your family or your friends.
That's really important becausefun fact, a lot of these books
that end up on a banned booklist ends up being on New York
Times best sellers list becausepeople know that there's a
reason why they're attemptingto ban these books. If
Speaker 1 (33:52):
You ban it, you know, it's good.
Speaker 2 (33:54):
Exactly, exactly. I think another thing is for
folks who , um, really want tobe more politically engaged,
please, please, please, and ifyou're listening to this
podcast, I know in many waysyou have to be, but please make
sure you're paying attention towhat's happening. Of course ,
um, at the , at the federallevel, but especially at the
local and state levels, Ireally do think we miss local
(34:15):
and state actions because we'repaying so much focus on the
federal and we should, and thelocal and state levels are
where it's at rights where youtalk about highways and byways
school systems. I mean thingsthat actually impact your
day-to-day dollars and cents. Alot of that is because of local
(34:36):
and state for funders. Youknow, I've had some very
challenging conversations withfunders recently, and part of
it is because, and I say thisin love, but also in in
challenging encouragement. Alot of funders are not meeting
the needs right now. They ,many of them I've talked to are
still doing things like veryrestricted funds. They're not
attempting to increase specificfunds. And that is really
(34:58):
problematic for a lot of theseorganizations that are trying
to navigate a very hostilepolitical climate. And so in
these times, we need to be ableto trust these organizations to
do a little bit more with themoney that they're given and
not say that it has to bespecific to this line item
because we're not giving them achance to actually expand and
meet the needs of theircommunity and members the best
(35:20):
way that they know how. Sothat's really a challenge for
funders as well. So again,donations, funders do better.
Um, there's ways to still, youknow, be connected to like the
advocacy and the policy side aswell. But just most of all,
please, please, please, I hopethat people don't feel like
they need to either be silentor cower or move to the middle
(35:43):
right now. We need people,people need to be seen. Sure.
Always part of being seenthough is making sure that we
know we're staying true to ourvalues and our mission. And so
if that means we need to shiftterms to honor what feels safe,
do that, but don't shift yourvalues. Um, and so we need to
(36:04):
really push forward like how toshift terms and not values.
Unfortunately, I've seen a lotof organizations shift both and
trust me when I say we're gonnalose in the long term , even if
it feels like we're havingshort term gains or
advancements,
Speaker 1 (36:20):
Ooh . I feel, I feel that last part, especially like
worrying about what groups aregoing to do to ensure they can
continue to get funding mm-hmm . If they get
government funding with all ofthese attacks on DEI or certain
parts of our sector that , uh,we work in. And yeah, that has
(36:41):
been something that hasdefinitely been worrying me.
Speaker 2 (36:44):
Yeah, I mean I hope I haven't, I mean, I'm sure
it's, I'm sure it's happened inspaces I may just not be privy
to. What I'm really hoping isthat we have a , a lot of
principals and CEOs who aretrying to really pull together
many funders. Sectorally, Iimagine. Yeah. Just to kind of
discuss what their approach hasbeen and what it looks like.
(37:07):
Um, because it hasn't been, ithasn't been that great and I
think all of us know that evenif none of us are in a safe
enough position to say it.
Speaker 1 (37:15):
Preston, as always, it is such a joy to talk to
you. I am so happy to have youon after too long of an absence
. Nice .
Speaker 2 (37:23):
Yes, . I'm
happy to be here too.
Speaker 1 (37:25):
Um , yeah , so thank you for being here. Um, and I'm
sure we'll have you on againsoon to talk about something
new.
Speaker 2 (37:31):
Thank you. Thank you for any of your listeners, you
can always look me up , uh, atwww.prestonmitchum.com or
Preston Mitchum on all of yourplatforms. So thank you so
much, Jenny .
Speaker 1 (37:43):
Yeah. And we'll absolutely have links to all of
, uh, the things in the shownotes so you can easily find
Preston wherever he is. Okayy'all, I hope you enjoyed my
conversation with Preston. LikeI said, I am so excited to have
him on the podcast and so happythat he is now a senior fellow
with re pros. I am lookingforward to what he is planning
(38:05):
to be writing for us. I'm justvery excited to have him on
board and I hope you enjoy ourconversation and we'll make
sure to check out his writingonce we have some of his pieces
up. And with that, I will seeeverybody next week. If you
have any questions, comments,or topics you would like us to
cover , always feel free toshoot me an email. You can
(38:26):
reach me at Jenn nie@reprofightback.com or you
can 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
your favorite podcast platform.
(38:47):
Or if you wanna make sure tosupport the podcast, you can
also donate on our website atre pros fight back.com . Thanks
all .
Welcome to Repro Fight Back a podcast on all
things related to sexual andreproductive health rights and
justice. Hi repro. How'severybody doing? I'm your host
Jenny Wetter , and my pronounsare she her. So y'all, I feel
like I am finally starting toget from under the mountain of
email from when I was gone. Ijust, I feel like there's so
(00:26):
much that happened and I'mstill just trying to catch up,
but I think things are likefinally moving a little bit and
I'm feeling like I'm, I can seethe bottom of my inbox, which
is exciting and it , it'sgetting to be in a much better
place. So that's good. And Ihave been busy trying to edit
all of my pictures fromvacation, which has also been a
(00:49):
lot of fun. But I , y'all , Itook so many pictures. It is
wild. I definitely got carriedaway. I had a new camera, so I
was like definitely playingaround with it. And there were
so many. And then when Iuploaded them, for some reason,
I don't know what happened,they like uploaded in utter
(01:12):
chaos. So as I was likeclicking through them to edit
them, it was like just in noorder whatsoever. Luckily when
I finished like my finished andgot them like all in a folder,
they were named correctly. So Iwas able to sort them by name
and now they're back in order.
But man, I was really worriedas I was editing that it was
(01:33):
just gonna be chaos and I wasnever gonna figure out like
which photos were from whichday and which location and
things like that. But now thatI have them separated and in a
folder I can, I can do thatbetter. So that was a big
relief for me just 'cause thechaos was kind of making my
mind a little crazy. My twolittle monsters are getting a
(01:55):
little bit better about notbeing quite as clingy. Like as
I am recording this, Luna isactually sleeping on my bed in
a different room , uh, insteadof right by me, which is nice.
On the other hand, cinder islike parked right next to me on
my desk, although she's likelives on my desk when I work
(02:16):
anyway, so that's not really ahuge change. But they are both
very, still very attached andlike to the point of if like, I
go in my bathroom and close thedoor, like somebody is sitting
out there crying. Uh , so theyare still dealing with me being
gone for two and a half weeks,but they're getting better and
being good. So that's, that's,that's something that is , that
(02:39):
is something right now. Otherthan that, I feel like there's
just been a lot going on and ,um, and I am just still trying
to find my footing a little bitafter being back. So maybe
we'll just leave it there andturn to this week's episode.
And I'm very excited for thisweek's episode. We are having
(03:01):
our brand new repro seniorfellow Preston Michelman to
talk about a range of issues.
Um, I'm so excited to have himon. It has been quite a while
since he's been on the podcast.
Uh, so it was great to have himand I'm so excited to have him
, um, as part of the repro teamas a senior fellow. So, you
know, keep your eyes open forsome writing by him that we'll
(03:21):
have coming soon. And also,just a thing , something for
this episode, we're gonna put atrigger warning on it just so
that you are aware. We do talk, talk about suicide. We're
talking about the 9 8 8 suicideprevention hotline. So we don't
talk details about suicide, butsuicide is a, a large part of
the last third of ourconversation. So if you need to
(03:44):
step away, please step away.
Um, if you need to come back toit at a later time, we'll see
you then and or if you justcan't listen to it, we'll see
you next week in a differentepisode. But that is the last
third of our conversation. Soif you wanna listen to the
first part where we weretalking about some of the
L-G-B-T-Q cases that were infront of the Supreme Court this
past couple weeks. Um, so itwas one about , uh, having
(04:08):
inclusive books at schoolthat's being challenged and a
case that WA is challenging atthe core of it. Challenging the
preventative services groupthat , uh, decides what
preventative services arecovered under the a CA and the
part that the group that issuing is challenging was having
(04:28):
to cover prep. Um, so we talkabout that. So it's a really
great conversation. Of course,it's a great conversation. It's
Preston, but yeah, the lastthird we do talk about suicide.
So just a , a little bit of atrigger warning. Okay, with
that, let's go to my interviewwith Preston. Hi Preston. Thank
you so much for being heretoday.
Speaker 2 (04:50):
Hi Jenny . Thank you. I'm so excited to be back
after what feels like forever,but I'm really happy to be
here. I know
Speaker 1 (04:57):
last time you're on was maybethe episode we did, like right
after you had Covid and wetalked about Covid and your
personal experience.
Speaker 2 (05:06):
Yes, that was, oh my gosh, that was one of the last
times . That'd be five yearsago , thank goodness at that
time. Well, it hasn't reallycome and gone. It's still here
whether we discuss it or not,but in my body it has gone
thankfully.
Speaker 1 (05:18):
Yeah, I that is shocking to think that it has
been so long. Yes. Um , butyou've been up to so much and
I've been doing so manywonderful things. You thank ,
I'm so excited to have you on.
But before we like jump intoall the conversation, which I
sometimes do when I getexcited, would you like to
introduce yourself , uh, beforewe get going?
Speaker 2 (05:37):
Yes, happy to. Hey y'all. Preston Mitchum, I use
he , him pronouns. I am basedin Washington DC I am a black
writer, policy analyst , uh,reality TV star , some would
say, and all things nerd andBeyonce. So I'm so excited to
be back here.
Speaker 1 (05:58):
I have to say I did not watch Summer House 'cause I
just, I couldn't do it. I waslike, I , he is my friend. I
cannot watch any sort of mess.
Like I just can't. But Ienjoyed clips I saw and the
amazing , uh, gifts that youhave of you.
Speaker 2 (06:15):
Yes, I would joke and tell people, I'm like, I
promise you will like me inreal life. And on the show
Speaker 1 (06:21):
It's just the , it's hard to watch a friend in that
in that
Speaker 2 (06:24):
Like No, I get it.
Speaker 1 (06:25):
But I was like, I was so excited for you. Thank
Speaker 2 (06:28):
You.
Speaker 1 (06:28):
Uh, okay, so there was so much happening in the
news in the last couple weeksthat the only person I could
think of to have on was you,'cause it relates to so much of
your work and broader L-G-B-T-Qissues that you were like the
ideal person to talk to. Solet's start with the Kennedy
(06:49):
versus Braidwood case that wasin front of the Supreme Court .
Supreme . Do you wanna tell usa little bit about what this
case is about? Sure.
Speaker 2 (06:56):
So most recently the Supreme Court heard our
arguments in Kennedy versusBraidwood management in this
case in particular. So we haveBraidwood Management who is a
Christian owned business , um,and then six individuals in
Texas. And what they've done isthey challenge Dun Dun done the
Affordable Care Act again,right ? Again , because there's
(07:18):
been so much litigation and rerelitigation of the Affordable
Care Act. But specifically whatthey actually challenge are the
requirement to coverpreventative services. So for
those who don't know, there's astructure called the US
Preventative Services TaskForce and they're an
independent entity thatactually can , is convened by
the federal government and theymake recommendations for
(07:38):
preventative services such asprep pre-exposure prophylaxis.
We can get to that in a minute,but nearly all private
insurances must cover withoutcost sharing . And so that is
specifically, what's thatquestion? Is it , it's whether
the independent entity that'sconvened by the federal
government violates the USConstitution's appointments
clause. And that's the casebecause according to the
(08:01):
Constitution, offices of theUnited States may only be
appointed by the presidentsubject to advice and consent
by the Senate . And thelitigants here, Brentwood
Management that is, areclaiming that the U-S-P-S-T-F ,
the Preventative Services TaskForce does not have an
appointment or advice orconsent by the Senate and
therefore violates that clause.
(08:23):
Why that's a deeper issue hereagain, it's because they are
the structure that discussesthings around preventative
services. And so one of thethings that ultimately will be
questioned then is if thereforeprep and the low cost coverage
given by the A CA thereforeviolates braidwood management
(08:43):
under what they're alleging tobe a violation of their freedom
of religion. Meaning that theydon't believe that there are
certain things that theyactually have to cover or
certain things that people haveto, to cover even though they
are, and sometimes especiallybecause they are preventative
services. And
Speaker 1 (09:00):
This may all be familiar to our guests, our our
audience because this has comeup before in a little bit of a
different way with the birthcontrol benefit. This is the
same place where we see had thebirth control benefit come up
and when it was challenged forsimilar like companies saying
that they didn't have to coverbirth control for religious
(09:23):
reasons, they went after itthat way. But this is going a
little further and going afterthe structure. Correct. Um ,
the preventative services taskforce .
Speaker 2 (09:32):
Correct. And it , I I think another point that your
audience may be interested inis that, you know, we know
President Trump has supported aCA repeal many times, but
especially during his firstterm in office. But his
administration is actuallydefending the lawsuit. But I
wanna be clear, there's nothingto be proud of. The only reason
why his team is defending thelawsuit is because he is
(09:55):
currently the president. Right.
And so, you know, it's gonnaallow him to actually have
broader appeal and reallybroader latitude to some of the
recommendations that ultimately, uh, some of his entities that
are independent, but again, runthrough the federal government
can actually push through atthis point. So I , I know
someone, you know , I talked tosomeone recently, they're like,
that's a good thing, right? AndI'm like, I know we're looking
(10:16):
for wins, but I assure you itis not a good thing.
Speaker 1 (10:19):
Yeah. Like it, it's, it is like a bit messy, right?
Because like mm-hmm
sure that the preventative taskforce is able to do their job
and like have that be supportedand not have to go through the
Senate and like all these extrahoops to get people in place.
'cause sometimes that makes ithard to get good people.
Speaker 2 (10:39):
Exactly. But
Speaker 1 (10:40):
Also if you have this very anti-science and anti
L-G-B-T-Q and anti rightsadministration, that also is
mess.
Speaker 2 (10:51):
Exactly. Exactly.
Especially when you layer onso-called religious freedom on
top of that. And so, you know,ultimately what we're talking
about here is not only the USPreventative Services task
force , but things like theReligious Freedom Restoration
Act, which again here they'realleging, is being violated
because they don't believe thatmedication to prevent HIV from
(11:16):
sex or injection drug use issomething that actually aligns
with their religion, if youwill. So
Speaker 1 (11:22):
I guess that leads me just to think like what
would this mean? Like what arethe implications of like a bad
decision in this case?
Speaker 2 (11:30):
There are tons of implications in this case. I
mean, I've been a prep user forabout 10 years now. Um, so
yeah, I think my , I actuallystarted prep in 2015 and um,
one prep is, but before , um,you have pharmaceutical
companies like Gilead offeringcodes , um, for people who
(11:51):
cannot afford prep to actuallyactually get prepped to lower
the cost to $0. Then again, ofcourse because of the acas low
cost or no cost coverage forprep, you have people who
ordinarily would've been paying2000 a month for 30 or 60 or 90
day supply to now where thenumbers are $0 for many people.
Um , and sometimes, you know,I've talked to some friends who
(12:14):
maybe paying 10 and $15, sostill like an incredibly low
cost coverage for prep, youknow, if, you know, these
numbers could skyrocket quitefrankly. And we don't really
know exactly what that lookslike yet. But that's one of the
implications of what happens ifthe conservative justice sway a
little too conservatively inthis instance , um, we could be
looking at prep becomingextremely unavailable for
(12:37):
people for no other reasonbecause of the cost , obviously
making it incrediblyunavailable , um, because it's
so exorbitantly priced. I willnever forget actually before ,
um, you know, seeing thesticker shock of $2,100 ring up
at CVS pharmacy when Iinitially got on prep and I'm
like, there's no way I canafford to pay this. And it was
(12:59):
a pharmacist who actually toldme about ways to actually
reduce it to $0 or low costcoverage. And so that's a huge
implication there. Frankly, Ithink about specific things
like what happens when youdon't have access to prep. I
mean prep in terms ofpreventing HIV from sex is
about 99% effective forejection drug use is about 74,
(13:22):
70 5%. But still that's, that'san incredibly high rate of
effectiveness, particularlywhen you're discussing things
like most at risk populationsor, or marginalized
communities. So like men whohave sex with men, sex workers,
trans women, people inconfinement settings, you know,
things like prep and havingaccess to prep is, is a
(13:42):
lifesaving , um, interventionfor, for them . Um, and
especially when you couple itwith the fact of like HIV
prevalence and incidence rates.
I think a damning thing here,quite frankly is many of these
people, be it the far rightextreme or Christian
nationalist movement, I meansome of the stereotypes that
(14:03):
are happening here is one, theybelieve that the only people
who are even using prep are gayand people or people who are
promiscuous if you will. Butwhen it's really people who
actually are just protectingthemselves, right? Straight
women also could be diagnosedwith HIV people who have sex
for the first time could um ,acquire HIV, right? Like this
(14:23):
is not something that is justfor one group of people. And
that is really the stereotypesaround a lot of this, quite
frankly. Two, I think a lot ofwhat we're seeing here are
people who believe that if youdon't make prep available, then
people probably will stophaving sex when again, we know
that that's not true. In thesame way that made of them
(14:44):
thought that if abortion accesswould not be made available,
the rate of abortions woulddecrease. Again, we're seeing
the opposite. And so, you know,I I think ultimately there are
many implications happeninghere and all of them, quite
frankly are rooted in fallaciesand things that are just quite
frankly illogical. Yeah.
Speaker 1 (15:03):
It just makes me think of the people who are
like , if we don't teach kidssex ed, they won't have sex.
Speaker 2 (15:07):
Exactly. Exactly.
It's like no, they're actuallyhaving sex and they're doing it
in more sexually riskier waysbecause we're not giving them
the tools and the resources toactually make informed
decisions for their bodies andtheir partner's bodies. Yeah.
Speaker 1 (15:22):
The other thing I was thinking of as you were
telling your story is that yougot lucky, right? You went to a
pharmacist who was willing togive you that information that
enabled you to access prep. Youcould afford, if you went to
like an unsupportivepharmacist, they may have never
told you and you wouldn't havebeen able to access the care.
(15:42):
Um, and like I know youwould've probably navigated the
system and figured it out, butthere are a lot of people like
that would've been the end.
Well, and
Speaker 2 (15:49):
That's important to mention, right? Because I am
someone who at this point in mylife, I mean even back then I
had three degrees. I was doingwork in research and policy on
issues related to health equitywork. Yeah . Right? And there
were still things I didn't evenknow to ask the questions about
or how to navigate the systems.
Now being as diligent as I am,again, to your point, I
(16:10):
would've figured it outultimately. But there are many
people who don't have access tothose resources and quite
frankly, who don't have accessto affirming people like that.
Pharmacists who said, wait,especially as she noticed I was
about to walk away. Right? Andso like, when you don't have
people in your life who cannavigate those systems in that
way for you or you know, don'thave anyone who's affirming to
(16:34):
you and your identities, theywill let you walk away and then
you're still going to continueto engage sexually. 'cause many
of us do , um, in the ways thatstill feels best for you. And I
think the problem with a lot ofthis is there's still a one
size fits all model inhealthcare at large, right?
Most of it is notindividualized care. Most of it
(16:54):
is not culturally clinicallycompetent in order for people
to actually have a safe andlearning environment even
through things like medicineand medical interventions. And
that is what we're gonna see alot here. I really fear because
even the conversations of whypeople take prep is so a
fascinating one to me becausefor me, a lot of people can ask
(17:15):
the question in love, why doyou take prep as an example?
But the reality is we know whymost people take prep, right?
We know what prep is for. So Ireally want people to lean more
into love of asking questionsand genuine curiosity as
opposed to what sometimes feelslike a gotcha moment or a
moment of saying like, well,you know, you could just reduce
(17:36):
your sexual partners becausethe reality is that's a one
size fits all model approachthat's unhelpful. And in
clinical setting, people are,they're gonna engage in the
ways that feel best to them.
The question should there behow do we actually make sure
we're building up interventionsthat honors those people's
lived experiences as opposed tosometimes just what the books
say.
Speaker 1 (17:55):
Yeah. And it like pushes people away from
accessing that care if theyfeel like they're being
stigmatized or not listened toor heard or or ashamed .
Speaker 2 (18:05):
Yeah. I mean, and there's tons of data on it,
right? Like we, we should notbe having to tell these stories
again. I mean there's there ,there's been data on this for
decades and I wish that washyperbole
has been data on for decadesabout how judge shame and
stigma actually really feedsunfortunately this really bad
healthcare infrastructure andpeople's experiences within it.
Speaker 1 (18:27):
Okay. So unfortunately this wasn't the
only time things related toL-G-B-T-Q issues were at the
court last week. Well, I guesswhen people hear this two weeks
ago, and I know we're not gonnaspend a ton of time on this,
but it just hits like a specialniche issue for me. 'cause I'm
a big book person I love andI'm make sure to read band
books. So this like hit meright in my sweet spot and that
(18:51):
is the Mahmud versus Taylorcase. Do you just wanna do like
a really quick, like what itwas about, 'cause it was
dealing with books related toL-G-B-T-Q. I mean, I don't even
wanna say issues. Like it wasjust like representation.
Speaker 2 (19:04):
Yeah, I mean I ultimately think this is gonna
always have a sweet spot for mein particular if for no other
reason. Because my very bestfriend George Johnson, who
wrote All Boys on Blue, had thenumber one that had the number
one most band book in 2024.
Like bigger than literallyevery other book. It was number
(19:25):
one on the list. And we jokeabout it sometimes and say
we're number one
America. But there's actually areally sad situation when you
really have people actuallydiscussing and litigating
against what can be heard ortaught or what your children
can read. Like it's really sadand it's
Speaker 1 (19:44):
Such a beautiful book. So y'all, if you haven't
read it, please read it. Mm-hmm
Speaker 2 (19:49):
sad. I think also 'cause thecase Ud b Taylor speaks from
home in several ways, right?
It's, you know, it's really agroup of parents that's brought
in Montgomery County, MarylandYeah . Which is in DC it's our
backyard. Yep . Um, and it'sagainst the board of education
of the school districtspecifically. But you know, the
reality is it revolves aroundthe district's decision to
(20:10):
include certain books withLGBTQ plus characters and
themes and the schoolcurriculum and specifically the
parents here are arguing,right? That the religious
rights are being violated. Imean that's the thing that's
the through line with all this,right? Yeah . Religious rights,
religious freedoms. Um , butthose parents here are arguing
that their rights are beingviolated by not being able to
opt their children out of classwhen such books are to be used
(20:34):
and listen for a lot of peoplethat sounds logical and sounds
reasonable. Most people willaffirm the parent's decisions
that they're activelyattempting to parent , um, what
they believe is best for thechild . But I think the problem
is, you know, who they're notasking the children, right?
They're not asking the youngpeople if they actually want to
(20:54):
learn and be included in thoseconversations and learn more
about like, characters that arebeyond their own or maybe
characters that they actuallyare in real life, but that
these parents are refusing toactually accept. And and to me
that is gonna always be themost fundamentally frustrating
part and scary part are thatmany of these books written by
these authors are written withlove and care. We think that
(21:18):
there's an environment and weknow that there's an
environment where children andtheir parents need to see
families like their own inbooks, right? Like I think
about my first time evenreading or thinking about
characters or the first timeI've seen people in film and
television and what does thatactually mean to have your
stories told and how do youfeel seen? And I think
especially in light of whatwe're seeing regarding the
(21:41):
erosion of DEI and justice fromthe Trump Vance administration,
I mean, this is unfortunately aperfect time for people who
actually want to tout religiousfreedom while still being
hateful to people. Um, rightnow because they have the
background of the federalgovernment to affirm that
(22:01):
thinking and affirm thatdecision. And so this is
nothing more but justcensorship, right? It's
censorship, it is segregationof books. It is created an
environment where we believepeople don't exist. It's
created an environment where wedon't believe that all families
deserve to be seen. And that isgonna be the danger of this
specific case. So let , yes, inshort, all of it is because the
(22:25):
district and the board ofeducation for the county
decided to include L-G-B-T-Qbooks. I mean, what, what a
shock and horror, I guess I
Speaker 1 (22:34):
Know, right? The bottom line. They wanted kids
to be able to see themselves intheir families and the things
they were reading. Correct ?
Speaker 2 (22:41):
And , and , and not to the exclusion of other
people, right? No. Like I thinkthat is always what I'm gonna
find the most fascinating inthese situations, right? So
even thinking back to likecomprehensive sexuality
education, you know, you wouldhear people then say, we need
to teach about abstinence. AndI'm like, well, abstinence is
(23:01):
inclusive of comprehensivesexuality education. And so I'm
like, the problem, what youwant to hear is abstinence only
when we know that that isactually not rooted in science
or any data that we have.
Similarly, it's not as if wehad the school district that
stated we're gonna haveL-G-B-T-Q books with L-G-B-T-Q
(23:23):
characters and that's it. Wedon't care about straight
people. We don't care about menand women households. We don't
care about, you know, the whitepicket fence and the two and a
half kids. But they're , theybelieve many of these people
believe that the inclusion ofLGBTQ plus people is to the
exclusion of straight people.
And that is just fundamentally, um, untrue.
Speaker 1 (23:44):
Yeah. The, the point about sex ed is well taken
again, as you know, someone whohad sex ed from a nun. Like I
really feel the lack of
sex education and the impact ithas on , uh, your life.
Speaker 2 (23:59):
Yes, we all, we all need really good sex ed. And
it's amazing when you talk topeople about , um, their sex ed
and if they believe they hadgood sex ed. Many people think
that they do. And I'm like, no.
You saw a condom being put on abanana. I did not. That's not
(24:19):
what we believe good sex ed tohave meant for us growing up.
'cause if we actually reflecton it, most of our sex ed was
like, don't get pregnant, don'tget STIs . That's
Speaker 1 (24:33):
It. That's it.
Speaker 2 (24:34):
Yep .
Speaker 1 (24:35):
conversation. 'cause whenpeople are hearing this
episode, it will be sex edmonth. So, okay. So the other
thing I wanted to talk to youabout is something that I
thought of you the second I sawit because I knew this was your
baby and that is theadministration talking about
getting rid of the 9, 8, 8system first before we get into
(24:58):
like cutting it, let's talkabout what it is and honestly
the amazing work you did tomake it happen.
Speaker 2 (25:05):
Mm , thanks friend.
So yes, 9, 8, 8 was is still ,um, the three digit number to
reach the National Suicide andCrisis Lifeline back some years
ago. It was a long form numberand so a lot of people got
together and the mental healthcrisis prevention and suicide
prevention space and said, youknow what? We need a short
(25:27):
number for people who are goingthrough crisis or suicidal
thoughts or ideations to reallyjust remember something and it
could be via text chattercalling. And , um, at this time
I served as the director ofadvocacy and government affairs
at the Trevor Project. And myjob was to really help build up
98 . And so at that time we hadgot the legislative, the
(25:49):
legislation passed, it was thefirst legislative text with the
word LGBTQ plus in it thatpassed unanimously outta
committee, it passed Congressor passed both House and Senate
and it was signed, believe itor not, actually, by President
Trump , uh, Trump 1.0 . And sothat's why all of this is
really fascinating. Maybe notsurprising, but fascinating now
(26:10):
because I think a lot of peopleactually don't realize that the
initial text was signed intolaw by President Trump. Nope .
Speaker 1 (26:17):
Totally forgot.
Speaker 2 (26:18):
Yeah . Yeah. And so it was one of the like biggest
bipartisan wins of probably thepast 10 years , um, I would
argue. And so, you know, yeah .
So while anyone in a mentalhealth crisis can text or call
nine eight and be connected toa trained counselor, the line
has specially trainedcounselors specifically for
high risk groups like veteransand LGBTQ plus youth. I'm proud
(26:40):
to say during my work at theTrevor Project, myself and
others advocated for 30, nearlyabout 29.6 uh , million dollars
in lgbtq plus specializedservices. So you call the
number, you talk to a crisiscounselor who may be , trans,
or non-binary, or at the veryleast are skilled and
(27:03):
culturally competent in thelives of LGBTQ plus youth. You
know, we are just last yearalone , um, approximately 40%
of LGBTQ plus youth consideredsuicide. Um, and that was by a
recent report from the Trumpproject. And most recently
because of a leaked budget,which is probably the scarier
part, we're learning that HHS,which is obviously now
(27:25):
spearheaded by someone who doesnot care about data, Mr. Robert
F. Kennedy Jr . Himself, we sawa leak budget that stated that
there were likely gonna be somesignificant cuts and almost the
elimination of services for BTQthrough 98 . Ultimately,
Speaker 1 (27:43):
I, it just, I mean it seems so cliche now just to
be like, it's so cruel and justthinking about all of the
things that are happening andthis moment mm-hmm
kids' ability to play sportsand all of these things that
(28:04):
are pushing people to needthose services even more right
now and then to take away thoseservices is just absolutely
devastating.
Speaker 2 (28:15):
Yeah. I don't know if I even have a better word
for it than evil. I mean, likewhen you, you know, we already
have again, this leak federalbudget that specifically looked
at the elimination of servicesfor L-G-B-T-Q youth. We already
know the higher rates ofsuicidal ideations and attempts
and sometimes completed suicideis , uh, L-G-B-T-Q youth and
(28:38):
young people generally, quitefrankly. We also see the
numbers increase for olderpeople. And you know, and , and
again, we can just go throughthe marginalized communities
gamut of who have experiencedsuicidal thoughts, why that
happens, why we need upstreamsuicide prevention services.
Because suicide is not justabout someone being sad, right?
Sometimes it can be because ofserious mental illnesses. Other
(29:01):
times it could be about what weknow to be the social
determinants of health. I mean,right. There are people who
experience suicidal thoughtsbecause there housing insecure
because they don't have accessto healthcare settings because
they don't have genderaffirming care because they
don't have jobs or becausethey're underemployed. Right?
So it's not just the thingsthat I think some of us just
(29:21):
think about in terms ofsuicidal thoughts and, and
suicidal ideations. And so whensomeone says, and they
acknowledge and honor that theyare going through something and
they're like, you know, Iactually need support. I'm
gonna call someone. And for theresponse to that be, actually
(29:41):
we're gonna take away your life, your literal lifeline, we're
gonna take away the fact thatyou've acknowledged that you
can be harmed, including selfharm . We're acknowledging that
you may feel depressed orlonely or have anxiety and even
though you're looking forsomeone to call, we're not even
gonna fund that . Like, that isan evil thing to do. And there
(30:02):
are times I, I just always wantto call things what they are
because it's not just, it's notjust sad, right? It's actually
like something that isultimately fundamentally evil
and will increase. And this isnot hyperbolic will increase
the death of people. Andhonestly, I think that's what
(30:24):
they want at this point. Ugh .
Speaker 1 (30:26):
That just is all so heavy. And yeah. And , but I
also think it's reallyimportant to remind people you
did when you started, but likelet's bring it back at the end
to be like, it has not happenedyet. The services are still
available. You can still access9, 8 8 if you need it and get
(30:47):
L-G-B-T-Q specific services.
Yes.
Speaker 2 (30:48):
I had to make sure I had to even say is because I
was already affirming that.
Right? So yeah, 9, 8, 8 isstill available. You definitely
can still call, text or chat ifyou need anyone to talk to if
you're going through anything.
And that means having even abad day, right? The one thing
that I always messaged around9, 8, 8 was that the moment you
(31:10):
should call is not the momentwhen you are finally in a state
of crisis. It can be just, I'vehad a bad day, I broke up with
someone, someone broke up withme. Like, any moment that can
build up to the state of crisisor paralysis should be the
moments where you start tocall. And these are trained
counselors, right? They're notjust people who, you know,
(31:33):
wanna pick up the phone andtalk, that's great and they
will, but they're also trainedand skilled in actually talking
to you about your experiences,your moments , asking you
questions, sometimes sitting insilence, hearing you cry,
crying with you, right ? Like ,these are people who really are
affirmed and believe in you andwanna make sure that you all
still see , uh, the next day tonot just survive, but to thrive
(31:57):
ultimately. So please feel freeto call text chat 98 . There
are all additional lifelinenumbers of course that people
can call too . But 98 is alwaysgonna be a through line . And
the best way to start, okay,
Speaker 1 (32:09):
So I , I know this is something that is right up
your alley. I always love toend episodes not just focusing
on the issues, but like whatcan people do, how can people
get involved in this moment? Sowhat are some things you would
recommend that people who careabout these issues, like what
can they do to take actionright now? Yeah,
Speaker 2 (32:28):
You know, these are, I think for a lot of people,
I'm gonna say this and this iswhat I've been advising a lot
of clients on , um, andprospective clients , um,
through my consulting firm, PDMconsulting. I think a lot of
things is about honoring yourrisk tolerance. For many people
in organizations, they areincredibly risk averse for a
variety of reasons. Andsometimes I think it's okay to
(32:50):
have a, to have a higher risktolerance. In other instances,
it's okay to have a lower risktolerance, particularly if you
are of a marginalized communitythat usually will be the first
to be attacked, whether it's onthe front lines, quite
literally on the ground or ifit's virtually. And so I think
one, it's always aboutassessing your risk tolerance
and what you have the capacityto do. And also sometimes
(33:13):
challenging yourself to do alittle bit more . So, you know,
if you're one of those peoplewho have, you know, additional
funds, make sure that you'reactually, you know, donating
those funds and actuallypurchasing things like the band
books. Like there's a band booklist list. Go on the band book
list, make sure that thosebooks are available to people.
Um, make sure you're providingthat within libraries or school
(33:36):
systems , um, to the extentthat they can still have them
or your family or your friends.
That's really important becausefun fact, a lot of these books
that end up on a banned booklist ends up being on New York
Times best sellers list becausepeople know that there's a
reason why they're attemptingto ban these books. If
Speaker 1 (33:52):
You ban it, you know, it's good.
Speaker 2 (33:54):
Exactly, exactly. I think another thing is for
folks who , um, really want tobe more politically engaged,
please, please, please, and ifyou're listening to this
podcast, I know in many waysyou have to be, but please make
sure you're paying attention towhat's happening. Of course ,
um, at the , at the federallevel, but especially at the
local and state levels, Ireally do think we miss local
(34:15):
and state actions because we'repaying so much focus on the
federal and we should, and thelocal and state levels are
where it's at rights where youtalk about highways and byways
school systems. I mean thingsthat actually impact your
day-to-day dollars and cents. Alot of that is because of local
(34:36):
and state for funders. Youknow, I've had some very
challenging conversations withfunders recently, and part of
it is because, and I say thisin love, but also in in
challenging encouragement. Alot of funders are not meeting
the needs right now. They ,many of them I've talked to are
still doing things like veryrestricted funds. They're not
attempting to increase specificfunds. And that is really
(34:58):
problematic for a lot of theseorganizations that are trying
to navigate a very hostilepolitical climate. And so in
these times, we need to be ableto trust these organizations to
do a little bit more with themoney that they're given and
not say that it has to bespecific to this line item
because we're not giving them achance to actually expand and
meet the needs of theircommunity and members the best
(35:20):
way that they know how. Sothat's really a challenge for
funders as well. So again,donations, funders do better.
Um, there's ways to still, youknow, be connected to like the
advocacy and the policy side aswell. But just most of all,
please, please, please, I hopethat people don't feel like
they need to either be silentor cower or move to the middle
(35:43):
right now. We need people,people need to be seen. Sure.
Always part of being seenthough is making sure that we
know we're staying true to ourvalues and our mission. And so
if that means we need to shiftterms to honor what feels safe,
do that, but don't shift yourvalues. Um, and so we need to
(36:04):
really push forward like how toshift terms and not values.
Unfortunately, I've seen a lotof organizations shift both and
trust me when I say we're gonnalose in the long term , even if
it feels like we're havingshort term gains or
advancements,
Speaker 1 (36:20):
Ooh . I feel, I feel that last part, especially like
worrying about what groups aregoing to do to ensure they can
continue to get funding mm-hmm
government funding with all ofthese attacks on DEI or certain
parts of our sector that , uh,we work in. And yeah, that has
(36:41):
been something that hasdefinitely been worrying me.
Speaker 2 (36:44):
Yeah, I mean I hope I haven't, I mean, I'm sure
it's, I'm sure it's happened inspaces I may just not be privy
to. What I'm really hoping isthat we have a , a lot of
principals and CEOs who aretrying to really pull together
many funders. Sectorally, Iimagine. Yeah. Just to kind of
discuss what their approach hasbeen and what it looks like.
(37:07):
Um, because it hasn't been, ithasn't been that great and I
think all of us know that evenif none of us are in a safe
enough position to say it.
Speaker 1 (37:15):
Preston, as always, it is such a joy to talk to
you. I am so happy to have youon after too long of an absence
. Nice .
Speaker 2 (37:23):
Yes,
Speaker 1 (37:25):
Um , yeah , so thank you for being here. Um, and I'm
sure we'll have you on againsoon to talk about something
new.
Speaker 2 (37:31):
Thank you. Thank you for any of your listeners, you
can always look me up , uh, atwww.prestonmitchum.com or
Preston Mitchum on all of yourplatforms. So thank you so
much, Jenny .
Speaker 1 (37:43):
Yeah. And we'll absolutely have links to all of
, uh, the things in the shownotes so you can easily find
Preston wherever he is. Okayy'all, I hope you enjoyed my
conversation with Preston. LikeI said, I am so excited to have
him on the podcast and so happythat he is now a senior fellow
with re pros. I am lookingforward to what he is planning
(38:05):
to be writing for us. I'm justvery excited to have him on
board and I hope you enjoy ourconversation and we'll make
sure to check out his writingonce we have some of his pieces
up. And with that, I will seeeverybody next week. If you
have any questions, comments,or topics you would like us to
cover , always feel free toshoot me an email. You can
(38:26):
reach me at Jenn nie@reprofightback.com or you
can 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
your favorite podcast platform.
(38:47):
Or if you wanna make sure tosupport the podcast, you can
also donate on our website atre pros fight back.com . Thanks
all .
Popular Podcasts
24/7 News: The Latest
The latest news in 4 minutes updated every hour, every day.
Therapy Gecko
An unlicensed lizard psychologist travels the universe talking to strangers about absolutely nothing. TO CALL THE GECKO: follow me on https://www.twitch.tv/lyleforever to get a notification for when I am taking calls. I am usually live Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays but lately a lot of other times too. I am a gecko.
The Joe Rogan Experience
The official podcast of comedian Joe Rogan.