How Originalism in the Court Directly Impacts Americans’ Health and Rights

In the past month, the Supreme Court has interacted with three cases that have stark implications for the reproductive health, rights, and wellbeing of many across the U.S. Madiba Dennie, author of The Originalism Trap: How Extremists Stole the Constitution and How We the People Can Take it Back and Deputy Editor and Senior Contributor at the legal commentary outlet Balls and Strikes, sits down to talk to us about originalism, the recent Supreme Court case rulings, and what it all means for the sexual and reproductive health and rights of Americans.

On June 13, 2024, the Supreme Court ruled that plaintiffs in FDA v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine—which challenged access to nationwide medication abortion—did not have a legal standing. For now, this ruling preserves the post-Dobbs status-quo, protecting access to mifepristone, a safe and common medication used in nearly two-thirds of abortions, in some states. On June 21, 2024, the Supreme Court ruled in United States v. Rahimi to prevent those with previous domestic violence restraining orders filed against them to possess firearms. And on June 27th, 2024, the Supreme Court dismissed a case that would have prevented abortion in the case of medical emergency in Idaho. Access remains protected—for now. Many of the recent Supreme Court cases are rooted in originalism, or the application of U.S. “history” and “tradition” to undermine rights, which has been a trusted roadmap for anti-rights actors in the courts.

Links from this episode

Madiba Dennie on X
Madiba Dennie at Balls and Strikes
The Originalism Trap: How Extremists Stole the Constitution and How We the People Can Take it Back
FDA v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine
United States v. Rahimi

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: Hey rePROs! How's everybody doing? I'm your host Jennie Wetter, and my pronouns are she/her. So, I hope everybody is ready for, I hope, a long 4th of July weekend for y'all. I am gonna have a long weekend, so I'm pretty excited and looking forward to some downtime to recuperate from this long slog of a SCOTUS season. I am still waiting on a bunch of decisions to come out when I'm recording this, because I'm recording this on Thursday because I am off tomorrow and I feel like I was worried that we weren't going to get the EMTALA decision in time, and I was going to get it on Friday while I was getting my haircut Friday morning and have to deal with, like, trying to deal with like Supreme Court decision and what it means and all that stuff while on my phone while getting my haircut, which would've been a real pain. But luckily the decision came out on Thursday. We're not gonna have a full episode talking about that decision today. We're actually gonna have it next week. So, stay tuned. I will have an expert on to talk about the case and what it means. I'll do a quick and dirty in the intro, but just know that we'll have somebody who's gonna come on and break it down, much fuller than I can do, and with much more legal expertise than I have. So, that will be next week. But just to, you know, keep you up to date on what happened, the Supreme Court issued a ruling, again, like the mife case, not based on merits. They said that this case was improvidently granted, so they picked it up too soon. And so they are sending it back to the lower courts to work through it. So, in effect, that means that Idaho doctors can provide emergency abortions for now, right? So, like this is, this is good news for people in Idaho who haven't been able to get care. This should hopefully help them access care for now. It's not, like, overall good news. It really only applies to Idaho. This means that women like in Texas who are under also a really strict abortion ban, this doesn't impact them because it is a ruling based on merits, right? So, it hasn't said how the court is gonna rule on this. So, it's still this unsureness of when people are able to access care. I think that, you know, if you take one thing away, like one really important thing to read is Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson. She wrote in her concurrence, it was an in part concurrence and in part descent, a really important paragraph that I'm gonna read here because it really gets to the heart of all of this. "So, to be clear, today's decision is not a victory for pregnant patients in Idaho. It is delay. While this court doles and the country waits, pregnant people experiencing emergency medical conditions remain in a precarious position as their doctors are kept in the dark about what the law requires. The court had a chance to bring clarity and certainty to its tragic situation, and we have squandered it. And for as long as we refuse to declare what the law requires, pregnant patients in Idaho, Texas, and elsewhere will be paying the price because we owe them and the nation an answer to the straightforward preemption question presented in these cases. I respectfully dissent." That's just, it's so strong ‘cause that is exactly what it is. This is not a clear decision telling patients what they can expect when they're trying to access care. It is kicking the can down the road and making it harder for people to get care. It keeps people's lives at risk. And so, this just means they're gonna hear it all again. And we're gonna have to go through all of this uncertainty all over again of wondering if they are going to rule that it's okay for women to die instead of getting lifesaving healthcare. And that's bullshit, y'all. Come on. That is bullshit. Ugh. Sorry, y'all. So frustrating. But for now, for the people of Idaho, it is a little bit of clarity for them, and that people are gonna be able to access care, but it's so frustrating we needed a clear answer, and it keeps people's lives at risk. So anyway, like I said, we will cover the EMTALA case in full next week. I'll have an expert on who can just break it all down. I think with that, let's go to today's episode 'cause we're not going very far, right? We're gonna still talk about SCOTUS decisions. So, I am very excited to have with me today Madiba Dennie with Balls and Strikes. She's also the author of the brand-new book, The Originalism Trap: How The Extremists Stole The Constitution, and How We the People Can Take It Back. I had a wonderful conversation with Madiba, it was so great to talk to her about the mife ruling and the Rahimi ruling, and we talked about a couple other things. So yeah, let's go to my conversation with Madiba.

Jennie: Hi Madiba, thank you so much for being here today.

Madiba: Thanks for having me.

Jennie: So, before we dig into the couple cases we're gonna talk about, do you wanna take a quick second and introduce yourself and include your pronouns?

Madiba: Sure thing. My name is Madiba Dennie, pronouns are she/her. I am the deputy editor and senior contributor at the legal commentary outlet, Balls and Strikes. And as of earlier this month, I'm officially a published author.

Jennie: Woohoo! Congrats.

Madiba: Thank you so much. Yeah, I wrote a book called The Originalism Trap: How Extremists Stole the Constitution and How We the People Can Take It Back.

Jennie: I am such a huge reader. Like, I read so many books, so anytime somebody's like I wrote a book, it's like magic to me. Okay. So, I am really excited to talk to you about two cases today we're per for the podcast. We're still waiting on the EMTALA case, which may come out before this episode does, but we'll get we'll do an episode on it later. But I wanted to start with the mifepristone case.

Madiba: Sure.

Jennie: Can you tell us a little bit about what that case was before we get to what the court decided?

Madiba: Yeah. So, the mifepristone case was a challenge to access to basically a very widely used safe and effective abortion medication. And this challenge was made by a group of loosely affiliated group of doctors, some of whom don't even practice reproductive healthcare. There were some dentists in the mix. And they made this group within days of the Dobbs decision coming down. So, it was very clearly just a sock puppet organization targeted to take down reproductive healthcare because they realized they had a friendly audience on the Supreme Court. And they specifically went after the FDA regulations that made it just a little bit more accessible for folks to get mifepristone. So, like, they didn't have to, like, go in for another appointment and yeah, so streamlined it a bit. And these, these doctors challenged, challenged this regulation and they went to Matt Kacsmaryk's district to do so. And their argument was basically that they don't like abortion [laughs] I wish I was exaggerating, but that's, that's really just about it. And I know, we'll get into it.

Jennie: [Laughs] Seems like a solid legal argument.

Madiba: Yeah, we’ll get to in a moment, like why, why the case turned out the way that it did, because they didn't have much going for them beyond, we don't like that.

Jennie: Yeah. Yeah. I think you need more to make a case.

Madiba: Yeah. [laughs]

Jennie: Okay. So, the case somehow passes muster through Judge Kacsmaryk's court, through the Fifth Circuit, and makes it to the Supreme Court. So, that already is, like, crazy it got that far.

Madiba: Mm-hmm. Yeah. And I would also like to, like to shout out as we're thinking about the craziness on the way to the court, the Fifth Circuit opinion because that was where we got this language from Judge James Ho and his concurrence where part of his argument as for why this case is valid or why similar cases are valid is that doctors really like working with, with their unborn patients and they suffer an aesthetic injury when they are aborted. And so, I was like, so it is just basically saying, I like looking at, like, sonograms. Those are really neat. And so, this is bad for me personally, if you get an abortion.

Jennie: It just feels so icky in so many ways. Ugh.

Madiba: Mm-hmm. Mm-hmm.

Jennie: Okay. So, it gets to the Supreme Court, they hear the case, and then I feel like there was like reporting all over the place when this case was decided of, like, “it was dismissed. It's this huge win for repro.” What was the actual decision?

Madiba: Yeah, that's really overstating the case. What the court said was that this particular case can't move forward, which, you know, good to hear because it's wacky that it went through the district court and the Fifth Circuit level. So, it was, it was nice to get that approval that no, this is a clearly illegitimate case. They have no, they have no reason to be here. In the legal world, we call this standing, which is basically the fancy way of saying what's it to you? Like, do you have an actual injury that you experienced or will imminently experience that was caused by the other party in this case and that a court could potentially resolve with a legal judgment. And basically, what the association was saying here was, we don't like it when other people take abortion medication. We don't prescribe it. No one is making us prescribe it. No one is stopping us from prescribing other medication, but if these possible patients can access mifepristone, maybe we will have to treat someone who had used mifepristone in the future. [laughs]

Jennie: I'm not going to my dentist with any sort of problem like that.

Madiba: Right. [laughs] So, it was just really speculative, really just unrelated to them at all. So, the court unanimously was able to say, no, get outta here with this. Now this does not actually say anything about mifepristone itself. This doesn't make it any more or less accessible than it already was before this lawsuit. So in states where mifepristone is being criminalized, it stays criminalized. So, this wasn't some big win for access. All it did was preserve the post do status quo, which is already not great.

Jennie: I mean, the sad news is like, that's like anymore, like, I mean, I don't wanna use the word win, right? But like, good news?

Madiba: Mm-hmm.

Jennie: That it didn't get worse. And this is one of those cases that I felt confident is not the word. I felt less stressed that we were gonna get a bad decision, but still, man, that relief when-

Madiba: Yeah.

Jennie: -it was a good decision, was real.

Madiba: Yeah. I think I was able to have some degree of confidence when listening to the oral argument because it seemed like from the questions that the justices were asking, you could tell that most of them at least weren't buying what these guys were selling. I do say most of them. Thomas and Alito of course seemed a little more open to the idea. They also lobbed up the idea of reinvigorating the Comstock Act. So, even though this was not the worst-case scenario, you can tell that the conservative legal movement is laying the groundwork for future ways to curtail reproductive healthcare.

Jennie: Yeah. So that was totally gonna be my next, like, so it's done right? I never have to worry about this again? It's all good? Yay!

Madiba: No, no, not quite.

Jennie: Damnit.

Madiba: Yeah. [laughs] I wish, but, but no, the attorneys it was Erin Hawley, wife of Josh Hawley who was...yeah, just as the worst power couple. Well, actually let me take that back. The second worst power couple because Clarence and Jenny exist.

Jennie: Yeah. I know. And we're also learning about the Alitos too, so...

Madiba: True. You know what, let me not rank these guys [both laugh]. But she said that the Comstock Act is very clear, was what was what she had said, sharing oral argument and Justice Alito as well. Even though the Comstock Act has not been enforced in a very long time, Alito presented it as if it were some regulation that everyone is familiar with and is, like, on the books and everyone knows and either follows or should be following. He said, oh, this isn't some obscure law. And it's like, well, it kind of is. I've seen many people describe it as a zombie law because they would basically be bringing it back from the dead. And what Comstock says is that nothing obscene can be sent through the mail. Obscenity is very broad. It seems like a lot can fit under the obscene umbrella. And so, the argument is that abortion medication falls under obscenity, especially because the laws originally drafted did name check abortion. It just was basically invalidated by Roe v. Wade. But they're trying to say that it's now back in effect. And so, nothing that induces an abortion can be sent through the mail. So, this would be a way to basically cut off abortion access across the country nationwide in one quick maneuver, or at least make it more challenging. Like, you would be able to have a misoprostol only abortion. But that would be more difficult, can be needlessly more painful as it can lead to more cramping if you don't have the mifepristone. So, basically the only purpose is to make pregnant people's lives harder.

Jennie: So, I fear this is not the last we are going to be hearing of some version of this case.

Madiba: Mm-hmm. Yeah, I think that's correct. I think that even though the Supreme Court unanimously sued these doctors out of the courtroom, I think that it's clear to a lot of folks in the conservative legal movement that they just need to come back with something a little less ridiculous next time. That this was beyond the pale even for their allies on the court. But next time, if they do something even a little bit more reasonable, they'll probably stand a better chance.

Jennie: I feel like they're really good about leaving those types of breadcrumbs in their rulings. Like I, it makes me think of the case, what was it, the Louisiana one that was, like, law that was, like, the exact same as the Whole Woman's Health case out of Texas. They're like, basically like, come on, y'all. Like you can't bring us the exact same law, bring us something else and we're happy to do terrible things. But like...

Madiba: Yeah, [laughs] they're like, we've literally been over this already.

Jennie: Yes.

Madiba: We've seen this exact law before.

Jennie: Yes. So, I feel like there were definite signs even in this, God, I don't, again, don't wanna say good in this ruling of like, here's how you can do the bad things.

Madiba: Right. Yeah. I think you see that a lot in the court's opinions, this sort of call and response basically between the conservative activists on the court and the conservative activists off the court where they'll give them their cue to let them know what they should, what they should come in with.

Jennie: Okay. So, let's switch gears a little bit and talk about the Rahimi case. This is another one that I have been following closely, so maybe we should, like, stop for a second and do the, like just a short, like, what was this case about?

Madiba: Rahimi is another wild one. So, this was a case about the constitutionality of a law that prohibits people who have domestic violence restraining orders against them from possessing a gun. This law has been basically uncontroversial for a very long time, but because of the Supreme Court's ruling in Bruen two years ago, all of the time-trusted gun regulations became, like, tossed up in the air. No one really knew anymore because in Bruen it was a law that had been on the books for over a century that the court struck down as insufficiently historical [laughs], which is pretty absurd. But in Bruen, the court said a gun law is basically presumptively unlawful unless the government can prove that it fits into the nation's history and tradition firearm regulations seemingly linked to the founding era. It wasn't made entirely clear which lower courts have struggled with, but it appeared to be, look at the founding, and if there wasn't a comparable gun law then, and Clarence Thomas, who authored the majority opinion in Bruen, he basically defined comparable as a law that imposes a similar burden for a similar reason. And if there wasn't such a law in the 1800s, basically then it is unconstitutional to do it now, which is a standard that has not-

Jennie: Wild.

Madiba: Yeah, yeah. No other area of law has this type of protection. Like we've seen, we've seen the increasing use of originalism by the court. Originalism being the idea that the constitution's meaning is fixed in time, and it has to mean now what it allegedly meant then. But even this was, like, originalism on overdrive, saying that it is presumptively unconstitutional, unless you can show me that a similar law existed when George Washington walked the earth.

Jennie: Yeah. And as somebody whose rights were very much considered in, you know, the original document, I feel good about, like, following this path of originalism.

Madiba: Right? This is why the case wound up at the Supreme Court in the first place because the lower courts looked at the law and said, well, taking domestic violence seriously is a very new thing. There are no instances historically of the law disarming domestic abusers until about the 1990s. And so, they said, that's clearly based off the standard we got in Bruen, this law's no good anymore. And so, they said that the law was unconstitutional. And so, this would've meant re-arming a young man named Zach Rahimi, who's a very prolific shooter. I'll put it like that. There was just a couple month span where he was involved in at least six public shootings that we know of. He's not exactly what you would call a responsible gun owner. And he had a order of protection against him, restraining him from harming his ex-girlfriend at this point, and child because he had threatened them with his gun before. And it would've meant putting a gun back in his hands. And when a domestic abuser has access to a gun, the person they're abusing is like 500% more likely to die. The statistics are horrific, but because of originalism, we were basically being told by some in the conservative legal movement and by some originalist judges that the country did not protect women from domestic violence in the past. So, it was unconstitutional to protect women from domestic violence in the present.

Jennie: I just...that is so wild. Like, there is like no other way to describe that. It is just like, it is so wild to think that's something that is so lifesaving, like, you would just be like, nah, Founding Fathers wouldn't have wanted that.

Madiba: Right? It's just absurd on its face to think they didn't take this seriously then. So, you can't do anything about it now. It really binds legislators' hands from being responsible for their communities, for the constituencies they're supposed to represent it all, and it puts women and children's lives in particular at direct risk. And so, it was really an insulting type of argument.

Jennie: Okay. So, what did the court decide?

Madiba: So, the court ruled eight to one in Rahimi that the law disarming domestic abusers is indeed constitutional. And they say that it does comport with the Second Amendment and it passes the threshold established by Bruen. And what's funny about this case is that it was an eight to one decision where the one in dissent was Clarence Thomas, who again authored Bruen. So, you have the justices and the majority saying, oh, the lower courts got Bruen wrong. And then you have the author of Bruen going, no, they didn't, saying, this is exactly what I meant. There is no historical analog for this law. And so, it should be struck down. But the court was unwilling to go that far. They tried to couch it as if they were following Bruen, but I, and I don't like to say these words, but I agree with Clarence here that they weren't actually following Bruen. They were just saying they were.

Jennie: Yeah.

Madiba: And that's okay with me in this case because yeah, because the outcome would've been horrible. But I think that's exactly what the court was doing. I think that a majority of the court said, yikes, we don't want to, we don't like this policy outcome, and people will rightly be furious. We are unwilling to take this step, and so we'll just say that it actually applies. And so, they went through this historical scavenger hunt and found a couple old time-y laws and mushed them together and said that by their powers combined, there is indeed a historical tradition that is relevant here and can, can keep the law alive and as a result, keep people alive too. And it is really just ridiculous that that was the standard in the first place. That they had to go through this ridiculous exercise because they have so tied themselves to this originalism idea saying there has to be a historical precedent or else your legal interpretation is invalid.

Jennie: Yeah. I just don't, it is wild to me that that's the path they seem to want to walk down. Glad that they, like, drew a line somewhere, but man, it does worry me like where this will continue to lead. Like, we've been seeing with, you know, even with the Dobbs decision, there was kind of that, like, calling back to like a little bit of originalism in it. And I'm worried, I'm worried about things going forward. They just now picked up this gender affirming care case. I'm real worried.

Madiba: Yeah. I think that Dobbs is definitely connected to cases like the, the gender affirming care case you just mentioned because in Dobbs, the court did embrace this originalist idea and say that basically a substantive due process like abortion used to be recognized as, doesn't exist unless there's this history and tradition. I believe it's "deeply rooted in American history and tradition" was the way Alito put it. Yep. And this is a setup, it basically sets all historically marginalized groups up. Like, everyone who had to historically fight for their rights now has all of their rights called into question. And I think we are going to see that used more against women. We're going to see it used more against LGBTQ people. We're definitely going to see it used more against people of color. Originalism is basically a threat to anyone who is not a wealthy white guy, because historically that was the select group, the select few that had power when the constitution was originally ratified. So, basically originalism functions to turn back the clock and is a tool to constitutionalized reactionary right-wing politics.

Jennie: There's one other case I would love to ask you about, and I'm so sorry I did not like warn you in advance, but there was a case that was decided on Friday, I think, that I wasn't paying super close attention to that's hearing a lot about how it's gonna maybe start calling how they're going to go after Obergefell. Do you wanna maybe talk a tiny bit about that case? Sorry for the, like, surprise, but it's like in the back of my mind is like, we're having this conversation about how they leave these breadcrumbs and-

Madiba: Yeah.

Jennie: And originalism.

Madiba: Yeah. I haven't gotten to give a case a close reading yet, but my, my understanding from like the little, the little skimming and what I've taken in from folks talking about it so far is that they did basically employ originalist style reasoning to say that an American citizen does not have a fundamental right to have their spouse with them in the country. It was an immigration case and I believe that the person was saying that it was a violation of their rights, that their spouse couldn't get into the country. And the court here seems to have shrugged and said, no, it's not. And this starts ringing some alarm bells for folks because it was a hard-won battle to get a marriage recognized as a fundamental right, protected by the Constitution for same sex couples as well as different sex couples. And the reasoning, like, basing things in, like, history and tradition, that was not the reasoning that was used in Obergefell. Obergefell rejected that reasoning and focused more on dignity and equality, which I think is the correct standard, that we should be focusing on these egalitarian principles rather than: did we use to discriminate against these people? Then we gotta still do it. And so, it's concerning that the court may be chipping away at that idea and as we talked about, you know, leaving these breadcrumbs where it might not be enough to fully roll back gay marriage now but they are beginning to set up to make that path. So, the movement, this conservative movement, like, knows where to go.

Jennie: I mean, it was in the list of things that was in Dobbs of, like, oh, also think about, you know, Obergefell and Griswold and, like, all of these things. Mm-hmm. Like, they are coming for it all.

Madiba: It sure was. And I think that you cannot take seriously anybody who tries to tell you that contraception is not at risk or a gay marriage is not at risk, or gay sex is not at risk because these were specifically name checked by Clarence Thomas in his Dobbs concurrence where he said, I think the court is correct that there is no substantive due process right to abortion, but they actually didn't go far enough. There's no substantive due process, period. So, all sorts of other protected rights, especially these core individual rights would, again, be called into question as was the case with what Bruen did to gun laws Dobbs can do for all rights. Basically, all individual rights that we think of as protected by the 14th Amendment. So, I think we have got to take that seriously. And I also think a lot of the same folks who are like, oh, don't worry, like, of course they wouldn't take away birth control. Said the same thing about Roe v. Wade a couple years ago, so.

Jennie: Oh yeah. Got names.

Madiba: [Laughs] You're like, I've been keeping a list like Arya Stark.

Jennie: Don't worry. I see them, I see them out there saying, you don't need to worry about your pretty little head about birth control, it's fine. Not that it was, you know, part of Comstock originally or any of that stuff. Or you already see them going at it, right? Like, you talk about emergency contraception and IUDs just because groups redefine them as abortion does not make them abortion! They are still birth control. Anyway.

Madiba: Yeah. It is preventing a pregnancy from occurring in the first place and ending a pregnancy are two different things. Yeah. And yet.

Jennie: And yet.

Madiba: And yet, you see some of these folks seek to reclassify like an IUD or the morning after pill saying, "this seems like abortion to me." Never mind what abortion actually is. They said, "I'm getting abortion vibes from this.”

Jennie: Ugh. Okay. So, with all of this like bad news and I'm, like I said, really stressed over EMTALA, expecting terrible things. I like to end on, like, a positive ish note, at least. Like, what can our audience do right now? Like how can they get involved in some of this stuff right right now?

Madiba: Sure. Well, I think something that's really important for audiences to be aware of is that as much as originalism is dominating the court right now, it didn't use to be the case. And the same way that originalism became dominant, other modes of constitutional interpretation can become dominant as well. We are not just stuck with this. I think that people need to reject the idea that the court is the sole arbiter of constitutionality, and that originalism is the sole way we can legitimately assess that constitutionality and start assessing constitutionality ourselves, putting forth our different interpretations and saying, actually this is the better way to understand the law. I advocate for this idea that I call inclusive constitutionalism, saying that the whole purpose of the Constitution, particularly as transformed by the reconstruction amendments, is to build that more inclusive, egalitarian, multiracial democracy. And so, when we're interpreting any of its provisions, we should be interpreting it with the goal of making such a democracy real and of making that egalitarian society actually come into existence. And I think that we can and should seize any opportunity to put that vision into practice, whether they be at state court levels developing new jurisprudence there, or in legislation again, whether at the local level or trying to pressure Congress to get its act together. Whether, and I know this is a little, this is a little controversial, but I'm going to say it, ignoring what the court says. In much the same way that abortion funds providers, like abortion networks, are still making sure that people can get abortion anyway regardless of what their state says or what the Supreme Court says. I think it's important to say, to say no to the Supreme Court and act out our vision of constitutionality anyway and do what we believe the law should require instead.

Jennie: Well, Madiba, thank you so much for being here. I had so much fun talking to you, and everybody should check out your new book, The Originalism Trap.

Madiba: Thank you so much. Yeah, this was a blast.

Jennie: Okay, y'all, I hope you enjoyed my conversation with Madiba. It was so wonderful to get to talk to her about the mife ruling and the Rahimi case. You know, both were, like, good-ish news, I mean Rahimi more so, but like we're still waiting on mife for a merits-based decision. There are things that we should definitely be worried about still and all of the things, but it was good to have the wonderful conversation with somebody who definitely knows all of this legal stuff so much better than I do. And I am very excited to have somebody come on next week to talk about the EMTALA case because again, I'm not a legal expert, so I am just lucky enough to be able to talk to some legal experts to have them share their expertise with you. So, big thank you to Madiba. Excited for next week's conversation and I hope everybody has a wonderful 4th of July.

Jennie: [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!