Bonus Pod: Crisis Pregnancy Centers, SCOTUS and Why We Need to #StopKavanaugh

APPLE PODCASTS

GOOGLE PLAY

STITCHER

SPOTIFY

Crisis Pregnancy Centers are centers that exist to deter pregnant women from receiving abortions. They provide pregnancy tests, anti-abortion counseling and material resources for pregnant women. There are an estimated 2,750 Crisis Pregnancy Centers serving 2.3 million people in the United States today. This number might seem high, but it is actually a low and out of date estimate from 2010. In this episode, we talk to Amy Myrick with the Center for Reproductive Rights about Supreme Court case National Institute of Family and Life Advocates v. Becerra and what it would mean for Brett Kavanaugh to replace Justice Kennedy.

Crisis Pregnancy Centers receive funding through private and government sources and have sophisticated marketing and outreach through the internet. It is vital to remember that the way CPCs represent themselves online does not accurately reflect the services that they provide. CPCs often physically position themselves near abortion providers and adopt similar names as to confuse those that are seeking abortions (like Center for Pregnancy Choices).

CPCs don’t make it clear exactly what type of facility they are. They often fail to disclose on their website whether they provide abortion or contraception. These clinics are masked by fake names and misinformation, and those who find them online assume that they offer comprehensive reproductive health care. Women who look at these websites or arrive at the facilities may not be aware that CPCs only offer certain services, and those do not usually include abortion, abortion counseling, or contraception. What results is women being counselled against abortion due to Crisis Pregnancy Centers’ overwhelmingly religious and traditionally Christian agenda.

CPCs in California recently challenged a state law called the FACT Act. The FACT Act affects both unlicensed and licensed CPCs, and seeks to ensure that patients have the general knowledge that there are programs that provide coverage for contraception and abortion care. For clarification’s sake, licensed Crisis Pregnancy Centers were instructed to put up an on-site sign that explained that California has clinics that provide comprehensive reproductive health services, including abortion. Unlicensed CPCs were instructed to display an on-site sign that said it was not a licensed clinic and does not have provision of services. Both licensed and unlicensed centers were required to clarify this in advertising, as well. California CPCs challenged this law under the claims that it violated free speech rights and religious freedom rights under the first amendment. The first stage of litigation in district court stated that neither their freedom of speech or religion rights were violated. California Crisis Pregnancy Centers appealed and the California 9th circuit affirmed that their rights weren’t violated either, so CPCs appealed to the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court voted in favor of California’s Crisis Pregnancy Centers under the guise that the required licensed-sign was unconstitutional because it mandated controversial speech about abortion. They further ruled that the unlicensed-sign was unconstitutional because it was unjustifiable.

Justice Anthony Kennedy, while not a champion of reproductive rights or abortion, was often a deciding vote on abortion cases. Donald Trump has continuously promised a litmus test that any of his picks for SCOTUS must oppose Roe V. Wade. With Justice Kennedy’s retirement and the nomination of Brett Kavanaugh you are seeing a turning the balance of the court against women’s constitutional rights, including abortion and that is extremely dangerous. Brett Kavanaugh, the current nominee for Supreme Court Justice, has overt red flags regarding abortion on his record. He has praised Justin Rehnquist’s dissent of Roe and has previously ruled against a young migrant teenager, Jane Doe, when trying to terminate her pregnancy earlier this year.  

Links from this episode

Center for Reproductive Rights
Center for Reproductive Rights Facebook
Center for Reproductive Rights Twitter
Information on the FACT Act

Transcript

Jennie: Welcome to rePROs Fight Back a podcast on all things repro. I'm your host Jennie Wetter. In each episode, I'll be taking you to the front lines of the escalating fight over our sexual and reproductive health and rights at home and abroad. Each episode, I will be speaking with leaders who are fighting to protect our reproductive health and rights to ensure that no one's reproductive health depends on where they live. It's time for repros to fight back.

Read More

Jennie: In this week's episode we are going to talk about crisis pregnancy centers and the case that was in front of the Supreme Court. Um, and then at the end we're going to dig into what it would mean for Kavanaugh to be confirmed to the Supreme Court. So helping me dig into this topic, I'm really excited to have Amy Myrick here with me today from the Center for Reproductive Rights. Welcome, Amy. Thank you for being here.

Amy: Great to be here. Thank you.

Jennie: So let's start at the beginning. And before we can talk about the crisis pregnancy center case that was in front of the Supreme Court, we should probably do a little background. So what are crisis pregnancy centers?

Amy: Crisis pregnancy centers are facilities that exist to deter pregnant women from getting an abortion. They typically provide some combination of pregnancy tests and diagnosis of pregnancy, antiabortion counseling material resources for pregnant women so they can provide diapers and baby clothes and baby supplies. And sometimes they have education on topics like parenting relationships, talking from a religious perspective, these are facilities that pregnant women can go to, but what they do is try to convince women to carry to term.

Jennie: So what does that mean for women who go there to get care?

Amy: One thing that's important to know about crisis pregnancy centers is that they often don't make clear exactly what types of facilities they are. They, usually have an online presence. They have websites and on those websites they don't disclose whether or not they provide abortion or contraception. So women often find CPCs by googling when they think they might be pregnant or they know they are. Um, and when they arrive at these sites, like it looks like a full-service, reproductive health care clinic, um, like an abortion provider, like a Planned Parenthood, like an independent clinic. Um, often these CPCs have names that are very similar to um, to full service reproductive health care clinics in the area. Um, so sometimes they can be called things like a center for pregnancy choices or um, women, women's gynecologist center, that type of thing. Those are names of CPCs. Women who, who either look at these websites online, um, or, or even arrive at the facilities may not be, um, not be aware that they can only get certain services there and that those services, will not include bonafide abortion counseling, uh, access to abortion obviously, or a contraception.

Jennie: Right. And they're generally counseled kind of a against it, right?

Amy: They do. Crisis pregnancy centers are, um, overwhelmingly religious and that is, um, partly because there are three large national organizations that, um, help CPCs get set up and giving them guidance on how to conduct operations. And those are all, um, religious organizations coming from a, a, a traditional Christian perspective. And they see the services they provide as tied up with their, with their faith and um, how they, how they act on doctrine. So those, um, three, three large umbrella organizations, sometimes we call them, um, um, umbrella organizations because they provide services to so many CPCs are Care Net, Heartbeat International and NIFLA. And all those, you can look at them online, um, they also have very extensive websites and they explain how they are coming at this from a faith-based perspective. Um, and because the primary teaching are against abortion, the CPCS also are against abortion and they provide counseling that is from the antiabortion perspective.

Jennie: So this past term, the Supreme Court heard a case from one of those groups, which you mentioned, right, which was NIFPLA, the National Institute for Family Planning and Life Associates. Can you tell us a little bit about what that case was about?

Amy: Sure, I can, but just for a little more background, um, before we get to the case. Yeah, I think it's important for people to understand that, um, there are so many crisis pregnancy centers across the nation. These are not, um, just a few facilities that are located in certain areas and not others. We actually don't know exactly how many pieces are in the US. But one of the anti-choice groups who submitted an amicus brief in this case, estimated that there were 2,750 nationwide.

Jennie: Wow.

Amy: Serving over 2.3 million people, but they had to say that their figures were actually out of date. That was in 2010. Our best estimate is that, that that is low. Um, we think there are probably more, especially because these large national groups has really grown in size and built them up over the past few years. They have, again, a lot of funding from private sources and sometimes also, um, through, through government sources. And you can see that they have just gotten a lot more sophisticated in their methods and their outreach. So there a lot of CPC across the US. They also have very sophisticated ways of, of, of using the Internet to reach out to people who, who might come in and seek their services. Um, so one thing the umbrella groups do do, including NIFLA is sponsor these national um, conferences and people all came, come from CPCs to get trained on how to um, do things, reach out to potential patients or arrange the, um, the interior of the clinic to um, give patients confidence they're going to get full services that kind of thing. And some training topics, um, that we, um, we, we listen to audio of the training, which are available online. Sometimes you have to buy them, but they are available and they're really interesting. So some topics, uh, are rescuing mothers and children from abortion using cutting edge data and technology and data, marketing your pregnancy center for fundraising success. So often these wil have say they provide services, things like pregnancy tests and so on. But they also do fundraising and they have another nonprofit operation around that. They have training on bait and switch, which we thought was really interesting and revealing because one thing that we were trying to show is in fact the way the CPCs represent themselves online does not reflect the services they actually provide. And then just one last training to give you a flavor of what they do is marketing to abortion minded women through cultural icons.

Jennie: Okay.

Amy: Right. And then apart from the Internet and another tactic that CPCs have been known to use is to locate themselves typically very close to abortion providers. Often next door across the street or in the same complex. And they also give themselves very similar names. So in Connecticut, Hartford, Hartford Women's Center is this CPC. It is right next door to the Hartford Gyn Center, which is an abortion provider.

Jennie: Oh yeah, no very similar.

Amy: Right, its so similar. And um, you know, people who are arriving there can very easily not, not know which one is which. In Mississippi there's only one abortion clinic left in the state and a CPC just recently opened right across the street. It's called the Center for Pregnancy Choices. Um, so these are, these are really unclear. You might think if a facility is going to only provide anti abortion counseling, they would want to say that in some way. Um, But the names don't do that.

Jennie: Um, so that brings us to the Supreme Court case. Could you tell us a little bit about what the case was?

Amy: CPCs in California challenged a California state law called the Reproductive FACT Act. And the FACT act actually has two parts. One applies to licensed CPCs, and the other applies to unlicensed CPCs. And that something interesting about how things work in California. California does actually allow CPCs to become licensed through a process that not just CPCs can go through, other types of public health clinics also can apply for this type of license. That's different from most states where CPCs, there is no licensing process for them so they're not licensed. And one thing that social scientists are working on now is trying to figure out, as I said, how many CPCs there are in the US because we don't have an accurate count. And also, um, you know, whether what types of interaction with licensing processes or state or local, um, regulations they have and that's pretty much unknown. Um, but that is not the case in California because there is actually a licensing process with the state set up. However, not all CPCs have to be licesnsed, it depends on what types of services they provide. California has both licensed and unlicensed CPCs. When they decided that they wanted to pass a law, they um, did it, um, for two reasons basically. One, they wanted patients to know about public programs that um, provide them coverage for abortion and contraception and prenatal care. And they were worried that patients who were going to CPCs were not aware of these public programs or how to access them. The other reason they had resigned to pass a law was that they were aware that women might be confused about what types of facilities they're going to. Partly because of these deceptive tactics where CPCs can have names that are very similar to a full service clinic and be located near them. And the state thought that they could clarify for women what types of services they would get in a facility by passing a law that required disclosure. So that's where um, the state was coming from when it passed the Reproductive FACT Act. Um, under the law there are two different provisions that one applies to unlicensed clinics and the other applies to licensed clinics. So I'll just tell you, um, what those are. Licensed clinics have to put up a sign that says California has public programs that provide immediate free or low cost access to comprehensive family planning purposes, including all FDA approved methods of contraception, prenatal care and abortion for eligible women. To determine whether you qualify, contact the county social service office at this telephone number.

Jennie: I mean that seems pretty innocuous.

Amy: It does. It's straight forward, factual, and all it does is inform women about public services. So that sign, that notice, can be posted on site, on the premises, it can be handouted out to patients with other forms, can be given as a digital notifications on site if the facility, for example, hands out an iPad or something like that. So there are a few options for how this notice has to be given to patients. Now the unlicensed clinics have to put up a different sign and all that sign says society is this facility is not licensed as a medical facility by the state of California and has no licensed medical provider provide, that directly supervises the provision of services. And that that's also very straightforward factual disclosure just telling patients this is not a licensed facility and it can be, it must be posted on site and also included in advertising. so patients will know about it before they go to the facility and then they'll decide on that basis whether they want to go into an unlicensed facility or not. Um, so that is a rundown of the law, which I said is called the Reproductive FACT Act. What happened is that CPCs immediately challenged the law, um, bringing two kinds of claims. One that it violated their free speech rights under the First Amendment and the other that it violated their religious freedom rights also under the first amendment. Its a bit legal, legal, legalease, but that those are two separate kinds of claims. One has to do with speach and what people can say and not say and be required to say and not be required to say. The other has to do with religion and exercise, religion and religious liberty. We don't have to worry too much about that second type of challenge because it didn't go forward.

Jennie: Okay.

Amy: Um, the, the litigation proceeded with the court evaluating the free speech challenge and, um, the, at the first stage of the litigation which happened in District Court, the court decided that neither of those requirements violated their free speech. Um, now the CPCs obviously did not did not like that ruling. And they appealed. And the appellate court that, um, covered California and called the 9th circuit, the 9th circuit affirmed that this was constitutional. It did not violate the free speach rights of the CPCs. And then the CPC appealed to the Supreme Court, which acepted the case. So that's where we got the decision that was handed down in June. That was the Supreme Court reversing and holding that in fact both of the signs did violate the free speach rights of the CPCs.

Jennie: Sure. Let's, yeah, let's talk about the decision a little bit and then maybe touch on a little bit about what that means going forward.

Amy: Um, so the Supreme Court found that both signs, the unlicensed sign and the licensed sign violated free speech, but they treated them differently under the law. Uh, what they said is the licensed sign is presumptively unconstitutional because it mandated controversial speech about abortion. So that means that this kind of signage requirement is subject to the highest level of free speech protection, which in legal terms is called strict scrutiny. Um, but what that means in practice is that they're almost never constitutional because they require someone to say something that is constitutional, but that is controversial. Excuse me. And that is a very big constitutional red flag and is almost never going to be upheld. The Supreme Court struck down the, the license signage requirement on those grounds saying that requiring someone to talk about abortion because that sign does include the word abortion is controversial and compelled and that is not constitutional. The unlicensed sign, they also found unconstitutional but for a different reason. What they said there is the state hadn't shown that it has a good justification for requiring the sign when they probably have other options to tell women that they're going to an unlicensed facility. So even... They said that this type of sign with this language may not be covered by the highest possible constitution protection, but even if protections are somewhat weaker, the state has to have a good reason, um, or has to explain whyit needs this kind of sign and the justification can't be hypothetical, um, it has to really show that there is, there's a reason to regulate these speakers or in this case, our CPCs. This, they didn't have a good reason here. They hadn't really made their case deception washappening. They hadn't made their case that there wasn't another way to inform women about this problem at these facilities if there even was a problem. So because of that they weren't allowed to require the CPCs to put up these signs.

Jennie: Wow. I would really think that women going to a clinic thinking they were seeing a doctor and not seeing a doctor would seem pretty important.

Amy: You would think that. Right. Um, one thing to note is that, um, this litigation was based on an early stage of the case, so typically when parties want to challenge a law, they go in and they provide evidence and the district court makes a finding. But even before they do that, if they think that there is something really urgent going on, they can ask for a last few blocks, um, before or the full evidentiary presentation. And that's what happened here. In this case, the CPCs were really, really eager to get the law blocked. They went in right away and um, they didn't provide a lot of evidence to the District Court and neither did the State. So the Supreme Court kind of was saying, um, we don't have evidence at this stage and it is, it is possible there could be evidence at a later stage, you can come back and try again. But at this point, the state hasn't shown what it needs to show.

Jennie: This could still change then?

Amy: It's true that the state could try to keep on defending its law and provide more evidence in court and then it could work its way up through the system again. The Supreme Court had also said about that unlicensed sign that the part that applied to advertising was too burdensome. So they were concerned that as I said this, this, um, this unlicensed notice requirement has to appear not just on premises but also in advertising that's going to be out there for patients to see before they decide whether to go into the facility or not. That notice had to be provided in, um, in potentially several languages of the languages that were in, in frequent use according to a state criteria in that county. The Supreme Court said, well, maybe in California and some county that could be like dozens of languages and that would overwhelm the content of the advertising so CPCs wouldn't be able to get across their message. They would just have this disclaimer blocking it. So that they said, um, this, this, this regulation is just too burdensome. We're going to find that it's probably unconstitutional. The state has a choice about better to, um, try to modify it. Or maybe it could show that in fact it's not going to require that many languages that it would have to have a front and a back. But that was another factor in court that was important there. Um, yes, California can try to keep defending the law. Um, the licensed sign is going to be an uphill battle because of how the Supreme Court treated it as presumptively unconstitutional, not really talking about it as a question that the state hadn't provided enough evidence or data. They just said really this is constitutionally problematic. So that provision is going to be really hard to defend. The unlicensed sign, the Supreme Court did leave more room for the state to go back, um, but they're going to have to decide what they can do under this legal standard, they are going to have to have some good evidence. They're going to have to decide whether the multiple languages feature and the law is still going to be a concern to the court, are going to have to do some thinking, but that option remains open.

Jennie: Um, so with ruling on first amendment grounds, does this open a door for abortion providers to maybe challenge some of the things where they're being required to provide false information to patients?

Amy: Right, so that's a really interesting question. Before the decision came down, people who work on abortion rights were hoping that whatever the Supreme Court ruled would apply to both abortion providers and CPCs. So they're really concerned about some policies and they should be concerned about this whole universe of so called informed consent provisions that force abortion providers to say not just um, factual uncontroversial statements but also statements that we know are wrong, like that abortion causes breast cancer or, or, or, or suicidal ideation and depression. Um, those, those types of statements that are, that are completely debunked, um, by reliable data. And some states require providers, abortion providers to tell their patients, um, those things anyway. We're hoping that the decision would be helpful for those kinds of challenges. It's not totally clear that it was unhelpful. The opinion did distinguish abortion by saying that abortion is a medical procedure and it is very standard and not constitutionally problematic to require informed consent information to be given to a patient who's going to have a procedure. That has been litigated in the past in various contexts including abortion and the Supreme Court did cite back to the one of the classic abortion opinions, Planned Parenthood v Casey. If they did that with the issue there and the Supreme Court has already said when someone is coming in for a procedure they need to be given the information about risks and alternatives and benefits when and how possible health consequences and that's all fine. That's not something that requires the highest constitutional protection for a speaker who's going to be the abortion provider. So they said, CPCs are not providing procedures, which really is wrong because many of them supervise ultrasounds and even if they don't they are counseling women to continue a pregnancy which may result in labor and delivery, which is definitely a procedure which has risks and benefits and benefits that have to be evaluated relative to not continuing the pregnancy. That just isn't true or meaningful to say that CPCs don't procedures for abortion procedure. But that was the logic that they relied on to try to say that abortion might be different and informed consent restrictions for abortion might get lower constitutional protection. In any Supreme Court case, there's one issue in front of them, they're deciding that, what they tried to say about other issues may not be as binding. Um, sothere is room to explore that in future challenges to abortion. Jennie: So after the term ended things got a little crazy and have really changed with Kennedy's retirement and Kavanaugh's nomination to the court. So what does this mean for reproductive rights going forward?

Amy: Right. Totally. It was, it was pretty amazing to get the initial decision that we were trying to grapple with that. Um, and a lot of people thought, well, no, Kennedy when is not going to retire because he would have done it at least on the morning of the last day of the term. Um, when they announced another couple of decisions and then of course in the afternoon the announcement comes and um, it was, it was a shock. It was really shocking and Kennedy had been the deciding vote on abortion cases for as long as he's been on the court. The cases are decided five to four and um, although Justice Kennedy was not maybe the number one champion of abortion rights, and you did have a couple of very bad opinion when it mattered. Um, when the right to abortion was on the line, he voted in the right way in order to um, uphold Roe and also to strike down restrictions that would have had the effect of drastically reducing access in many states like he did just in 2016 in the Whole Wome's Health case. And to lose a deciding vote, you know, is a big deal. And that is in the context of Trump's promise. Um, President Trump's promise to nominate justices who are going to overturn Roe v Wade. That is the, um, in the context of the vacancy. And, um, we know because of that promise and because of all work that the administration put into vetting nominees that all the people on the list of potential justices that the administration is putting together and that like 20 some people are, have met this litmus test. They um, before we, before Kavanaugh was announced as the nominee, we knew that people on the list have different kinds of records, have red flags that are obvious about abortion and some have have, have not heard abortion cases or made public statements on abortion. So although the presumption is that they are committed overturning Roe v Wade and have been vetted for that, it's hard to know that based on their record. So leading up to the announcement, it was unclear what kind of nominee we were going to get. We ended up with Judge Brett Kavanaugh as I'm sure everyone knows. Um, he does have a couple of items in his record that are um, that are overt red flags on abortion. One is a case that he decided, um, Garza, and people probably maybe a bit familiar with this case and we can talk about it. And another is a speech that he gave very recently at the end of 2017 where he praised the dissent in Roe, which was written by Justice Rehnquist. Obviously he was dissenting because he did not feel that the Constitution protects the right to abortion, and Judge Kavanaugh praised that approach, that broader approach to reading the Constitution in a way that signals that he is not supportive of abortion rights at all.

Jennie: So the Garza cases is the Justice for Jane case?

Amy: That's right.

Jennie: So if people want an in depth dive, they can listen to an earlier episode. I can't remember which one it is, what number it is off the top of my head. But we do have one that does a deep dive on it. But if you want to maybe do like a short bit on what that case was, that would be great.

Amy: Huh. So Garza um, was a challenge brought by a minor immigrant woman who has been in detention. She had come to the US accompanied and when in federal detention on the Texas border and she found out that she was pregnant. She decided that she wanted to have an abortion. She was able to receive logistical support and funding through, um, through private funds and the government didn't have to have any involvement in arranging it in arranging her abortion or paying for it or providing any support around it. Um, what the government did was continually block her access to abortion. In Texas. Um, Texas state law requires minors who don't want to tell their parents that they're getting an abortion to go to state courts or a bypass. And the judge has to decide either that they are, um, the judge has to decide that they're able to make the decision for themselves and allow them to go forward. So the Jane, uh, went through this process and to get that permission from the State Court judge to go forward with her abortion and to make the decision and to consent on her own behalf. But the federal government would not allow her to leave the facility, which meant basically just stepping out of her way so she could go in order to allow her to go to the clinic. Instead, the government, um, made her go to a CPC funny, uh, to receive religious counseling and they isolated her in order they could try to commit to carry, carry to term with one on one conversations with officials. They called her mother and told her mother that she was seeking abortion and her mother in her home country, um, which is, which is not permitted under the constitution. They, after all their persuasive attempted persuasive tactics and were not working and she was committed because she had made her decision, they just decided to block her and they were not gonna let her have the abortion. So Jane went to court, a district court judge said this is blatantly unconstitutional. The governmetn is not allowed to injure people or block them from having an abortion after they've gone through all the legal requirements allowing them to have access. The government appealled to the appellate court in DC. And that's when KAvanaugh ruled in favor of the government and said it was fine to block Jane's abortion for at least 11 more days, but possibly but longer because he said after 11 days, everyone can come back and start this process again. Essentially Jane can be, um, can ask be released, have her abortion, the government can again say no, we're not going to do that. There can be appeals. Um, and that could go on for a long time

Jennie: And those 11 days really matter cause she was in Texas, and Texas has a 20 week abortion ban.

Amy: That is true. She was, um, getting close to the legal limit and she had already been delayed for almost a month. Um, there was no indication that anything was going to happen that would get her out of this situation. The government had tried to claim that maybe a sponsor would be found who would take her out of detention and then she could obtain her abortion on her own. And again, this is totally unconstitutional because the Supreme Court has said that minors the right to access abortion without consulting with their parents or guardian once they go through the a bypass process to get permission and that they have to be able to do that because their liberty right allowed them to make the decision on their own. So really it doesn't make sense, totally incorrect to say that maybe she could be released and then consult with her guardian that she could get more advice around this process.

Jennie: So the good news is Jane got her abortion. The bad news is that Kavanaugh had a bad ruling.

Amy: That's right. And the Garza opinion, Kavanaugh showed that he does not think that the constitutional protections for abortion are meaningful. The, he claimed that he was applying Supreme Court precedent, but he got it completely backwards. The precedent is crystal clear that government cannot unilaterally block access to abortion after someone has made the free choice and gone through all the state requirements. Government just can't do that. There is no reading of precedent that permits it. So, even if he said that he was a, what with complying with accident, um, is the version is very devastating for reproductive rights. Um, the other thing to be aware of is that Kavanaugh, has said several times, that lower court judges are bound by precedent including Roe. The Supreme Court is not. The Supreme Court is the court, the highest court in the land and can change precedent. So even actually, even if he claimed that he would follow Roe as the lower court judge, there was no guarantee that he would, he would do the same if he were elevated to the highest court.

Jennie: So if you were looking into a crystal ball, you know, you hear a lot of talk about and that Roe would be overturned, do you think it would be something as blatant as an outright overturning of Roe? Or do you think we'd be kind of continuing what we're already seeing, which is a death by a thousand cuts?

Amy: Uh, well really it could go either way. Um, the basis for overturning Roe would be that the Justices don't think that the constitution protects the right to abortion as a, as a liberty right. And there is in some part of the legal field quite robust support for that reading of the constitution. Um, and it's based on kind of this broader judicial philosophy that doesn't think that the constitution protects rights that are not in a text. So the text of the text includes the word liberty, but it doesn't spell out abortion. It doesn't spell out contraception doesn't spell out marriage, doesn't spell out child rearing or sexual relationship or procreation or bodily integrity. So according to this kind of formalized judicial philosophy none of those rights are protected because they're not in the text. And Justice Kavanaugh um, has signaled, um, both in public speeches and, and at least one decision that he agrees with this reading of the Constitution, textual reading of the constitution. So that carried to it's extreme means that the constitution doesn't protective abortion at all. And Roe would have to be overturned. So that's like an extreme overturning scenario, which can't be off the table because this judicial philosophy is is robust, it has a lot of support. The alternative would be just to uphold a lot of restrictions while not saying that the constitution doesn't protect abortion at all. It would just be weakening the legal standard so that lots of contusions would be, sorry, lots of restrictions will be found constitutional and the effect of that, um, could be really, really extreme. Maybe not as extreme and a full out overturning of Roe. In that case are estimated that around 22 states would actually make abortion illegal. If Roe is just weekend but not overturned, they can't do that. They can't ban abortion outright. But they can pass extreme restrictions that in some states would have the effect of probably closing the only clinic. So the two abortion restrictions in Texas that were just struck down in 2016 would have reduced the number of clinics and that probably like eight to 10 for the whole state, which was that the massively inadequate for state with that many people of reproductive age, people seeking abortion. In Mississippi, there's only one clinic. And the reason it was able to stay open is because those types of restrictions were struck down in the Texas case. Even just weakening the standards, those kinds of restrictions would be upheld, would have a devastating impact on access.

Jennie: Um, okay. So what can listeners do to get involved?

Amy: Probably the most important thing to do is to call your senators and urge them vocally to stand up and save Roe. So call them and send them emails to follow up. Senators do respond to, um, personal stories. So if you feel comfortable talking about how access to abortion has mattered in your own life or, or, or people who are close to you, then talking about that can be really persuasive. You should Also right op-eds, letters to the editors, social media posts, there are some hastags that are, that are being used by the movement plan is #SaveSCOTUS and another is #ProtectRoe and then #WhatsAtStake Um, so when you're posting on social media using these, well, uh, well put you in the mix of voices being raised all together and writing, print media also can sometimes be overlooked. So if you, if you do download, you write a letter to the editor or, or an op ed and then that can be great too. And you might reach audiences who are not as familiar in tune with social media. A third option is to write a letter to the judicial care judiciary committee and followup letters on to are entered into the public record and those become searchable.

Amy: Um, so yeah. Shit, here's the story. I was painting Judiciary Committee. How much is being to you talk about the constitutional ray back about under constitutional rights that are related to abortion. Um, uh, all of that is powerful. If you are in a state where, where Sandra is holding town halls or having events to meet with the [inaudible] and definitely go to those, get out in French, you might feel reluctant, you might feel pushy, but these aren't, they're set up for that. So just go there and talk about how important throw is and how, how this nomination means everything. Last thing that you can do is sign mobilization efforts in your area. Um, there, there are various groups including Indivisible, um, People's Defense, there's stuff going on in DC now through National Women's Law Center and other groups. These are... these included events, include rallies, protests, demonstrations. So, go online and find something near you and jump in.

Jennie: Amy, thank you so much for doing this. Um, uh, thank you.

Amy: Yeah, great. Yeah, it was wonderful to be with you. Thanks so much.

Jennie: For more information including show notes from this episode and previous episodes, please visit our website reprosfightback.com. You can also find us on Facebook and Twitter at rePROs Fight Back. If you like our show, please help others find it by sharing it with your friends and subscribing, rating and reviewing us on iTunes. Thanks for listening.

Take Action