Temperature Check: What are the Current SRHR Challenges and Wins in the U.S.?
There’s a grab bag of sexual and reproductive health news from around the U.S. From the wins to celebrate to the updates to keep an eye on, Garnet Henderson, investigative reporter specializing in sexual and reproductive health and disinformation, sits down to talk with us about a host of SRHR issues that are moving through the political and judicial landscape.
Issues discussed include: Nevada’s parental notification law, blocked since 1985 and made permanent in 1991, was overturned recently by a judge and will go into effect on April 30th; the Trump administration has been citing “DEI” as a reason Planned Parenthood and other affiliate’s Title X funding is being “reviewed” and threatened; the Supreme Court recently heard the arguments for Medina v. Planned Parenthood South Atlantic at the beginning of the month; and Wisconsin voters elected a Democratically-backed candidate to serve on the state’s Supreme Court, despite Elon Musk’s fundraising and $100 million dollars invested in the opposing candidate.
Links from this episode
Garnet Henderson on X
Garnet Henderson’s most recent writing
Nevada can enforce dormant 1985 law requiring parental notification of abortion, judge rules
Trump Expected To Pause Millions In Planned Parenthood Funding, Report Says
Medina v. Planned Parenthood South Atlantic
Democratic-backed judge wins Wisconsin race in setback for Elon Musk
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
Jennie: Hi rePROs. How's everybody doing? I'm your host Jennie Wetter, and my pronouns are she/her. So y'all, I have been keeping something from you. I have, you may have heard some vague intros the last couple weeks and some kind of more evergreen episodes. That is because I have been on vacation when you're hearing this, I will have just gotten back a day or two before. My mom and I are going on a fun trip. We are doing a cruise exploring the British Isles and I'm very excited. I, obviously, I'm recording this before I leave, so I can't tell you how it went, but I am excited to see all of the amazing sites. And honestly, I'm just so excited to just step away from everything. Things have been so hectic and, and busy and just chaotic. Honestly, my inbox is already chaos before I go away for two and a half weeks. Like I cannot imagine what it looks like right now as you, as y'all are hearing this. It's gonna be a disaster. But I am very much looking forward to this trip. I am looking forward to turning off all the push notifications on my phone and not checking my email and doing a lot of fun reading, I hope, and just seeing lovely sites and eating great food and just having some time away from all of the things that are happening right now here. So, I hope it's a great trip. I'm very excited. I'm just really looking forward to the time away. But I am back now y'all, and I am sure I'm catching up on all the things that have happened while I've been gone. And we will have a lot to talk about I am sure in the next couple episodes to catch up on all the things I missed. So, I am very much looking forward to it. My kitties are not happy that I'm going to be gone. They're starting to figure out I'm leaving. So, they are a little unhappy, but these things happen. They will survive. They will be mad, but it'll be okay. I'm sure I am in the midst of having cats attached to me as you're listening to make sure I never leave them ever again. Yeah, I guess I'm just gonna leave it there 'cause I don't know how the trip went and I don't have things to tell you yet, other than I've been gone and hopefully had a wonderful time. And hopefully I'm rested and recharged. I think having this long vacation instead of like a short week, being able to take like two and a half weeks off will be really restorative for my mental health. And just a really nice break to just reset and to just recharge. So, I am back y'all. And we will keep going. Okay.
Jennie: With that, I am very excited to have with me today Garnet Henderson. She is an investigative reporter and we are talking about some things that happened the week before I left. There were a number of actions this week, so it's kind of a bit of a grab bag episode. And so we are catching up on a couple different attacks on reproductive healthcare that happened that first week of April. So with that, let's go to my interview with Garnet.
Jennie: Hi Garnet. Thank you so much for being here.
Garnet: Hi. Thank you as always for having me.
Jennie: I'm so excited to have you and kind of doing kind of a grab bag of things 'cause there's so much happening.
Garnet: Yes.
Jennie: But before we get started, do you wanna introduce yourself and include your pronouns?
Garnet: Sure. My name is Garnet Henderson. My pronouns are she/her and I am an investigative reporter specializing in reproductive and sexual health, and also a lot in disinformation because there's a lot of intersection there.
Jennie: There's so much.
Garnet: Yes.
Jennie: So, I figured we need to do a little bit of time stamping and we are recording this on April 2nd because y'all don't know, but I've been away on vacation when you were hearing this, and so, you are hearing this on the day after I get back. So, which is why I'm comfortable telling you all I've been gone. So, things may have changed since then, all the caveats, but very excited to have guarded on to talk about a bunch of things that have been happening recently.
Garnet: Always excited to be here.
Jennie: Let's start with the one that I think got buried because, as we got on the call, you were telling me about it, and I hadn't heard. So, what happened in Nevada?
Garnet: So, I'm sure that many of your listeners are aware that a lot of states have requirements where people under 18 either have to get their parents' permission to have an abortion, or they at least have to, the parents at least have to be notified. And so, Nevada has had one of these parental notification laws, except it has been blocked since 1985. That is when the first preliminary injunction was issued, and then that was made permanent in 1991 which is the year I was born, by the way. So for as long as I have been alive, this law in Nevada has been blocked. And this week, so again, we're speaking on April 2nd. On April 1st, a judge overturned that injunction and that parental notification law is gonna go into effect in Nevada on April 30th.
Jennie: And maybe just because I feel like we've talked about parental notification and consent laws before, but, like, I feel like it's been a while. Maybe we should just touch on real quick, like: why is this a problem? Like, why are we talking about it?
Garnet: Sure. I mean, first of all, not everyone is able to contact a parent, right? Some people are estranged from their parents and also may just not want their parents to know that they're having an abortion. You know, maybe if having an abortion is a decision that a teenager wants to make for themselves, but they know their parent is not gonna agree with that decision, or they know that their parent finding out that they're having an abortion or that they're pregnant, perhaps, you know, being the, the big thing, they don't want their parents to find out that that might just make life much more difficult for them, especially in a home that is abusive or very controlling. These parental...and this is not a parental consent requirement, so it's maybe slightly less onerous in that way, but still for a teenager to have to notify their parents is not easy for everyone. And it's also just invasive, right? It really takes the decision making away from the person who's having an abortion and involves family members that they may not want involved in the decision. And then there is a judicial bypass process, meaning that you can potentially bypass this parental notification requirement with permission from a judge. But, you know, I've interviewed people who went through the judicial bypass process and found it just incredibly dehumanizing to have to go and plead your case before a judge is, as I said, dehumanizing. It's embarrassing, it's inconvenient. And it delays abortion care, which is already time sensitive in nature. So, this is just a really invasive and onerous requirement. And also since it hasn't been in place in Nevada for all this time, I imagine that to get things up and running to help teenagers get those judicial bypasses when they're necessary, that's gonna be a whole project in and of itself. And all the attorneys and advocacy organizations in Nevada, they only have about a month to try and prepare to do that.
Jennie: Oh man, I didn't even think of that part. And like even like the judges who are going to hear them and, like, familiarizing themselves with the process. Like, there's a lot of work that needs to be done before that. Yeah, I was thinking as you were talking, we had a storyteller on from Texas a while ago who was talking about going through the judicial bypass process in Texas and just like, not just like how dehumanizing and all, all of those things, but like how onerous it was, like all of the things she had to be prepped to know, like name the instruments needed to describe the entire process and like all of these barriers and hurdles they had to navigate to access care. Like, can you imagine if you had to get your wisdom teeth out and it was like, okay, well your parents need to agree. If they don't, you have to go in and talk about how exactly this procedure happens, what they are doing. Like that is wild.
Garnet: Absolutely. And like so many other states in the US, Nevada is a state that has large rural areas and abortion clinics tend to be concentrated more in urban or more population dense areas. And so, I also think about the young people in rural areas who probably already would've had to do some travel for their abortion care. Maybe that was already going to pose a challenge for them, especially if they have parents who aren't supportive or you know, they're worried about their parents finding out. And then to have to go through the process of a judicial bypass on top of that is such a headache at best and at worst, you know, any additional barrier is something that can stand in the way of someone actually getting the abortion care that they need.
Jennie: Okay. So, unfortunately that wasn't the only thing that happened this week. Like, y'all, we're only talking about one week and there were like three huge things that happened.
Garnet: Oh boy.
Jennie: So, next was the Trump administration's actions around Title X. So, what did the admin do?
Garnet: Right? So we have been expecting action in this area, right in during Trump's first presidency. He withheld Title X family planning funds from Planned Parenthood and from other abortion providers. As I'm sure all the listeners to this podcast know, federal funds cannot be used to pay for abortions except in extremely limited circumstances. So, we are not even talking about money that was ever going to abortion care. It's family planning funds, it's paying for birth control and counseling basically. But a lot of our country's Title X providers, first of all, a large number of them are Planned Parenthood affiliates. And many, if not most of them are organizations that also provide abortion care. They just don't use the Title X money to pay for the abortions. So already under the first Trump administration, Trump said no more Title X funds for Planned Parenthood or other abortion providers. And the Trump administration even awarded some Title X funds to Obria, which is a network of crisis pregnancy centers, anti-abortion centers. And this is something that's outlined in Project 2025 is quote unquote "defunding Planned Parenthood" and shifting any federal family planning funds to religious organizations. So, that's what we had been expecting. What is a bit different this time is that the Trump administration is using a different justification. So this time, instead of citing that association with abortion care, they're using their current favorite excuse, which is DEI. So, they notified Planned Parenthood as well as some other Title X providers, not just Planned Parenthood affiliates, that they're basically reviewing their receipt of Title X funds on the suspicion that they're engaged in DEI activities, which of course the whole point of Title X is equity. It's increasing access to family planning services for low-income people who are disproportionately people of color, young people in the United States. So, I mean, sure, I guess the whole program is DEI, right? Although the Trump administration has distorted that term to an extent where it just makes no sense anymore. And they've also emphasized, you know, my friend Kelcie Moseley-Morris, who's a great reporter at state's newsroom on reproductive rights, was in contact with HHS yesterday. And I know that they really stress to her that no final decisions have been made. So, the Trump administration is saying no final decision has been made, but they've notified these grantees we're reviewing your receipt of these funds that they had already won through a grant making process. So, you know, I have to assume that those will be permanently cut off and that it's not just temporary as HHS is saying.
Jennie: This has, like, been one of those, like, waiting for the terrible thing to happen, right? Like, it's kind of amazing that it took as long as it did. I don't know, they were too busy destroying all the other things, but, like, abortion and repro is generally such a high priority. But to only see the big, like, major thing being like Global Gag Rule was kind of surprising.
Garnet: It was kind of surprising. And I think there are a lot of people who wanna look at that and say, oh well, like maybe they're just not gonna come as hard after abortion this time because they know that's-
Jennie: No.
Garnet: Unpopular. Exactly. I agree. I don't think there's any chance of that. But what I do think, and what I always expected to happen, obvious honestly, is that they would just do it in these, it's not really right to say that it's under the radar, which is what I was gonna say.
Jennie: Yeah. Yeah.
Garnet: But they would basically just spin it differently, right? So this time, the excuse is DEI, even though we know the real issue that they have with these providers is that they provide and refer for abortion care. And you know, similarly, I think for example, myself and many others have been waiting to see, are they gonna implement a version of the Comstock Act?
Jennie: Mm-hmm.
Garnet: That says, you know, now it's illegal to mail abortion pills and you know, it's still very possible they could do that. But also the federal government is talking about privatizing the postal service. So, maybe they're just gonna do that. And that's a really convenient way to enact a Comstock-like policy when, you know, it becomes a private organization and there's little to no federal oversight. So I think that we're gonna see all of those Project 2025 abortion related policies be carried out. I think we're just not necessarily gonna see them be described in exactly the same ways that they are in the Project 2025 document.
Jennie: Yeah. I definitely did not think it was because they were going to be better. Like, I assumed it was creative in new ways or...
Garnet: Exactly. They do know it's unpopular, but that for them is just a messaging issue. It's not gonna substantively change what they do.
Jennie: [Sighs] Okay. So the next big thing I know y'all, it's like, and the next, so we're talking right after SCOTUS heard a case that also would impact access to reproductive healthcare. So, how did this morning go?
Garnet: It was boring, I'm not gonna lie. I have covered a lot of Supreme Court oral arguments. The arguments in this case, Medina v. Planned Parenthood South Atlantic, were among the most boring that I have listened to in my career, I would say.
Jennie: It just, it feels like it's kind of a wonky case. And so it has flown so far under the radar.
Garnet: It is very wonky. And so, you know, I know that you've covered this on the show before, but like, quick recap: this is a case that is related to South Carolina's attempt to kick Planned Parenthood out of its Medicaid program, which the governor of South Carolina tried to do via executive order. The problem with that is that it clearly violates federal law, which says that Medicaid beneficiaries should have the freedom to choose a qualified provider. And South Carolina has never argued that Planned Parenthood is not a qualified provider. They're just saying we don't like them because they also provide abortions. Again, not with the Medicaid money. Right. But kicked them out on those grounds. And the case is super wonky because the question in the case is not actually can South Carolina do that? It's: can an individual sue to stop them from doing that, or can only the federal government do that? And so, there was a lot of talk in the arguments this morning because this freedom-of-choice provision that's in the Medicaid act does not include the actual word, "right." It doesn't say that people have a right to do X, Y, Z. It's about their freedom to choose. And so of course the Alliance Defending Freedom is representing South Carolina here. And their attorney who was arguing the case, spent so much time talking about the absence of the word, "right," in the statute. And, you know, said all these things about how basically it's not clear enough rights conferring language, which especially when you listen as a lawyer, is ridiculous. And even the justices thought it was pretty ridiculous. You could tell at a certain point they were joking about magic words. You know, like, I hate to giggle at Brett Kavanaugh because what a horrible person. But at one point he did say, well, I'm not allergic to magic words. And I was like, what are we five? So, there was a lot of discussion of, well, which words could be in the statute that would make it a rights conferring statute. And yeah, it was pretty absurd. You could tell that several of the justices, especially not surprisingly so Sotomayor, Kagan, and Jackson were, like, pissed that this case was even there. And then of course, the rest of the justices, it's really hard to say what will happen, right? But Amy Coney Barrett seemed to agree with them. I find it difficult to think that she's gonna side with South Carolina here based on her questions. Kavanaugh also seemed a little bit iffy. Gorsuch and Roberts—hard to tell. It would be unusual, certainly. I mean, unusual is not a strong enough word...it would be very surprising for them to side with Planned Parenthood
Jennie: Yeah. And it definitely won't stay in South Carolina.
Garnet: No, absolutely not. I mean, that is exactly the type of thing that will just spread like wildfire if the Supreme Court rules in South Carolina's favor.
Jennie: So, one thing that I've noticed is we've had two back-to-back stories here that we're talking about that impact the ability of people with low incomes to get access to family planning services, and a lot of those services come from the same provider, which is Planned Parenthood. That's just a lot to think about like: what this would mean for Planned Parenthood, but also for all the people who use them.
Garnet: Yeah. I mean, you know, Planned Parenthood is in this really interesting position where they've got all the name recognition and that is both a good and a bad thing, right? It means they get a lot of donations and they get a lot of really high dollar donations that other repro organizations and smaller, maybe independent clinics simply do not have access to or have access to, to a much lesser extent. But it also means that they have a target on their back. I mean, how long have conservatives been saying Defund Planned Parenthood, right?
Jennie: Forever.
Garnet: Forever, and it certainly seems like the Trump administration is really poised to actually finally do that. Title X being a huge one. Right. Planned Parenthood affiliates are major recipients of Title X funding in, in a number of states. The only Title X providers are Planned Parenthood clinics. And now there's this additional threat potentially to Planned Parenthood's ability to participate in Medicaid from South Carolina. Other states have also tried similar screwy stuff Yeah, right. To prevent Planned Parenthood clinics from accepting Medicaid. So that's already not just a problem in South Carolina. And I mean, we also have a federal government that's talking about doing away with Medicaid or at least gutting it. So...
Jennie: Yeah.
Garnet: Who knows how much longer Medicaid even exists. And Planned Parenthood is very much a safety net provider. They are caring for a patient population that's disproportionately low income people of color, young people, and people generally who have nowhere else to go for their care, especially not sexual and reproductive healthcare. Also, in many, many states, Planned Parenthood has become a leader in providing gender affirming care services. Right. So they're providing really important care. And already we can see that a lot of Planned Parenthood affiliates are struggling. Planned Parenthood of Illinois has closed a number of clinics recently. Planned Parenthood of Greater New York is closing its flagship Manhattan Health Center. And so, we see that a lot of affiliates were already struggling based on the current landscape. And in some states that has to do with abortion bans and how that has impacted operations at Planned Parenthood clinics. But also speaking of Medicaid, partly it's because so many of their patients are Medicaid beneficiaries and Medicaid reimburses at pretty low rates. Right. So, they're already struggling as a safety net provider and they're facing a lot of attacks. And so, you know, it's something I'm doing a lot of reporting on, but I hear a lot of concern from sources right now that I think unfortunately is very valid, that we could be about to see a lot more Planned Parenthood clinics close, and that would just have a devastating impact on sexual and reproductive healthcare and really, like, primary care across the country 'cause so often from providers who work in Planned Parenthood clinics. Yeah. What I hear from them is a lot of their patients—this is the only doctor they've seen in who knows how long.
Jennie: I think another thing to remember when we think about this is Planned Parenthood plays a really big role because this is what they do, right? They are sexual and reproductive health experts. So, they, and they take Medicaid. Not all providers accept Medicaid—you know that Planned Parenthood will. They have a method mix available. Not all providers that you see outside of that may have, may not have that full range of whatever type of birth control you want. They probably don't have as many appointments available as Planned Parenthood. Planned Parenthood can see a lot more patients than other providers. So I mean, they play such a huge role in Title X and Medicaid for accessing sexual and reproductive health services. So, like, it's really hard to understate what this loss would do.
Garnet: Yeah, absolutely. And you know, every Planned Parenthood affiliate is different. But another thing I'm thinking about is because Planned Parenthood provides specialized sexual and reproductive healthcare in a setting that is different from a hospital and also different from how a lot of OBGYNs or family medicine providers operate in private practice, they were also providing certain types of specialized care that is really hard to come by. For example, at that Manhattan Health Center, Planned Parenthood of Greater New York used to provide IUD insertion under anesthesia, which is an option that I hear more and more people being interested in because IUD insertion is really painful and a lot of people are really scared of it because for so long the counseling and the pain relief provided has been so insufficient and already Planned Parenthood of Greater New York had stopped offering that service last year because of financial difficulties that that affiliate was already experiencing. So, the more they have to kind of scramble to fill those basic needs for that safety net care they provide, the less they are able to offer that specialized care that they are so well-positioned to offer.
Jennie: I've been thinking about this in terms of, like, Medicaid overall, like if they've just don't, like, completely eliminate it, but, like, really scale it back. Like, which services are we going to lose, right? So like, are states gonna get rid of their expansions for family planning? Are they gonna get rid of their maternal health expansions? Like where are we going to see loss of services? And then trying to get the broader public to also understand like, you may not get Medicaid, but the hospital you go to may rely on Medicaid to stay open and if they cannot get the Medicaid funding they need, that could force the hospital that you are planning to go to to close
Garnet: Mm-hmm. Or to reduce the number of providers it has on staff. Yeah. Which makes your wait time if you have to go to the ER even longer, right? Just to give one example. Those are such important points. And I do think it is important to keep in mind that Medicaid is funded through a federal state partnership. And so, depending on what happens exactly, but kind of no matter what happens, the effects will be different from state to state. And we already have massive health disparities from state to state in the US in many states because they have not expanded Medicaid in certain ways, right? They didn't expand it as a result of the Affordable Care Act, or they haven't expanded as you were saying you know, postpartum coverage, for example. And so, I think we will see some states do more to try and fill in the gap than others, for sure. But even states like New York and California that have more money—they don't have endless money. Unless we're gonna talk like a true showdown where New York and California say, like: we are gonna withhold all of our, our federal income tax, right? Like no more money to the IRS and we're keeping it all in state to fill in these gaps for all the federal services that are being cut right now. It's difficult to imagine that happening. I mean that literally would amount to like a certain type of civil war, right? If states were really gonna throw down and do that. But that's something I've been thinking about a lot because we have so many federal programs and services being cut right now. Even the biggest states with the largest tax revenue are only gonna be able to fill in so many of those gaps. The federal government is the purse for the whole United States.
Jennie: Okay. So is there anything else you're like keeping an eye on right now, either federally or at the state level? I mean, it just feels like it's been nonstop. There have been, like, so many things happening in the last, honestly like two weeks even that we haven't had a chance to cover, so.
Garnet: It is nonstop, it's exhausting. And even as a reporter who honestly wants people to read my work, obviously, I want people to keep up with the news. I do really encourage people to moderate their own news consumption because I think if you feel totally overwhelmed all the time, it actually makes it really difficult to take in new information, to make decisions and draw conclusions based on what you are learning. And so, just to put that out there, that is something that I do endorse. I'm trying to think if there's anything that's not, like, really depressing.
Jennie: Yeah. Is there any good news that we're missing? Oh let's go with this one. I am from Wisconsin. The Wisconsin Supreme Court race. Had a pro-abortion justice win, which is amazing. It would've swung the court the other way if, if she had lost being from Wisconsin, I've heard so much about this race and I know my mom is super excited for it to be over. Like, she had gotten, like, endless phone calls and ads and we live in the country like way out in the country. And so very rarely for, I mean, I can, I don't ever remember getting door knockers. She got a door knocker this year for this election. So, was just really excited to see a pro-abortion candidate win.
Garnet: That is amazing. That was great news. That was delivered to me by my boyfriend last night and I was like, wait, she won? [laughs]
Garnet: I know. I just had no idea. Like I just, there was so much money spent, like I just had no idea, like, how it was gonna turn out.
Jennie: Me too. And particularly with Elon Musk, you know, literally offering to pay people to vote. I do actually take that victory as a great sign of what organizing can do. And I will shout out my friend David Kronig, who is no longer there, but he was a voter protection attorney in Wisconsin during the 2020 election.
Jennie: So important.
Garnet: And...so important. And I know that he and his team helped lay a lot of the groundwork for all of those, like get out the vote and voter protection efforts. So, I wanna shout them out because it's hard to do that work in general, especially when you have scary people threatening your life Yeah. When you do that work. And so, I thought that was really cool. And I do think that also shows that people are paying attention and are seeing through at least some of what's happening, which is really important. So yeah, there is a lot going on, especially at HHS now that we have a science denier in charge there. So, I'm keeping a really close eye on that. And I'm actually going to be doing a lot of accountability research in the reproductive health space over these next couple of months, including really keeping an eye on what's going on in those government agencies like HHS. So, if anybody ever has any ideas, any tips of things you would like me to look into, please let me know.
Jennie: Yeah. That I forgot...again, so many things happening. I forgot. That was just this week as we are talking, it was really devastating to see all of the, like maternal health and reproductive health and pregnancy and rape prevention and all of the things we care about really just being gutted or eliminated.
Garnet: Absolutely devastating. And also, as a reporter, you know, I have filed a lot of Freedom of Information Act requests both to the federal government and also to state governments. Over the course of my career. I'm out here requesting documents all the time and I have kind of been waiting to see what was gonna happen with the FOIA offices at frankly every federal agency everywhere. Yeah. But especially for me at HHS since that is often an agency that I'm requesting documents from, not very often successfully, they were already notoriously difficult to FOIA at HHS. And so, this week I saw that the CDC FOIA office, all those people received Reduction in Force notices even though CDC is part of HHS, they had their own FOIA office. So as of two weeks ago, somebody was still answering my emails from the HHS FOIA office, but unfortunately I don't expect that to continue.
Jennie: I feel like every conversation I have with somebody; there's like this new terrible thing I hadn't been thinking about. Like, I had not thought about FOIA offices yet.
Garnet: I'm sorry.
Jennie: And this is why I went on vacation, y'all so I could forget about all the things.
Garnet: Yes.
Jennie: Okay. With that, let's just do my usual ending. Is there anything that people should be doing right now? Like how can people get involved in some of these fights?
Garnet: Like I said, I think it's great to moderate your media consumption. Don't feel bad about that.
Jennie: No.
Garnet: Try to stay informed, but there's no need to doom scroll. Definitely. I'm always gonna plug, pay attention to what is happening in your community. For example, I live in New York City, we have a mayoral election that's really heating up here. So, don't let all of the mess in the federal government distract you from what might be happening in your own city and state.
Jennie: Garnet. As always, it was lovely to have you on. Thank you so much for being here.
Garnet: Thank you so much for having me.
Jennie: Okay y'all, I hope you enjoyed my conversation with Garnet. I'm excited to be back. I'm not really looking forward to dealing with my inbox or seeing all of the things that happened while I was gone, but I am back and ready to keep on with the podcast. So, I will see everybody 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 reprosfightback.com. Thanks all!
Follow Garnet Henderson on X and check out Garnet’s most recent writing.
Moderate your media consumption; stay informed but don’t feel the need to overwhelm yourself with difficult news.
Pay attention to what’s happening in your community—don’t let the mess of the federal government distract you from what’s happening in your own city, county, and state!