SCOTUS is Hearing a Case That Could Put Guns Back in the Hands of Domestic Abusers

Gun violence prevention and domestic violence are inextricably linked. And today, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear a case, U.S. v Rahimi, that could potentially determine the constitutionality of a gun violence prevention law that has saved millions of lives. Sabrina Talukder, Director of the Women’s Initiative at the Center for American Progress, sits down to talk with us about this upcoming Supreme Court case and its implications for those experiencing domestic violence. 

When there is a firearm in the home during a domestic violence incident, the risk of death increases by 500 percent. And in 2017, over 5.9 million women reported being shot by a gun by an intimate partner at some point in their life. A 1996 law prevented those with domestic violence records from attaining a firearm—and the law has been incredibly effective. But adherence to originalism in the Supreme Court may discard that law and put the health and lives of domestic abuse survivors at risk.

Links from this episode

Center for American Progress Women on Twitter (they will be live Tweeting the case today)
Center for American Progress on Twitter
Center for American Progress on Facebook
The Supreme Court Case United States v. Rahimi Underscores the Ugly Truth About Originalism and Women

Take Action

Transcript

Jennie: Welcome to rePROs Fight Back, a podcast on all things related to sexual and reproductive health, rights, and justice. [music intro]

Read More

Hey rePROs! How's everybody doing? I'm your host Jennie Wetter, and my pronouns are she/her. So y'all, it's November and, like, obviously, right? Like, it's November and these- it comes on the end of the year, but there's something about turning that calendar page and then looking at the holidays and thinking through, like, all of the days. I am not in the office between now and the end of the year and going, holy crap, y'all! I have so much to get done in so few days. I have some work travel coming up. I have company coming out. So, I feel like I'm gone for like two weeks in the middle of November. So, like, all of a sudden it's, like, November's gone and it, like, didn't even start yet, right? Like, it is early November when I'm recording this [laughs]. So, all of a sudden I'm like, I'm not in the office to get these things done. And between, like, need to get episodes of the podcast re-recorded and like ready for over the holidays and we'll probably take some time off like around Christmas. But you know, trying to think through like all of that. We have our big report that we release for the 50 state report card that comes out, like, early next year. And so, like, there's like a bunch of things I need to get done for it before the holidays. And so, like, it's just like all of these things work-wise. And then also, like I said, I have company coming, so that means I need to clean and get my stuff organized and have my place ready to have company come out. It's just like all the things, like all of a sudden that hit me when I turned that page of the calendar and thinking through all the things that have to be accomplished. And it was a little overwhelming there for a minute. I think I've gotten myself organized and, like, have quit panicking, but I'm just gonna roll with it. It'll be fine. [laughs]. Let's see. I feel like there's not been like a ton that has happened. My allergies—-I think I've talked about this before—I get seasonal allergies and I get allergy induced asthma andI feel fine right now, which is great. But my allergies-induced asthma has been particularly bad this last week and, and particularly bad the last couple days. It's frustrating because, like, I get the cough that, like, hangs around and, like, it's just getting ready to start. Like, I can feel it, I'm fighting one off as I'm talking right now, but it also means if I, like, go for a walk outside, like I have to like mosey because it's just, like, affecting my lung capacity and it's frustrating. And seasonal allergies, man, just always a joy. And this is me just recovering from- I got my COVID booster, which was very exciting, but I did have a bit of a reaction to it, which is fine. It wasn't anything, like, major, just my arm, really bad arm pain, which fine could deal with, but this one hasI had to look it up online to make sure, like, it was a side effect. One of the rare side effects, which I got lucky enough to get was swollen lymph nodes, which was I could do without. That was not particularly fun. But they were so swollen, they hurt in my armpit in the arm where got my COVID booster in. And so it was painful to move and just kind of unpleasant. Like, I'm glad I got the booster and, like, I'm all taken care of for the travel I have coming up and seeing some family and the holidays and all the things. So, absolutely right decision and it was, like, a rare side effect, but a not fun side effect that kind of lingered for a while. Yeah, not fun, man. I feel like I'm just, like, falling apart here. Oh, well! Let's see. I think those are like all of my big things right now. but I'm really excited for today's interview because we were talking about if you were listening to it the day it comes out, we are talking about the case in front of the Supreme Court today, United States v. Rahimi. I'm really excited to have with me Sabrina Talukder to talk about this case and originalism and what this means for women. She is with the Center for American Progress and if you follow...if you are listening in the morning or even if you listen later and you can go back and see it @CAPWomen on Twitter will be live tweeting the oral arguments, so make sure to check that out. We'll obviously have links in our show notes that you can go find them, but yeah they will be live tweeting this case that we're gonna be talking about today. So, let's go to my interview with Sabrina. Hi Sabrina! Thank you so much for being here.

Sabrina: Hey, thank you so much for having me and a big hello to all the listeners as well.

Jennie: Awesome. Before we get started, do you wanna take a quick second and introduce yourself and include your pronouns?

Sabrina: Of course. My name is Sabrina Talukder, my pronouns are she/her/ella, and I'm the director of the Women's Initiative at the Center for American Progress, where we focus on all things around equality and equity with women's health and women's economic security.

Jennie: So, I'm really excited to talk to you today about today's Supreme Court case, but I feel like before we get to the case that maybe we need to do a little bit of scene setting and just take a couple steps back. So first, this is a case about guns and domestic violence. Maybe we need to start there and talk about why this is such an important issue to talk about and to talk about the link between the two, between gun violence and domestic violence.

Sabrina: Absolutely. So, this case, the Supreme Court case US v. Rahimi will determine whether a life-saving gun violence prevention law that has protected millions of domestic violence survivors for the past 27 years is constitutional or not. And to really understand the import of this case, we have to talk explicitly about the pervasive deadly and inextricable connection between gun violence and domestic violence. If you guys remember one number from everything I say, the number needs to be 500%. 500% is the rate of increase of death when there is a firearm in the home during a domestic violence incident. And what I want people to know is that domestic violence isn't just between two intimate partners, that definition expands to a lot of other people in the home. It can encompass children, parents, elders. It could pertain to people that are just dating, not necessarily formally married in any capacity. So, it affects every single person in the home. And domestic violence and gun violence, this intersection impacts millions of people. We know that in 2017, over 5.9 million women reported being shot with a gun by an intimate partner at some point in their life. And no one is spared. And that includes children. In 2017, over a third of child deaths that happened because of firearms were related to domestic violence. And one really important thing to remember is that a shot fired against a survivor impacts all of us. Two thirds of all mass shootings are connected to a domestic violence incident in some way. And another really important takeaway is that even if a shot isn't fired, firearms are still used as really powerful and effective tools of coercive control, meaning that they can be brandished as weapons, they're used to terrorize people and they're a looming presence of psychological...a psychological tool of oppression. So, no matter what happens in this case, I want everyone to know that domestic violence and gun violence have a long relationship together. They have a longstanding history. And this case will test whether or not survivors can have one meaningful avenue of protection in their toolbox to leave their abuser and to feel safe for them and their family.

Jennie: I just, those numbers are just...I know them, but still hearing them again is always startling and it's just shocking how bad they are. And like, just thinking of all of the people who are not caught in these numbers, right? Like, we talk about just having the gun and that being able to be a threat. So, like, I mean, there's this whole group of people who don't know who we don't know about, right? They're not caught in those numbers who are having the gun being used as a means of control.

Sabrina: Absolutely. And so much of how we approach domestic violence is rooted in the criminal legal system. And this case actually brings that up. One of the bigger policy questions of US v. Rahimi is whether or not it's the duty of the Second Amendment to protect or whether other structures like the criminal legal system can provide adequate protections to domestic violence survivors. And what we know repeatedly from research over the past decade is that the criminal legal system has consistently failed to, first, hold abusers accountable. And second, provide the kind of protection, swift remedy and accountability that survivors need to meet the multifaceted needs, both in the short and long term that they have. And particularly the- you know, the numbers that I just ran off and the role of the criminal legal system. This impacts communities of color in a completely different way. That communities of color have to take in the fact that the process of arrest, incarceration, sentencing, et cetera, bringing a police officer into your home is a completely different calculus. And as long as we rely on the criminal legal system as the one and only avenue of protection for survivors, we will not be including all survivors in protecting them. We will not be including all survivors and allowing safety for them and their families.

Jennie: Okay. So, bringing up the second amendment makes me think we need to tune to part two of some background so we can get the lay of the land before we talk about the case, which is, y'all wrote a paper that is what a lot of this interview is based on talking about originalism and how it is going to impact this whole case. So first we'll include links to that paper in our show notes. It's great. Y'all should definitely check it out. But we want to make sure to just kind of take this step back because maybe some of our audience isn't as familiar with the legal theory of originalism. So, can you tell us about what originalism is or at least what it purports to be?

Sabrina: Sure, and honestly, I never in my wildest dreams thought I would write about originalism in any way. I was a practicing lawyer. So, for everyone out there that's like, why should I care about this? I totally understand. And it was only until, like, very recently with this activist and extremist Supreme Court that we have that I realized how important it is to understand the direct impact of relying on controversial legal theories like originalism. So, before we even talk about the case, let's talk about originalism. Originalism first emerged on the scene as this very obscure and controversial theory of the far right in the 1970s. And the emergence of originalism was really seen as this conservative response to the expansion of civil rights in America through the [indiscernible] and in preceding decades. And the whole crux of originalism is that they claim that the best way to determine the constitutionality of a current law is to try and interpret it the way that the framers of the Constitution originally intended. And the idea is that this makes judicial rulings and a direct quote from Justice Scalia, the main cheerleader of originalism, is that "it's fair and free from favor or prejudice." So, that means that under originalism, any current law has to be interpreted the way in which the framers of the Constitution would have determined it. Because we're getting back to the...so not only is, like, understanding what the framers intended, ripe with subjective interpretation, just because they're not here, they didn't have, like, live streaming TikTok accounts. You know, they, we only have scraps of paper that we are pulling, you know we're, like, trying to read the tea leaves and what they did and said. But also, and obviously, the only people that were helping to construct the Constitution and write it and interpret what it means were white male land-owning individuals. And so, what that means is that originalism is bound by the economic, political, and cultural realities of post-colonial America. And so, in many ways, relying on originalism as the end-all-be-all of accurate implementation of what the Constitution means today, means that you're continuing to uphold power was concentrated to wealthy white male landowners. And you're bringing that into the 21st century. And it is impossible, completely impossible, to overlook that in women, Indigenous populations, slaves, and other marginalized groups were systemically and intentionally excluded from the community that drafted and ratified the US Constitution. So, originalism puts us in this vicious cycle of saying that this is constitutional because the framers didn't do it, even though we know that the constitution didn't apply to these groups. And the problem is that it's purported to be a legitimate legal theory, a legitimate framework, and it is absolutely not. And that is something that us as advocates for folks listening in, that's something that we have to be really conscious of because we've seen the Supreme Court do this in the Dobbs decision and we are seeing them doing it now in the US v. Rahimi decision. And these decisions impact the most marginalized groups in the United States.

Jennie: It's just so wild. It's one of those things that people have like a passing reference to and you know, you could easily see like, okay, we wanna focus on originalism and what was originally written. You could be like, "oh, okay, I guess that makes sense". But, like, as soon as you think about it more and take a closer look, you see the discrimination and all the people who were excluded that is baked into the idea of originalism and it's shocking.

Sabrina: Absolutely. And I hope that you know that this- I hope that folks listening in like know that they can absolutely connect the dots with how this Supreme Court, this ultra conservative majority Supreme Court has cherry picked the history they want to serve a conservative political outcome. We saw Justice Alito do that in the Dobbs decision. And we have seen Justice Clarence Thomas in delivering the majority opinion on a major gun rights case, sorry, gun violence prevention law that brought about US v. Rahimi. We've seen that happen there as well. So, this isn't just a one-off, this isn't just you know, a random thing that judges are doing. This isn't just like a conservative legal theory. This is a concerted strategy and I really want folks to connect the dots and know that just because it's, like, some...it's purported to be this like legal theory and that sounds really scary and academic. It's absolutely not. We can all see what's happening.

Jennie: Okay. Now that we've done, like, all the table setting and started to understand some of the background behind all of this, let's talk about today's case, which is US v. Rahimi. Can you tell us more about this case?

Sabrina: Absolutely. So, US v. Rahimi combines some of the greatest issues that our country are facing today, which is an epidemic of gun violence and the safety and security of women. So, this law—the law in question in this case—is about, it's a lifesaving gun violence prevention law. It's protected millions of survivors of domestic violence for over 27 years. And this law is known as 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(8). The law specifically says that if you are subject to a domestic violence restraining order, you cannot possess a firearm. And this was passed in 1996 in a bipartisan fashion because it was so obvious and so pervasive that you couldn't deny that there was an inextricable connection between domestic violence and gun violence. And what we have seen is that this law is effective at saving lives. We know that states that have enacted this language have seen a 13% reduction in intimate partner homicides and states that have gone, you know, included dating partners and, you know, really gone above and beyond the initial statute, they have seen a 16% reduction in intimate partner homicides. So, the real question is, why is a law that has been on the books for almost 30 years that has been effective at saving lives for almost 30 years, why is it all of a sudden up for grabs if it's constitutional or not? And the answer to that is a case that happened a year ago. That case is called the New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen. So, this case completely changed the game on. It completely changed the game on how the Supreme Court will decide whether a gun safety law is constitutional or not. Before Bruen, this case, to determine if a law violated the Second Amendment, courts had to factor in if a law served an important government interest, like public safety. However, in Bruen, the Supreme Court decided that an important government interest is no longer required. So, now a gun violence prevention policy will only be considered constitutional if there was a law similar to it during the time the Bill of Rights was enacted. So, the only reason this case is before the Supreme Court, and the only reason a commonsense lifesaving law is being questioned is because of a radical and rogue decision Supreme Court issued last year written- the majority opinion written by Justice Clarence Thomas. And I really want people to know that because of this arbitrary and random new test that they decided with a stroke of a pen that upended legal precedent, it's a real possibility that the safety and security of domestic violence survivors might be determined by the exclusionary politics of white male wealthy landowners from the 18th century.

Jennie: I don't know if there's anything that sends shivers down my spine as much as hearing majority opinion written by Justice Thomas.

Sabrina: Agreed, agreed. It is a scary sentence. And that's also a really big part of this case. And what we have to focus on is what the Supreme Court is doing. It is so much more, I mean, it is so much about, of course, this lifesaving gun safety law, but it is also a reflection of what is happening with our Supreme Court, the chaos that has ensued because the Supreme Court has upended legal precedent on a whim. And most importantly, the Americans that will bear the consequences of Rahimi are not these extremist judges sitting in a hollow courtroom and flying on private jets, but it's thousands of women, children, and other survivors of domestic violence. And you know, if you are thinking that this doesn't make any sense, you are not alone. There, you know, these extreme mixed attacks work in opposition to the will of the people and are just deeply unpopular with Americans. There was a survey that was recently done with 20,000 adults and more than 80% of the survey participants, both Democrat and Republican, support gun restrictions for people convicted of domestic violence. And so, these laws are successful, you know, and these laws are needed and wanted by the American people. They exist for a reason. To protect the most vulnerable Americans from outright death. And so, the Supreme Court just can't eliminate these sensible lifesaving laws with the stroke of a pen and on a whim.

Jennie: Yeah. Just because wealthy white men landowners didn't envision domestic violence as a problem, doesn't really feel like a reason to discount it.

Sabrina: Absolutely.

Jennie: So, this is just making me think it's impacting people who have taken out restraining orders, right? That's what this case is about. So, it makes me just, when I think of domestic violence, I think of all of the people who have had to do the calculus in their heads of whether or not to take out a restraining order, if they wanna take that step, and worrying that it is going to escalate the situation. And so, they have decided not to take that step. So, those people already aren't included in this. And, you know, I've had friends who have had to do that math of: do I take out a restraining order? Is it going to escalate this situation? Does this feel right? So, this just doesn't feel like it is enough to protect people already. So, thinking that even this effective lifesaving policy could go away is kind of wild.

Sabrina: Thank you so much for bringing up that point. Before this job, I worked at the Legal Aid Society of New York and I represented, you know, hundreds of domestic violence survivors who were immigrants. And it's so true that for a survivor to even reach this place of being able to have the agency to first know what a protective order is, to assess whether or not that is best for them and their family, and to have the ability to file it, those three things-

Jennie: It's a high bar.

Sabrina: -already. Yeah. It's already so impossible for the majority of Americans. And also, it takes so much for someone to get to that point. And you know, the case, you know, will decide whether or not this avenue is available for survivors to rely on. However, I also wanna point out that this is a call for all of us to look beyond what this is, a call to look beyond relying on the criminal legal system exclusively for as civil orders, exclusively as a means of meaningful protection for survivors. We have restorative justice, we have transformative justice, where people don't have to go through the criminal legal system for any kind of protection. And because that's the only thing that's really offered to folks, a lot of survivors choose not to do this. Very few survivors actually wanna go through this process. And there's so much data on how harmful the criminal legal system has been to survivors in terms of secondary victimization of how women and, you know, gender non-conforming populations, communities of colors are treated as they go through this process. And I always want people to remember that the way that a firearm can be leveraged against a survivor, so can the criminal legal system, particularly if a survivor has any interactions with law enforcement and arrest history lack of immigration status, et cetera, this tool of the criminal legal system can just as easily be manipulated against a survivor. Which is why first we have to ensure that the Supreme Court rules that this lifesaving gun law is constitutional to- for least a survivor to have an option. And second, make sure in our policy world that survivors have as many options as possible because only a survivor can decide what is best for them and their family. Not a judge, not a law enforcement officer, and definitely not Clarence Thomas.

Jennie: So, what are we hearing from the other side of this case?

Sabrina: Well, the other side is saying that this is an issue of gun ownership and about the rights that folks have under the Second Amendment. However, I think we need to be talking less about the person holding the gun and more about the community and the person that the gun is pointing towards, which in this case, is survivors of domestic violence. And, you know, more than 50% of all intimate partner-related murders of women are committed with a firearm, specifically not a tree branch, not a knife, a firearm. And there's a reason why a firearm is the most common and deadly weapon for a domestic violence survivor. And no matter what anyone says about gun ownership, you cannot take away the fact that a firearm in the home is just dangerous. It does not matter who is owning it, it matters more who it's pointing towards. And you know, really, I want people to know that these cases are connected, that the arguments made by the people that are voting for the expansion of Second Amendment rights that want this case to be ruled in their favor for this law to be held unconstitutional. That- you know, the future of women's safety and security is again at the mercy of this activist court. And whether or not you are, like...whether or not you're in high school and you're really scared about guns or whether or not you are, you know, whether or not you are an older woman with four kids living with an abuser, you don't want your abuser arrested, but you just want some kind of protection, that this case directly affects all of us. And we need to make sure that the Supreme Court remembers that the will of the American people, that important government interest, and that public safety are a part of the fabric of America.

Jennie: Yeah, I feel like we've already covered this pretty well, but just what would be the implications of a bad ruling.

Sabrina: So, for the ruling, if the court hopes to remain regain a shred of its reputation in trying to rewrite the American history on firearms, it must not just find the federal law in question constitutional, but it has to do it for the right reasons because gun lobbyists and MAGA extremists can just bring this case back with a more sympathetic plaintiff with something not involving survivors as directly, et cetera. And so, for the sake of all domestic violence survivors and Americans at large, we can only hope that this law is upheld as constitutional. But as we are preparing for oral arguments in just a few hours, I want people to know that even if we get a positive ruling, the questions we shouldn't be asking, they shouldn't be just about the outcome, but about the legal reasoning the judges use to get to their ultimate decision. And that approach will tell us more about the future of domestic violence and gun violence than just the ultimate outcome. So, I really want folks...and the reason why is even if we get a positive outcome and this law's upheld, of course that's what we want, and of course that's great, but that only returns us to the status quo. We only go back to the status quo of domestic violence survivors being terrorized by gun violence. And as you said before, it is so hard for a survivor to be able to have the ability and agency to file a protective order. It takes so much to do that. And, and that's why we need to go past just this single ruling and look to a much bigger fight ahead. And as we go into oral arguments, you can check out everything we're doing on our Twitter account at @CAPWomen. We're doing a live tweeting of a play-by-play. But I want folks to really focus on three questions. The first is how will the court review its own legal test that it created a year ago in the Bruin case? The broader the parameters of this test, the more likely that gun violence prevention will be upheld as constitutional. And the second is, will they push for the criminal or civil enforcement systems as adequate remedies for survivors? It's not- they might say it's not the role of the Second Amendment to protect, it's the role of other systems that we have in place. But if they say that, they overlook the barriers survivors face in trying to decide what protection is best for them and their families. And third, will the judges create a lane for judicial policymaking? This means that, for lower courts, meaning like criminal courts, civil courts, circuit courts, things like that—all courts that are not the ultimate Supreme Court—have they made this world in which judges have to make laws on gun safety, on gun violence prevention, because the parameters of the test are so vague, so undefined. And that's something that I want folks to look out for.

Jennie: Yeah. Thinking through the part where you said it matters how the decision is written reminds me of some other cases. I'm more familiar with the abortion space, but it makes me think of June Medical Services ruling where the Supreme Court was like, we already said these exact provisions were unconstitutional in Whole Womens’ Health. But y'all, if you bring us something that's just, like, a little bit different, we will absolutely rule in your favor. I mean, that's basically what they said. And you can see it in other cases as well where they open the door and where they say, this wasn't quite right. But if you just, like, do it a little bit different, we'll totally go for that. You see it a lot.

Sabrina: Absolutely. And I'm so glad that you brought up abortion issues at the Supreme Court and other places because there are so many parallels to me between US v. Rahimi, of course Dobbs, and Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine v. the FDA. Right now, we're waiting for certification for that case. But Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine, this case is really a consequence of the Dobbs decision because there was no framework around how medication abortion, which goes through the FDA, how that stands. Again, the mass confusion created by the Supreme Court of ending legal precedent on a whim. I mean, we think about all of the physicians, the providers, the, of course, patients that...and patients who want to get pregnant patients who, you know, have ectopic pregnancies, so many things, that confusion and fear that has just permeated the United States around pregnancy care because of the Supreme Court's decision. There are consequences that the American people face because of this activist and extreme Supreme Court. And we should all be looking to Rahimi to see if history will repeat itself.

Jennie: Okay. I'm not feeling confident. I'm kind of feeling bad going in today. So, let's wrap it up with: what can the audience do? What can they do right now in the face of all of this?

Sabrina: Absolutely. What I want people to remember is that the Supreme Court is—they are a group of public officials, right? We have so much, there's so much work to be done on a code of ethics, on accountability of what the Supreme Court means. And justices on both sides of the aisle have said that there might be time and there might be space for reform. And so, there's so many things that folks can do. The first is that you can sign our take action letters on protecting women at the Supreme Court, both in cases of abortion and in gun violence prevention with US v. Rahimi. We also have a letter demanding for the Supreme Court to be bound to a code of ethics and term limits. And the most important thing that we do also is to protect survivors. That is something that we can all do because domestic violence is so common in the United States in particular. And what I mean by supporting survivors is listening to them, is making space for survivors to directly tell their stories and for us to move away from this good versus bad narrative and relying on the criminal legal system as something that's effective for survivors. And the only way for us to do that is to be humble and know that we may not know everything that a survivor wants and needs and to just make space for them at the table, whatever table it is, your dining table, your town hall, all of it for them to share their stories and to really listen to what people want and need to protect themselves and their families and what it means, what accountability means for survivors.

Jennie: I feel like listening to survivors, believing survivors piece is always important, but I feel like in the last couple of years it has become even more important because of the big celebrity stuff that has happened. I think it has really harmed survivors wanting to come forward and tell their stories when they see how other survivors who have told their stories are being treated and disbelieved and smeared. And that part just really breaks my heart. You're already in a bad situation and share your story and it gets turned against you. I really think this is something we can all do to truly listen to survivors and believe them and hear what they are saying.

Sabrina: Absolutely. And you know, you don't need a platform, you don't need anything to do that. To just really actively listen to someone and make space for them to feel safe, that they can share their story in the way that we want. This is something that we can all do, and it takes a village, you know, of all of us supporting survivors. And that's something that has always happened and now we are in this moment of time where we can make it more mainstream, where we can make, where we can just make space for survivors.

Jennie: Sabrina, thank you so much for being here. I had a wonderful time talking to you about the case in front of the Supreme Court today.

Jennie: Thank you so much for having me and I look forward to many more discussions. And folks, please just feel free to ask us questions. This case is- it sounds complicated, you know, and this is your Supreme Court. These cases affect you directly. So, if you have any questions or concerns, just send me an email. Okay, y'all, I hope you enjoyed my conversation with Sabrina. I learned so much talking to her. It was great to get to talk through this case and what it will mean for domestic abuse survivors. And with that I'll see y'all next week. [music outro] If you have any questions, comments, or topics you would like us to cover, always feel free to shoot me an email. You can reach me at jennie@reprosfightback.com or you can find us on social media. We're at @RePROsFightBack on Facebook and Twitter or @reprosfb on Instagram. If you love our podcast and wanna make sure more people find it, take the time to rate and review us on your favorite podcast platform. Or if you wanna make sure to support the podcast, you can also donate on our website at reprofightback.com. Thanks all!