SCOTUS Had a Big Term… What Does it All Mean for Health, Rights, and the Administrative State?

On June 27th, 2024, the Supreme Court punted Idaho v. United States consolidated with Moyle v. United States, which called into question whether federal law protects doctors who provide abortion care in a medical emergency. Jessica Mason Pieklo, Senior Vice President and Executive Editor at Rewire News Group and co-host of Rewire News Group's podcast Boom! Lawyered, talks to us about the implications of the punted case, as well as other Supreme Court rulings that have utterly gutted the administrative state.  

Idaho v. United States consolidated with Moyle v. United States centered on the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA), which upholds the right to needed healthcare in an emergency. The case centered around EMTALA wasn’t decided on merit—instead, it was dismissed back to the lower courts. At the same time, there exists a similar lawsuit out of Texas questioning EMTALA’s status against the state’s abortion ban. Other Supreme Court cases that will undoubtedly impact the health and rights of Americans include Grants Pass v. Johnson and Chevron U.S.A Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council. Grants Pass, in short, criminalizes and fines those without shelter—which particularly impacts queer youth, those facing domestic violence, people with disabilities, people with mental health issues, and youth who have aged out of foster care systems. Chevron takes deference and administrative decision-making power away from federal agencies and gives it instead to judges.

Links from this episode

Jessica Mason Pieklo on Twitter
Rewire.News on Twitter
Rewire.News on Facebook
More information on Grants Pass v. Johnson
More information on Chevron U.S.A Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council

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 just like a little heads up for the interview—I think it was like pretty okay, but like my allergies are like really acting up or something like that and I've had a really bad cough for the last couple days, so we'll probably edit around it and I don't think it was like too bad, but just if my voice sounds a little weird this week, that is what is going on. I feel really good. I just man, this cough just came outta nowhere, not a fan. And then I think maybe just like one other bit of housekeeping is, I think I mentioned on here before, we have some giveaways for anybody who donates to us right now. So, if you give $25 on our website, you get, we have some amazing stickers done by Liberal Jane—"fund abortions, fight evil," "support repro pod-cats," "reproductive rights are human rights" and "slash the patriarchy." They're all super cute. I highly recommend you'll get all four stickers in a really cute postcard. If you give at $50, you'll get all the stickers. Plus a really fun bag that says "abortion is a human right, not a dirty word." So yeah, so if those are the things you get at a $25 and $50 level, if you love the podcast, it would be wonderful to support us. So, thank you. And then I'm just like really looking, I'm recording this on July 3rd because I'm getting ready for a long weekend. I hope everybody else has had a wonderful long weekend. So, I'm still looking forward to mine right now since I'm recording in advance. I don't really have anything big planned, like, out and partying and going and doing things, like, I am not really that person. But also I live on an upper level of my building so when people shoot fireworks off behind me, they're really loud in my unit. And so, my kitties, like, freak out and so they kind of go between hiding under my bed and coming and snuggling against me and, like, back and forth they're just like really restless and it's a really long weekend for them. So, I try to make sure I'm home at night so that they have me to, like go to for comfort. So, my plan is to be around. So I think on the fourth my plan is to probably watch Independence Day. 'Cause, like, what is the 4th of July without Will Smith and Jeff Goldbloom fighting aliens? Like, perfect. And then I generally feel like, I don't know what it is about the 4th of July weekend that just screams, I need to watch all of the Hollywood big summer-y blockbusters. So, like, I feel like there's gonna be some Jurassic Park thrown in and some other, like, big fancy summer blockbuster movies and I'm really looking forward to it. It's gonna be pretty chill. Probably do some reading and, like, run some errands during the day and then watch Hollywood Blockbusters at night with the kitties like panicking with fireworks. Mostly sounds fun minus the kitties panicking thing, but like it should be a fun long weekend. I think with that, maybe let's turn to this week's interview because I am really excited even if it is a little dark and depressing; sorry y'all, but listen, we're talking about SCOTUS so, like, it's not like there was a lot of bright and happy to talk about. So yeah, this is what, this is what you're getting. But I couldn't think of a better person to talk about all of the terrible with than Jessica Mason Pieklo with Rewire News Group to talk to us about, we're gonna talk about EMTALA, we're gonna talk about the Grants Pass case and basically the utter destruction of the administrative state. So, like I said, it's kind of a depressing episode because everything was not great, but it's a really important episode to understand what all of these decisions, because especially the destruction of the administrative state ones, like they're gonna have some really far reaching consequences that it's really important we're talking about. So anyway, I am very excited. I had so much fun talking to Jess about all of the terrible things. So, let's go to my interview with Jess.

Jennie: Hi Jess! Thank you so much for being here today.

Jess: Oh, thanks so much for having me back. Always a pleasure.

Jennie: Always love having you here. Before I get all excited and, like, just jump into the conversation, which I definitely want to do, would you like to take a second and introduce yourself and include your pronouns?

Jess: Oh, sure. I'm Jess Pieklo, I use she/her pronouns and I am the executive editor at Rewire News Group and co-host of the Boom Lord podcast with the lovely Imani Gandy.

Jennie: And y'all like Jess and Imani are like the first place I turned to to get, like, all my legal repro news and never miss an episode of the podcast. So, like, I can sound intelligent when I talk to y'all.

Jess: Oh, thank you. Mutual admiration society. Truly. We've been in it for a while, these shows. Yours and mine.

Jennie: Yeah. Oof. So long. Okay, so I guess I have a couple cases I would love to talk to you about today, but I think before we get into the EMTALA decision, maybe we need to do a couple short framing things of, like, what is EMTALA before we talk about the decision.

Jess: Sure. So, EMTALA is a federal statute that was passed during the Reagan years. I give some of that context 'cause I think it's important when we talk about what the courts prepared to do to it. But it was first pass during the Reagan years designed to prevent hospitals from patient dumping that at its very basic level is what it is and it requires hospitals that receive Medicare funding to provide emergent and stabilizing care to patients who show up in their emergency rooms. And the Biden administration reminded states that enacted very strict abortion bans in the wake of Dobbs, that that emergent and stabilizing care under EMTALA can include abortion. And that kicked off a large fight, which went up to the Supreme Court and then got punted and we will likely get to do all over again next term.

Jennie: Oh good. I was definitely not stressed enough about that already.

Jess: [Laughs] Sorry.

Jennie: Ugh. Okay, so what happened? Like, this seems such a- I mean obvious like yeah, don't let people die, right? I don't know. Or, like, their health suffer. It feels like it should have been an easy decision and, like, federal law supersedes state law.

Jess: Yeah.

Jennie: But, like, what happened? Jess: That's an excellent question and really an excellent setup, you know, because I gave the very broad overview and EMTALA is the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act. So, pregnancy and labor is conceptualized in the statute in even its title. And so, what happened here is Idaho, in the wake of the Dobbs decision, passed one of the most restrictive abortion bans in the country. And like I mentioned, the Biden administration had issued this guidance through HHS that reminded states and hospitals receiving Medicare funding of their responsibility. The case went up to the Supreme Court while a parallel lawsuit was pending in Texas. And we can talk about that when we talk about some of the what's next stuff. And at the heart of the claim was that Idaho could still enforce its total abortion ban despite what the Biden administration had said EMTALA required. And so, it really is a setup of a fight between the power of state abortion bans versus the federal government's ability to step in and supersede that which- it's been a while I think since folks really thought of Schoolhouse Rock, but this is really foundational principles of separation of power and federalism that we're talking about, which is the relationship between state power and federal power. And that used to be much clearer before Dobbs because thanks to Roe for all its faults, it at least created a clear line that said there is a federal constitutional right to access abortion. Dobbs erased that. And so without that guidance around federal constitutional rights, we find ourselves in the upside down now where states are increasingly finding the ways to challenge successfully federal exercises of power that are intended not even to protect rights, but to maintain the status quo.

Jennie: And I think that that is a really important point too, because it's not like emergency room abortion care was ubiquitous before Dobbs, right? These are dire situations. And even under Roe and before Dobbs, there were stories of patients showing up and in medical crisis being turned away from hospitals because they weren't sick enough. I mean, Michigan had a long history of this with its Catholic hospital system, given some of the abortion bans on the books. So, like, a lot of things we're seeing, you know, Dobbs didn't make it new, it just made it much worse.

Jennie: Yeah, that's exactly what I was thinking is like all the Catholic hospitals where this had already been happening, but this was, like, now it was everywhere in states that had these really strict bans.

Jess: Yeah, and I mean the stories are that came out, particularly from Idaho, are really very egregious, right? Patients being airlifted to other hospitals. And part of that is because of Idaho and its regional and geographic isolation, right? It's a beautiful state, but it's hard to get to and it's not close to other places. So, it really also draws the attention on the threat that abortion bans place in rural communities because there may not be the same locus of population there, but getting care already is a difficulty. And what did we see in the wake of Idaho's abortion bans? OB/GYNs fleeing the state and maternity wards shutting down. So, it's just a very dangerous place to be pregnant and to try and contemplate delivering and giving birth. It is quite shocking. And to your point, to the Catholic hospitals, I mean, back when I was doing much more reporting than, than I'm doing these days, I was writing about the Tamesha Means case. That might be a name that sounds familiar to you from Michigan. And that was in the, you know, 2016, the ACLU brought a lawsuit there because she was in mid miscarriage and refused treatment on multiple occasions because there was still fetal heart tones and it took absolutely almost going septic and completing a miscarriage by her third attempt at the presenting herself to the emergency room where she actually got care. So again, you know, what we're seeing is an exacerbation of a situation that was bad to begin with. And that really is the fact that now we have so many states with these really extreme bans that before had never passed constitutional muster, right? Like Iowa is now the latest to have a very extreme ban allowed to take effect. And what we are seeing is the decimation of reproductive healthcare writ large in these areas following these bans. So it's impacting all aspects of care. Emergency care is just one of it.

Jennie: So, I think the important thing about this case is like they didn't decide on merits. And so, like, again, in the news it got spun a little bit as like: "good news! Supreme Court protects emergency access to abortion," but that's not exactly what happened.

Jess: No, they punted, they dismissed as improvidently granted, it's called a dig. And what that means is it's a, like, "whoops, our bad," by the court. Functionally, they said they shouldn't have jumped in when they did, which is a weird thing for the court to acknowledge because here's the reality: they shouldn't have jumped in when they did, there was a lot of litigation around this fight that needed to happen. The Ninth Circuit has not yet weighed in on it. And the Supreme Court originally was like, "Nope. Oh, that's okay. We'll scoop that up. We'll take it for us, thanks." And the fact that they didn't just underscores that this is a political decision, this is absolutely a political decision, and I need folks to understand that very clearly because as Justice Jackson noted in her dissent to the dig, they had all of the information they needed at this point since they had already decided to step in to decide the issue, which is: do state abortion bans trump federal EMTALA guidance? Right? Like the court could have decided this on the merit and it chose not to. And why did it choose not to? Because we are in an election cycle with a slow drip of corruption stories coming out of the Supreme Court, including this decision which was inadvertently leaked, right? Imani on our podcast described it as getting butt dialed by the Supreme Court, which I thought was hysterically accurate. Yeah. Just, like, the fleeting nature of the leak here, but this bought time. And so, it's good for the people in Idaho who need care. I do not want to, like, be dismissive or sound flippant about that at all. That is absolutely good because it reinstates the district court order that said care must continue. But now we have a fight at the ninth Circuit and we have in place a ruling out of Texas that the Biden administration has since taken in the Fifth Circuit up to the Supreme Court, but it's still in place that says if you're in Texas, the Texas ban trumps EMTALA, so you will have a lack of emergency abortion care should you need it there. And the Supreme Court has the opportunity to weigh into that case substantively and just by the numbers, the Texas order is more devastating because of the number of people that it encompasses. And so that is another point I think to underscore is that the harm is ongoing, which Judge Jackson pointed out in her dissent of the court's decision to kick this back to the lower courts. You know, we saw in both this case and the mifepristone case, the court take a coward's way out, they jumped into abortion fights after Dobbs, read the room politically as conservatives were having their butts handed to them electorally on abortion as it was unpopular. Even in places like Idaho and Kentucky, abortion bans are wildly unpopular—places that should be strongholds. And then you have the Alitos just sounding like any other, like Fox News MAGA couple and, and Roberts needed to do something. And so we've got some broker deals is my take.

Jennie: So, I mean, this was a case that was really stressing me out and like I was real worried about this decision.

Jess: Oh, completely.

Jennie: But, like, the thought, the thought of having to do this in mife again next year, like...Jess.

Jess: I'm, I'm so sorry. It's- okay. It's not my fault.

Jennie: [Laughs]

Jess: I would've had us out of here for both of them if it was up to me. But no, I mean, I, that's really what it did is the court took the political pressure off of it itself and off of Republicans on the ballot until after the election because between the standing decision on mifepristone and then the like preemptive attacks on the administrative state that came after the standing decision, that will impact how the courts look at this case moving forward. Between that and what's going on around the EMTALA fight, we are really teed up to have another blockbuster Supreme Court term around these issues. Because let's not forget, they have also taken the Skrmetti case, which takes a look at gender affirming care bans. And while absolutely very important for advocates to continue to press their case and to make the best case forward, it will answer the question of whether or not targeting trans folks for healthcare bans violates the equal protection clause. And this is a big question that the court's going to answer. Jennie: Yeah, that really stressed me out when I heard they picked that up. Jess: I have a lot of respect for the litigators on the team who are doing that, and I understand why, why they are doing that. And I think the reality is that folks just have to understand that any cause that progressives care about, whether it's in repro health spaces or beyond, is under significant attack and threat with this court. And the litigators who are representing clients in the federal courts right now are doing harm mitigation.

Jennie: Okay. Let's, like, switch gears a little bit. I mean, we're talking about the Supreme Court. There's no good news. Let's turn to the next...

Jess: I know, Jennie. Let's, I'm gonna come on and talk about books or something next time,.

Jennie: Okay. So onto the next bucket of terrible. Yeah. Let's talk about Grants Pass. What was that and why? Why Jess?

Jess: Yeah. So, you know, a little personal anecdote on this. I got my start in the law as a housing law attorney. My very first job was a housing law clinic, and I was representing Section Eight clients and working at a housing legal services place. So, like, housing law is one of the areas where you folks understand and see the intersectionality of our issues most at play because everybody needs shelter just as a basis. And so with that in mind, what the Supreme Court did this term was to say that states can effectively criminalize not even just seeking shelter, but seeking rest in public. Because while a lot of this was talked about in terms of a camping ban, which it was a public camping ban, which cities across the country have passed in response to a growing crisis of houselessness among folks. What the Supreme Court did was functionally say the criminal law, our criminal justice system is designed to punish poor people and protect wealthy ones. Because when you read Grants Pass in the same breath as you read the Trump immunity decisions, there's actually no other conclusion that you can come to because Grants Pass criminalizes even sleeping in your car in public spaces. Grants Pass criminalizes taking a hot little nap with a blanket under a tree on a Sunday afternoon. And so now sleep, which is an essential biological function as Justice Sotomayor mentioned in her dissent on this case, is probable cause for law enforcement swooping in on your life.

Jennie: There are honestly just like no words for how just fucking terrible that is.

Jess: And this hits particularly hard for a couple reasons. One is just the baseline cruelty of it, right? Like just the reality that any single one of us is one or two situations away from homelessness. No matter how hard we work, how hard we try to save, how good we think we are, life can rip that rug out from any of us. But beyond that, what we know about the folks who find themselves living without shelter is a lot of them are queer youth. If they are not queer youth, and they're also youth who have aged out of foster care systems and have nowhere else to go. They are folks leaving abusive relationships. So, this hits women in domestic violence situations, particularly hard, and folks with disabilities and mental and other health issues. This is really about criminalizing our most vulnerable population at the comfort of a few.

Jennie: I, I just, I don't feel like I have anything to say. Like, this was just like a gutting decision for all of the people that are gonna be impacted.

Jess: Yeah.

Jennie: Just all over.

Jess: And I mean, when we, if we look ahead to what the conservative legal movement, the Heritage Foundation and Project 2025 have said that they would like to see happen policy-wise across the country, this will be exacerbated because, for example, one of the policy goals is to eradicate disability benefits for veterans after 10 years. Okay, well, that's gonna put more people on the streets. Ending Medicaid gonna put more people on the streets. The safety net is so frayed already. It is, I mean, you know, it's barely hanging on by a thread and a decimation of that with then the ability to empower law enforcement to sweep folks up into the criminal justice system. There's no good place that takes us. Jennie: I'll say, I feel like there's just like no bottom to the terrible that is in Project 2025. Jess: No, there's not. There's not. And I mean, you know, they feel very empowered right now Jennie: As they apparently should. [sighs] Okay. So unfortunately this isn't like the last bucket of terrible there was this term and like, we're not even gonna get into immunity because, like, that's its own special horribleness.

Jess: Mm-hmm.

Jennie: But there were a set of cases that just like utterly gutted the administrative state.

Jess: Yeah.

Jennie: Do you maybe wanna talk a little bit, like, I think this is one of those things that can seem really abstract and people may not quite understand why they should care about Chevron deference or like all of these other things. They just seem so ambiguous and not relevant to their day-to-day. So, like, why should we care?

Jess: And even saying the administrative state sounds kind of like, you know, like deep state-y and whatnot.

Jennie: Yeah.

Jess: But the, look, the reality is the federal government and state governments, by the way, but we're talking about the federal government here. The federal government operates largely via federal agencies, right? The Department of Commerce, the Department of Agriculture, Health and Human Services, FDA, like all of the alphabets, those are agencies that do a lot of the actual work of the government and it's basic civics. Congress passes a statute like Title VII for example, and says, we believe that there should not be racial discrimination in the hiring of folks. Federal agencies figure out how to implement that statute that is at its baseline the relationship as it's been since federal agencies existed. And there's a whole category of law around it called administrative law. And it is normally very boring. It is the stuff for bureaucrats, because-

Jennie: It's your favorite!

Jess: It's totally my favorite for folks who listen to Boom! Lawyered. I was an admin law nerd. In part because it's so important in the sense that like, Hey, do you like that your water has limited amounts of lead in it? Thank a federal agency and its rulemaking for that. Do you prefer your peanut butter not be made with 50% cricket meal? Thank the Department of Agriculture and food safety standards for that. The things that none of us need to think about every day has been made possible. Because some scientist in a federal agency got very into this particular idea and they did rulemaking around it. That's how it's been. And the conservative legal movement hates this. They hate it because of reasons...we can, we can do like five episodes on that.

Jennie: Yeah.

Jess: But for a long time there had been a stable relationship between federal agencies and the courts. And that relationship included deference that the federal courts would give agencies in rule-making so long as they did certain things. Did you go through notice and comment? Did you give people the opportunity to weigh in? Did you follow the advice of experts and, you know, weigh countervailing opinions? There's all of these tests, a lot of them are three-pronged tests because lawyers love a three-pronged test. That's all gone because this year the Supreme Court said, we actually don't think that the experts are the experts. We think the judges are the experts and have the ultimate say. So, if you're concerned about chlorinated water, Matt Kacsmaryk is gonna be the guy who's gonna give guidance on that, for example. Right. And I keep going to examples outside of repro 'cause I think it's really important for folks to conceptualize the ways in which this impacts. "Hey, We're gonna have a major sporting event. There's an entire agency that monitors the radiation levels around the Super Bowl to make sure that, you know, we're not subject to a terrorist attack." Well, can they still do their job? I don't know. The courts are gonna have a say on that. Right? So, so that is a disaster. And then they also said basically anybody can challenge an agency action when they're injured by it. So they threw away the six years statute of limitations. And this will be a big deal in the mifepristone case because they're going after original mifepristone approval. And that was long after six years ago. And now the Supreme Court has just opened the door to validate and legitimize those claims. But I mean, you know, I said I got my start in housing law. The place that I got my journalism start is in the Affordable Care Act. And these administrative law decisions are designed to repeal via the courts the Affordable Care Act. So, birth control benefit that is now completely under threat as a result of these decisions. Preexisting conditions coverage: under threat. Prep for HIV: under threat. All of the things that Republicans have never been able to do because they can't actually repeal the Affordable Care Act because it's so wildly important and so wildly popular is now going to be done via the courts. And people need to understand that. Same with workplace safety standards, same with disability accommodations. The things that made businesses grumpy about not getting maximized profit are now going to get taken care of in the courts. Jennie: Yeah. It just makes me think of, like, food safety standards and, like-

Jess: Yeah.

Jennie: And I think one of the nuances that I think it's lost in like, the way you're talking about it, like, having to go through the courts is like, that takes time. It takes money.

Jess: Oh yeah.

Jennie: It takes lawyers, and, like, the agencies are not set up to do this.

Jess: No.

Jennie: The courts aren't set up to do this.

Jess: No. I mean, honestly, if I were a Democratic advisor right now, I would be putting together a full press on court expansion, not just Supreme Court expansion. I'd be like, did you see what the Supreme Court just did? It literally opened to floodgates for federal litigation. So, we now need 500 new district court judges. We need three new appellate circuits and staffed accordingly. And Supreme Court justices that, you know, follow suit. So, 13 to 15 justices total, like, we need bodies on the bench quite literally. But I think it's an important point that you bring up because it underscores the strategy here, which is to break government permanently. Right? Like, the conservatives are not interested in governing, they're interested in breaking government and that's what they want to do. You know, removing Chevron deference and functionally wiping out agency power in the way that they did this term is one way they're gonna break government. Because then everybody's gonna be like, "well, the goddamn FDA can't do anything anyway," so you know, so it furthers that sentiment. Now they can break the federal courts.

Jennie: And it's gonna lead to, like, prioritization. Like-

Jess: Oh yeah.

Jennie: Okay, like this case we have to do, like they're talking about just like pouring arsenic into the rivers. We gotta handle this one right now, but like this, like less bad thing than, like, falls down.

Jess: Yep.

Jennie: And the agencies are gonna have to really struggle about, like, what they take to court.

Jess: Absolutely. And I mean, you know, we've seen how hostile the Supreme Court is in particular to the environment agencies and environmental regulations. I mean that is really the big business interests on the Roberts court coming through. And given where we are in the climate catastrophe, I mean these are, like, tipping point events that the Supreme Court is accelerating.

Jennie: And again, saying that they're the experts. Let's just, like, take a little minute to just, like, revel in Gorsuch's opinion.

Jess: The nitrous oxide [laughs].

Jennie: Yes. So, he wrote throughout his opinion about nitrous oxide, which was not what was under discussion.

Jess: No, no. But he's doing balloons on a fish lot or something somewhere, I don't know, like...[laughs].

Jennie: God. It it is very worrying in so many levels and like-

Jess: It is.

Jennie: And again, in that way that it takes a minute to explain. Yeah. So there isn't, like, that quick headline that may, that helps people understand why this is, like, maybe the biggest thing that people need to be worried about from this term.

Jess: It really is. And I mean, you know, I think, and there's, so it's a case in a narrative that is predisposed I think to people's suspicion around government generally. Right? Like federal agencies somehow seem kind of shady and secretive and like all of these like unelected bureaucrats. And if you know folks who work at agencies, they're mostly the nerdiest, like, just put me in coach, I wanna work...like this is their, they have largely always, they're not political.

Jennie: And they're always there, right? Like they're not political. Their job is to keep things running.

Jess: Exactly. And the folks who, you know, I have known at a couple of these places pride themselves on being staunchly nonpartisan in their jobs to a point where I would get irritated sometimes 'cause I'd be like, come on, man. But it's important. It really truly is. Like, we need the scientists doing the science, right? And then the policy folks can do the policy. And they are not the same and they inform each other and they should be in symphony with one another. But truly, and I think Elena Kagan really in her descent in these cases hit the nail on the head with it because it's like, you know, you Jennie, you have a ton of expertise in certain areas. How would you feel wading into, you know, oh, I don't know...

Jennie: Yeah.

Jess: Right?

Jennie: Yeah. Like, so many things, right? Like, I don't know.

Jess: Yeah.

Jennie: I couldn't co-host your show.

Jess: Like this. You do this show. That's great. You would not like, you know, I have some-

Jennie: Yeah.

Jess: "I have some thoughts on, like, an auto mechanics podcast." What? Like, no, but that's basically, I'm trying to come up with the most absurd example that I can to prove the point, which is the hubris of these judges to be like, "no, no, no, no guys, we got it." And have you seen some of the judges that Trump has appointed? I'm just saying.

Jennie: Yeah. There were only one or two, 20, whatever that were, like, the ABA was like, yeah, no, these people are not qualified.

Jess: Yeah, yeah. So we're in for a ride. We're in for a ride. You know, I think we're starting to see some of it even immediately after the court's term instead of things quieting down. It feels like things are accelerating. A presidential election I'm sure is contributing to that, but also just the sense that the conservative legal movement has. That it has the momentum and it intends to really go for it. So, there's not a lot of time, there's no time to be wasting.

Jennie: And, like, feeling like they can go big.

Jess: Yeah. Yeah. I mean even though Dobbs has been a disaster for them electorally, it hasn't really stopped them from enacting their policy goals at all. And I think unfortunately that is an important reality to hold in concert with the truth that people still really support repro and vote on it all the time and vote the right way on it as far as you and I are concerned, but conservatives are still enacting their policy agenda regardless of what the voters say.

Jennie: Because really, like two years post-ops, I did not think, well, I mean maybe worried a little bit but, like, didn't really think we would be talking about: should we let people die versus giving them lifesaving health saving abortions?

Jess: Yeah.

Jennie: I did not think this would devolve that quickly where they were okay with arguing and saying that.

Jess: Yeah. And you know, the range has shifted so that part of one of those bookends is should we let people die? And the other bookend is, for example, should IVF exist at all?

Jennie: Yeah.

Jess: You know, and when we have a Hobby Lobby decision that defines legally certain forms of emergency contraception as "abortifacients," it is not hard for the court to go from Hobby Lobby to contraception bans.

Jennie: And like we've seen it in the case that we keep saying we're gonna talk about and haven't talked about is like the Title X case, right? Like-

Jess: Deanda case, yeah.

Jennie: Like, it's under threat.

Jess: I mean, you know, so, so those are things that I'm really sort of, you know, in as the dust has settled, keeping my eyes on. The EMTALA case was chock full of fetal personhood arguments and language and framings. I expect that to be driving and leading when this is, you know, backup on the merits. Eventually, when that happens, we have all of the conversation around assisted reproductive technologies that is happening right now. But in that is the disinformation around contraception as abortifacients and the way that disinformation is being leveraged into not even policy via Congress, but policy via the courts, the ways in which those arguments are finding themselves cited and adopted in other courts for purposes beyond its intended use. So, I'm a lot of fun right now. Jennie: I know. I feel like that too. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. So I usually end with like, what can the audience do? But I feel like this is kind of a bleak episode.

Jess: I'm so sorry.

Jennie: Dude. I feel like that person when I talk to people about these things. So it happens.

Jess: Yeah.

Jennie: And what was the high point to talk about, right? So maybe, like, what is giving you hope right now? And it can be personal, it can be like work, it can be both. Like, what is like that thing that's like getting you through?

Jess: I really, I mean, I really truly believe that joy is an act of resistance in these times. So finding things that feel joyful and hopeful are really important. On a personal level, I am very happy because here in Colorado it's the start of stone fruit season. And folks who know me on social media know that I am a little obsessive about my stone fruits, all of them. I love them all. And so this is just good. I'm a food person, I'm a Taurus, I'm driven by all of that. So I'm just really enjoying the time right now to be in my community with folks in my backyard working on shoring up what we can here because then I know we said we weren't gonna do what, what can folks do?

Jennie: Always happy to have it.

Jess: But bleeding into that like, but truly this is a time for investing in community because community care is going to be the most important across the board. There are large policy problems that are not gonna get solved in a day or an election. And so making sure that the people who you love and the communities that you love are well resourced and taken care of and however you can contribute to that is always a really useful time. I am also enjoying all of the summer pop music right now-

Jennie: Nice.

Jess: -that's going on. Later this month I get to take my daughter to her first pop girl concert at Olivia Rodrigo.

Jennie: That's fun.

Jess: So, that's fun. And so yeah, just really trying to like, take some of those moments and, you know, consistently drawing inspiration and just kind of like ongoing awe at the folks who are keeping clinics open, getting patients care, getting patients home safely, making sure they feel love and cared for. Like, the community around abortion care is really just grounded so much in radical love that it is, it's a good place to be.

Jennie: I'm a huge fan of stone fruit season. I grew up with my mom always getting like a box of Colorado Peaches every summer. So, I’m excited.

Jess: It’s a good bumper crop this year. We were very concerned, but they are saying that it's even gonna be early for, for Palisades this year. So super excited.

Jennie: So exciting!

Jess: You can see like exciting your listeners can't but I'm literally like beaming because [laughs].

Jennie: So, I got a Fruit of the Month club.

Jess: [Gasps]

Jennie: And yeah, so excited.

Jess: This is great. Where did you get this?

Jennie: I, so I did like the Harry and David one 'cause, one, the pears.

Jess: Yeah.

Jennie: And so I did one where you get two fruits a month. And so, I just got this July's, which was Rainier cherries and then, like, dark cherries and like...

Jess: Oh yeah.

Jennie: I'm, like, inhaling them. But last month I had plums and apricots and the apricots came and were bad and I was really bummed. And so like, I messaged them and they're like, oh, we're so sorry. Let's send, we'll send you like a new thing. We can't do that, but we can do double next month. So, I am getting two boxes of nectarines and peaches next month and I am so excited.

Jess: That is wonderful.

Jennie: I know. So, that's giving me joy right now. Plus a trip planned to Wisconsin to see my mom next month for like a week.

Jess: Oh, that'll be great.

Jennie: And yeah, just like what you said, like, watching the work done on the ground, following the abortion funds that are doing the work and watching the ballot initiative things moving forward, all of those things are giving me hope by seeing all the things that are happening on the ground that help focus on people, making sure that people are getting the care they need even as other things are terrible. Like, that gives me hope. And, like, thinking through, like you said, the people who are doing the work, like in the clinics, like, this is the part I can do. Yeah. The thought of being in a clinic and, like, having to turn someone away and like dealing with all of that. Like, I don't think I could emotionally do that. Like, I think that would break me. Right. So like I'm always in awe of people who can do that work because it is such important work to help them find the care they need even if they're unable to provide it.

Jess: Absolutely. And you know, like Imani and I try to say on the podcast, everybody has a lane.

Jennie: Yep.

Jess: And don't, you know, just, just be, and we are grateful when folks are in their lane contributing as they can. And, and so try not to be stressed that you're not doing enough or you're not doing this or, or am I doing it correctly?

Jennie: Oh God, I'm so terrible at that.

Jess: This is generational repair. We are in it for a long haul and many of us may not even be around to see the gains that get made and that's okay. That's not why we're doing it.

Jennie: Okay. Jess, as always so much fun talking to you about really terrible, terrible things.

Jess: Yeah.

Jennie: One day it'll be fun. Yes!

Jess: One day we will have a conversation. Yeah. That is just gonna be-

Jennie: Have you read this? Book's delightful.

Jess: Like we really will. "Oh My God, check out this bop of a tune." Like, yes.

Jennie: Thank you for being here. And yeah, it's always a joy.

Jess: Thank you so much for having me back and thank you for all the work you're doing.

Jennie: Okay y'all, I hope you enjoyed the conversation with Jess. Like I said, I love talking to her about all of the terrible things. There's just not a better person to talk to when it comes to all of the Supreme Court stuff. To have that, you know, matches my anxiety level with all of these things. So, thank you Jess for doing this. Always appreciate talking to you. And with that 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 reprofightback.com. Thanks all!