Today is already stressful as is—that’s why we thought it a perfect time for round 6 of our series, SRHR Hero Origin Stories! If you haven’t already, check out our previous episodes, SRHR Hero Origin Stories, SRHR Hero Origin Stories: Round 2, SRHR Hero Origin Stories: Round 3, SRHR Hero Origin Stories: Round 4, and SRHR Origin Stories: Round 5, where we talked to a number of amazing heroes in the field of reproductive health, rights, and justice about how they began working in this space. We hope you enjoy the reprisal of our most popular podcast episode, talking to leaders about their work, passions, and journeys into the field of reproductive health for a fifth time!Guests include: Jennie Wetter – rePROs Fight BackShireen Rose Shakouri – ReproactionKate Kelly – Center for American ProgressManiza Habib – Population InstituteDázon Dixon Diallo – SisterLove, IncSarah Craven – UNFPA Support the showFollow Us on Social: Twitter: @rePROsFightBack Instagram: @reprosfbFacebook: rePROs Fight Back Email us: jennie@reprosfightback.comRate and Review on Apple PodcastThanks for listening & keep fighting back!

On election day, Arizonans can vote to amend the state Constitution to establish the fundamental right to abortion. This amendment, which would undoubtedly increase access to abortion care, is especially salient given that Arizona has become an abortion access battleground state since the Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization decision that overturned Roe v. Wade in 2022. Alex Gomez, Executive Director of LUCHA – Living United for Change in Arizona, sits down to talk to us about Proposition 139 and what its possible passage may mean for the future of abortion in the state.  Proposition 139, the Right to Abortion Initiative, would enshrine abortion access into the state constitution and conclude that Arizona may not interfere with an individual’s pregnancy before the point of fetal viability (the measure also protects access past fetal viability in cases of protecting the life, physical, or mental health of the pregnant person). In addition, the ballot initiative would prevent punitive laws aimed at people accessing abortion, or those assisting them. Support the showFollow Us on Social: Twitter: @rePROsFightBack Instagram: @reprosfbFacebook: rePROs Fight Back Email us: jennie@reprosfightback.comRate and Review on Apple PodcastThanks for listening & keep fighting back!

Disinformation around reproductive health and rights is highly strategic, leading to pervasive narratives that intentionally divide and control. Anneshia Hardy, scholar-activist, social impact entrepreneur, and narrative strategist, and Executive Director of both Alabama Values and Alabama Values Progress, sits down to talk to us about pervasive narratives and mis- and disinformation surrounding sexual and reproductive health and rights (SRHR), particularly in the Black community, and how busting these narratives is crucial in the fight for bodily autonomy and liberation.  This conversation is rooted in years of historical context. In the U.S., Black women have faced generations of exploitation and control over their bodies, and much of this exploitation and control exists to this day. Other birthing people, including Indigenous, Latinx, and Asian people, as well as people with disabilities, have also faced reproductive violence in the U.S. Some of the most marginalized communities are also unduly impacted by false narratives around SRHR, including: SRHR is separate from racial justice or only a “woman’s issue”; abortion bans are about “protecting babies,”; or abortion is a moral and religious imperative. Control over our bodies is fundamental to liberation, and these narratives not only impede—but disproportionately so—people’s ability to live freely. Support the showFollow Us on Social: Twitter: @rePROsFightBack Instagram: @reprosfbFacebook: rePROs Fight Back Email us: jennie@reprosfightback.comRate and Review on Apple PodcastThanks for listening & keep fighting back!

From self-care advice to an imaginary performance on the Great British Bake Off, Rachel Fey, Vice President, Policy, and Strategic Partnerships at Power to Decide, asks our host Jennie Wetter a collection of ask me anything (AMA) questions!Support the showFollow Us on Social: Twitter: @rePROsFightBack Instagram: @reprosfbFacebook: rePROs Fight Back Email us: jennie@reprosfightback.comRate and Review on Apple PodcastThanks for listening & keep fighting back!

Abortion is a human right, ratified under state, national, and international treaties and tools. But even before Roe v. Wade was overturned, the United States was not meeting its human rights obligations. Tarah Demant, National Director of Programs at Amnesty International USA, sits down to talk with us about a new Amnesty report highlighting the status of U.S. abortion access since the Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization Supreme Court case that overturned Roe. Because of Dobbs, and in partnership with subsequent state-based abortion bans, millions of people are facing increased barriers to abortion care. These barriers are, and always have been, disproportionately faced by different populations and communities in the U.S. Some elements that are impacting access to care post-Roe include the logistical and financial costs of travel, in-person requirements, the rise in pregnancy criminalization, and the criminalization of medical professionals and advocates. With exceptions (which do not provide as much flexibility as made to seem) stacked on top of these cases, access is incredibly difficult to achieve. Learn more in the Amnesty International USA report, accessible in the links section below.Support the showFollow Us on Social: Twitter: @rePROsFightBack Instagram: @reprosfbFacebook: rePROs Fight Back Email us: jennie@reprosfightback.comRate and Review on Apple PodcastThanks for listening & keep fighting back!

The Global Gag Rule (GGR) prevents foreign non-governmental organizations that receive U.S. foreign assistance funds from providing, advocating for, counseling on, or referring for abortion services—and has successfully done so for 40 years. Beirne Roose-Snyder, Senior Director at the Preclusion Project, and Bergen Cooper, Senior Research Advisor at the Preclusion Project and Chief Operating Officer with the Torchlight Collective, sit down to talk with us about the history of this destructive policy, its long and heart-wrenching impacts, and what the future of the GGR might look like.  The GGR, introduced in 1984 by President Ronald Raegan, is a presidential memorandum that is either reinstated or revoked depending on which political party is in the Oval Office. In 2017, the rule was expanded by the Trump administration to apply to all global heath assistance funding. The GGR has, and continues to, affect LGBTQI populations, people living in rural areas, people living with disabilities, sex workers, and healthcare providers, when accessing or providing abortion, contraception, gender-based violence care, HIV /AIDS care, STI care, and more. With the possibility of a change in administration coming soon, the GGR under Project 2025 may extend its reach farther and worsen outcomes.Support the showFollow Us on Social: Twitter: @rePROsFightBack Instagram: @reprosfbFacebook: rePROs Fight Back Email us: jennie@reprosfightback.comRate and Review on Apple PodcastThanks for listening & keep fighting back!

 Next week, the Supreme Court term will begin. While there are no abortion cases on the docket yet, there are many cases that concern sexual and reproductive health, rights, and justice and the rights of the LGBTQI+ community. Jessica Mason Pieklo, Senior Vice President and Executive Editor at Rewire News Group and co-host of Rewire News Group's podcast Boom! Lawyered, sits down to talk with us about some cases that face SCOTUS this term, as well as potential cases to keep a careful eye on.  United States v. Skrimetti, which will be before the Court this term, involves challenges to Kentucky and Tennessee’s ban on gender-affirming care for minors, and whether those bans violate the equal protection clause of the Constitution. In addition, some cases that could make their way up the docket include a grouping of conservative attorneys general are attempting to bring back challenges to mifepristone access, Idaho’s resurrection of EMTALA challenges, and Oklahoma’s appeal to challenge the Biden administration on requirements for Title X funding. Lastly, a petition currently sits before the Supreme Court that could potentially end the case that green-lit wrongful death suits related to invitro fertilization in Alabama. Support the showFollow Us on Social: Twitter: @rePROsFightBack Instagram: @reprosfbFacebook: rePROs Fight Back Email us: jennie@reprosfightback.comRate and Review on Apple PodcastThanks for listening & keep fighting back!

Economics and reproductive health and rights are connected issues. Especially in states where abortion is banned and contraception faces increasing attacks, associated costs for care can vary widely. Kate Bahn, Chief Economist and Senior Vice President of Research at the Institute for Women’s Policy Research, sits down to talk with us about the economic impacts of attacks to reproductive health and rights—on an individual, local, and national level.Access (or lack thereof) to abortion and contraception can carry a host of indirect and direct financial consequences. Costs from traveling to access abortion, obtaining childcare, and booking lodging can impact how people make their reproductive choices. Individuals can also be financially impacted by unplanned fertility outcomes, such as having a child at a time when they were not planning to. To learn more, you can find our podcast episode on the Turnaway Study with Dr. Diana Greene Foster here. Other financial considerations should also be afforded to those undergoing invitro fertilization and navigating miscarriage. In addition, research shows that those who have access to contraception and abortion experience more flexibility and exploration in academic and professional opportunities. Support the showFollow Us on Social: Twitter: @rePROsFightBack Instagram: @reprosfbFacebook: rePROs Fight Back Email us: jennie@reprosfightback.comRate and Review on Apple PodcastThanks for listening & keep fighting back!

The Equal Rights Amendment, an amendment to the Constitution, protects people from discrimination on the basis of sex. Kate Kelly, Senior Director of the Women’s Initiative at the Center for American Progress, sits down to talk with us all about the Equal Rights Amendment—its history, its importance for abortion access preservation, and what’s necessary for certification.  The ERA, passed in 1923, is not a law but a constitutional amendment. Once put in, it cannot be removed. The ERA’s introduction and popularity became a target for the conservative right, and its ratification has faced barriers ever since, including during the Trump administration. The current Federal Register archivist has said in her confirmation hearings that she will not certify anything she isn’t instructed to, which leaves the U.S. at its current standing. Many organizations and Congresspeople, though, are pushing for the ERA’s introduction into the Constitution as the 28th amendment. Support the showFollow Us on Social: Twitter: @rePROsFightBack Instagram: @reprosfbFacebook: rePROs Fight Back Email us: jennie@reprosfightback.comRate and Review on Apple PodcastThanks for listening & keep fighting back!

The Midwest is a patchwork of different abortion laws—while some states like Michigan and Minnesota have protected access, others have completely banned care, like Indiana and Missouri. Garnet Henderson, Senior Multiplatform Reporter at Rewire News Group and host and producer of ACCESS: A Podcast About Abortion, sits down to talk with us about abortion access in the Midwest, including how it may be further impacted by recent funding changes to the National Abortion Federation and Planned Parenthood Federation of America.People residing in or near states that have banned abortion often travel to Illinois for care (although some may also travel to states like Nebraska, Minnesota, and Kansas), which was the state with the single largest increase in its abortion rate after Dobbs due to out-of-state travelers. These states are having to absorb skyrocketing rates of traveling patients on top of in-state patients seeking care. Iowa’s abortion restrictions and abysmal access rates to OB/GYN care and maternity care has resulted in maternity care deserts across large swaths of the state, and a shocking 61% of hospitals in rural areas having no labor and delivery service. Simultaneously, the Justice Fund, a financial assistance fund for low-income patients which is shared between PPFA and NAF, has been reduced with less than a month’s notice from 50% coverage per patient to 30%. This leaves patients with an even more shrunken lifeline to access.Support the Show.Follow Us on Social: Twitter: @rePROsFightBack Instagram: @reprosfbFacebook: rePROs Fight Back Email us: jennie@reprosfightback.comRate and Review on Apple PodcastThanks for listening & keep fighting back!

The United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) is the United Nations sexual and reproductive health agency. The agency advocates for, provides access to, and educates on sexual and reproductive health and rights services.  Rebecca Zerzan, editor with UNFPA, sits down to talk with us about UNFPA’s 2024 state of world population report, Interwoven Lives, Threads of Hope: Ending Inequalities in Sexual and Reproductive Health and Rights. Rebecca also details the ways in which global misinformation impacts access to care.UNFPA is the world’s largest procurer of donated contraception, which is distributed mostly in low- and middle-income countries. UNFPA also works closely with local organizations and agencies to facilitate access to medically accurate, culturally sensitive education. UNFPA’s recent report looks back over the last three decades, when the scale of maternal death was unknown, rates of adolescent births were higher, and rates of women’s contraception usage was halved, and discusses global progress. The report also researches misinformation around the world and how that impacts an individual’s access to comprehensive care.Support the Show.Follow Us on Social: Twitter: @rePROsFightBack Instagram: @reprosfbFacebook: rePROs Fight Back Email us: jennie@reprosfightback.comRate and Review on Apple PodcastThanks for listening & keep fighting back!

Title IX, a civil rights law enacted in 1972, is a statute meant to protect students from sex discrimination in educational environments to maintain equal opportunity to educational access. This year, the Biden administration released a new Title IX rule, which provides additional protections for those who are most likely to experience sex discrimination at school. Shiwali Patel, Senior Director of Safe and Inclusive Schools at the National Women’s Law Center, sits down with us to talk about what this rule change accomplishes and what challenges it faces. In April 2024, the Biden administration released the new rule, which, most significantly, clarified protections for LGBTQI+ students, provided additional protections for pregnant and parenting students, and expands protections against sexual harassment. The rule also undid many of the Trump administration’s harmful Title IX changes. Unfortunately, these celebrated changes are being challenged in court. In addition, some congressional members are using the Congressional Review Act to attempt to reverse these protections.Support the Show.Follow Us on Social: Twitter: @rePROsFightBack Instagram: @reprosfbFacebook: rePROs Fight Back Email us: jennie@reprosfightback.comRate and Review on Apple PodcastThanks for listening & keep fighting back!

In previous episodes, we’ve outlined Project 2025’s reach into global governance, LGBTQI+ health and rights, and the international sphere. Sabrina Talukder, Director of the Women’s Initiative at the Center for American Progress, sits down to talk with us about what the Heritage Foundation’s conservative roadmap means specifically for U.S. sexual and reproductive health and rights.Project 2025 seeks to misapply the Comstock Act— a 150-year-old law which would allow enforcement power to investigate the U.S. mail for items of an “illicit,” “lewd,” or “immoral” purpose, including items related to abortion—as a national, backdoor abortion ban. Comstock could be applied not only to abortion education and medication sent through the mail, but medical equipment, as well. In addition, Project 2025 seeks to eliminate the Affordable Care Act, which protects free access to emergency contraception for 48 million women in the U.S. Project 2025 will no doubt negatively impact the U.S.’ already abysmal Black maternal health crisis.Support the Show.Follow Us on Social: Twitter: @rePROsFightBack Instagram: @reprosfbFacebook: rePROs Fight Back Email us: jennie@reprosfightback.comRate and Review on Apple PodcastThanks for listening & keep fighting back!

Many of the outlined ambitions of Project 2025 are focused around concentrating executive power, de-regulation, and religious protections, all of which have massive implications in the U.S. and around the world. Gillian Kane, Director of Global Research and Advocacy at IPAS, sits down to talks with us about the active, global reach of Project 2025 and Protego—in multiple countries and in global governance.  In the previous administration, the Geneva Consensus Declaration (GCD) was a tool to cement America and its allies as anti-abortion. This manifesto, signed by 36+ countries, pushes national sovereignty, “traditional” family structures, and anti-abortion ideology, and is used as a guide for Project 2025. Protego, a program designed by the Institute for Women’s Health (IWH), is a new project dedicated to ensuring the GCD takes off. Valerie Huber, past member of the Trump administration and current head of the IWH, has traveled to multiple countries and spoken primarily to first ladies on the implementation of Protego. Valerie Huber is known to be anti-abortion, anti-LBTQI+, and a proponent of abstinence-only education. Support the Show.Follow Us on Social: Twitter: @rePROsFightBack Instagram: @reprosfbFacebook: rePROs Fight Back Email us: jennie@reprosfightback.comRate and Review on Apple PodcastThanks for listening & keep fighting back!

In conflicts, disasters, and climate and health emergencies, many often consider food, shelter, and water to be the immediate needs of those impacted. While these are incredibly important requirements, women and girls are uniquely impacted by these emergencies, and sexual and reproductive health and rights must also be realized. Gayatri Patel, Chief of External Affairs at the Malala Fund and Senior Fellow with rePROs Fight Back, talks to us about the importance of SRHR provision in humanitarian settings.Gaps in healthcare access extend to abortion, contraception, gender-based violence and sexual violence counseling and care, STI testing/treatment, and more, often brought on by impacted health infrastructure and supply chains. The implementation, support, and prioritization of these comprehensive needs is a step in the right direction for protecting women and girls in crisis scenarios. Some new practices and approaches are showing promising results, and include mobile clinics, cash assistance, legal assistance and further availability of contraception and midwives. Support the Show.Follow Us on Social: Twitter: @rePROsFightBack Instagram: @reprosfbFacebook: rePROs Fight Back Email us: jennie@reprosfightback.comRate and Review on Apple PodcastThanks for listening & keep fighting back!

Project 2025 is a broad vision regarding the future of the United States led by the Heritage Foundation. The project is hundreds of pages, centered on continuing a conservative United States through consolidating power in presidency, getting rid of civil servants, and further marginalizing already vulnerable communities. Sarah Warbelow, Vice President, Legal, at the Human Rights Campaign, sits down to talk with us about Project 2025’s specific restrictions targeted at the LGBTQI+ community.Project 2025 seeks to gut protections against discrimination based on sex across education, healthcare, employment, and more. Project 2025 also seeks to rid the federal government’s website of LGBTQI+ inclusive language, prevent access to gender-affirming healthcare, and prevent LGBTQI+ families from adopting children. Anti-LGBTQI+ policy in Project 2025 extends not only in the U.S., but around the world.Support the Show.Follow Us on Social: Twitter: @rePROsFightBack Instagram: @reprosfbFacebook: rePROs Fight Back Email us: jennie@reprosfightback.comRate and Review on Apple PodcastThanks for listening & keep fighting back!

This week, we are doing things a little differently! We hear from advocates, medical providers, leaders, and researchers, who tell us about their strategies, reflections, hopes, and joys during the ongoing fight for sexual and reproductive health, rights, and justice.Guests featured in this episode include: Jennie Wetter, Director of rePROs Fight BackDr. Monica McLemore, Professor of Child, Family, and Population Health Nursing at the University of Washington and Director of the Manning Price Spratlen Center for Anti-Racism and Equity in NursingDr. Diane Horvath, OB/GYN and Co-Founder and Chief Medical Officer at Partners of Abortion CareBeirne Roose-Snyder, Senior Policy Fellow at the Council for Global EqualityGreer Donley, Associate Professor with a reproductive rights focus at University of Pittsburgh Law SchoolRev. Katey Zeh, CEO for the Religious Community for Reproductive ChoiceTarah Demant, National Director of Programs at Amnesty International Support the Show.Follow Us on Social: Twitter: @rePROsFightBack Instagram: @reprosfbFacebook: rePROs Fight Back Email us: jennie@reprosfightback.comRate and Review on Apple PodcastThanks for listening & keep fighting back!

On June 27th, 2024, the Supreme Court punted Idaho v. United States consolidated with Moyle v. United States, which called into question whether federal law protects doctors who provide abortion care in a medical emergency. Jessica Mason Pieklo, Senior Vice President and Executive Editor at Rewire News Group and co-host of Rewire News Group's podcast Boom! Lawyered, talks to us about the implications of the punted case, as well as other Supreme Court rulings that have utterly gutted the administrative state.  Idaho v. United States consolidated with Moyle v. United States centered on the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA), which upholds the right to needed healthcare in an emergency. The case centered around EMTALA wasn’t decided on merit—instead, it was dismissed back to the lower courts. At the same time, there exists a similar lawsuit out of Texas questioning EMTALA’s status against the state’s abortion ban. Other Supreme Court cases that will undoubtedly impact the health and rights of Americans include Grants Pass v. Johnson and Chevron U.S.A Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council. Grants Pass, in short, criminalizes and fines those without shelter—which particularly impacts queer youth, those facing domestic violence, people with disabilities, people with mental health issues, and youth who have aged out of foster care systems. Chevron takes deference and administrative decision-making power away from federal agencies and gives it instead to judges. Support the Show.Follow Us on Social: Twitter: @rePROsFightBack Instagram: @reprosfbFacebook: rePROs Fight Back Email us: jennie@reprosfightback.comRate and Review on Apple PodcastThanks for listening & keep fighting back!

In the past month, the Supreme Court has interacted with three cases that have stark implications for the reproductive health, rights, and wellbeing of many across the U.S. Madiba Dennie, author of The Originalism Trap: How Extremists Stole the Constitution and How We the People Can Take it Back and Deputy Editor and Senior Contributor at the legal commentary outlet Balls and Strikes, sits down to talk to us about originalism, the recent Supreme Court case rulings, and what it all means for the sexual and reproductive health and rights of Americans.On June 13, 2024, the Supreme Court ruled that plaintiffs in FDA v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine—which challenged access to nationwide medication abortion—did not have a legal standing. For now, this ruling preserves the post-Dobbs status-quo, protecting access to mifepristone, a safe and common medication used in nearly two-thirds of abortions, in some states. On June 21, 2024, the Supreme Court ruled in United States v. Rahimi to prevent those with previous domestic violence restraining orders filed against them to possess firearms. And on June 27th, the Supreme Court dismissed a case that would have prevented abortion in the case of medical emergency in Idaho. Access remains protected—for now. Many of the recent Supreme Court cases are rooted in originalism, or the application of U.S. “history” and “tradition” to undermine rights, which has been a trusted roadmap for anti-rights actors in the courts.Support the Show.Follow Us on Social: Twitter: @rePROsFightBack Instagram: @reprosfbFacebook: rePROs Fight Back Email us: jennie@reprosfightback.comRate and Review on Apple PodcastThanks for listening & keep fighting back!

Medicaid, the largest public health insurance program for people in the United States, exists on a state-by-state basis. But how could Medicaid possibly relate to sexual and reproductive health? Fabiola De Liban, Director, Sexual and Reproductive Health, with the National Health Law Program, sits down to talk with us about what is covered under the program, what’s not covered, Medicaid’s disturbing history related to family planning, and the barriers that patients face on a day-to-day basis. Medicaid is the largest public payer of family planning, covering 75% of all family planning expenditures. It covers almost half of U.S. births, including prenatal, labor, delivery, and postpartum. Medicaid also covers prescription drugs, sterilization, breast cancer services, and some gender -affirming care services. Medicaid does not cover abortion due to the Hyde amendment. Medicaid expansion allows someone who is not pregnant or who doesn't have a child or a disability to be able to qualify to the Medicaid program. When the Affordable Care Act passed, Medicaid expansion would have gone into effect nationwide, if not for states who sued to prevent expansion. Medicaid expansion is now optional, with only 9 states having chosen to not expand. Support the Show.Follow Us on Social: Twitter: @rePROsFightBack Instagram: @reprosfbFacebook: rePROs Fight Back Email us: jennie@reprosfightback.comRate and Review on Apple PodcastThanks for listening & keep fighting back!