KFF Health News’ ‘What the Health?’ 
Episode Title: ‘GOP Platform Muddies Abortion Waters’
Episode Number: 355
Published: July 11, 2024

[Editor’s note: This transcript was generated using both transcription software and a human’s light touch. It has been edited for style and clarity.] 

Julie Rovner: Hello, and welcome back to “What the Health?” I’m Julie Rovner, chief Washington correspondent for KFF Health News, and I’m joined by some of the best and smartest health reporters in Washington. We’re taping this week on Thursday, July 11, at 10 a.m. As always, news happens fast and things might’ve changed by the time you hear this. So here we go. We are joined today by a video conference by Shefali Luthra of The 19th.

Shefali Luthra: Hello.

Rovner: Sandhya Raman of CQ Roll Call.

Sandhya Raman: Good morning.

Rovner: And Jessie Hellmann, also of CQ Roll Call.

Jessie Hellmann: Hi there.

Rovner: Later in this episode we’ll have my interview with White House Gender Policy Council Director Jennifer Klein about how the administration is dealing with the recent Supreme Court decisions about abortion access. But first, this week’s news. So, the Republican National Convention is next week. I have no idea how that happened already.

And in preparation, the party’s platform committee, behind closed doors, overwhelmingly approved a document that, depending on who you believe, either weakens the party’s longtime anti-abortion stance or cleverly disguises it. Shefali, what exactly did they do and how is this a change from the last Republican platform, which was actually written in 2016?

Luthra: So this is pretty interesting because there was a lot of attention paid to the fact that this is the first Republican platform in decades to not include a national abortion ban at 20 weeks. And so that got a lot of headlines. People saying, “This is really backpedaling, this is softening the GOP’s abortion stance.” But if you look at the text, that’s not really true. Because while they don’t talk about a national abortion ban, they do cite one of the anti-abortion movement’s favorite legal theories, the 14th Amendment of the Constitution.

And they argue that states when banning abortion can use the 14th Amendment, and they recognize that as protecting essentially the rights of fetuses and embryos. It’s kind of having it both ways because while they argue this is a state decision in the language, they’re using the federal Constitution. And every anti-abortion group that I’ve spoken with sees this as a victory, at least the major ones do. Because if you’re citing the Constitution, you’re opening a door to a national abortion ban through our founding documents.

And that is something that they have been working for for a long time. And so I think it’s really important for us to understand just how drastic in some ways this really is. It is not really soft peddling in terms of what they’re ultimately hoping to achieve.

Rovner: Yeah, I think people have not pointed out that this is the first Republican platform post-Roe v. Wade. So they don’t need to call for federal legislation because they have a court that will basically, as they put in the platform, guarantee what they are asserting, which is that basically the 14th Amendment already effectively bans abortion. So the heck with Congress,

Luthra: And one thing that I do think is worth noting is, in some ways, why, and many have made this point, why would they care about a national 20-week abortion ban? Most abortion opponents don’t see that as a victory because most abortions occur well before that. They would much rather have national restrictions, or at the very least, six or 15.

Rovner: Yeah, and somebody, now I can’t remember who it was, wrote about this. There’s a reference in the platform language to, I think I can’t remember, whether it’s late term or later abortions, but that can be defined many, many, many, many ways, not just… I mean, 20 weeks is, like, that is so three years ago.

Raman: Oh, I was going to say I would agree in part. I do think that, yes, it lets you cater to an array of people, because you can either have someone follow the 14th Amendment language or the only other sentence that anything in this realm says, advocating for prenatal care and access to birth control and IVF. And then with certain forms of birth control, with IVF, we still have some of the same people that are citing personhood concerns as their opposition for that. So it’s playing both ways.

And yes, I would say that most of the anti-abortion groups have been saying that they’re OK with this. But then at the same time, we have someone like former Vice President Mike Pence, who came out pretty strongly against this and is really disappointed, and he’s been a huge player in the anti-abortion advocacy. But I think one thing that was interesting was we focused a lot on just the limit not being in this version.

But the older version also had just more language on preventing fetal tissue research from abortions or federal funding from abortions or sex-specific or disability-specific abortions. It’s just a smaller social issue, I think, in the overall platform, whereas I think they’ve really been playing up some of the other things like gender-affirming care and pushing back against that as you can see throughout ads and stuff.

Rovner: But of course, all of those things are in Project 2025, right?

Raman: Yeah.

Luthra: And part of that also is that this is a fairly short platform as Republican platforms go. It’s clearly written in the Trump voice. Detail is not its desired narrative.

Rovner: It’s not the 900-page Project 2025 …

Luthra: Absolutely not.

Rovner: … that Trump now insists he knows nothing about. Which seems was written, in fact, I think almost exclusively by people who worked for him and who I believe plan to work for him in his second term.

Luthra: And if you see photos from the RNC, it’s very clear that Heritage [Foundation], the organization behind Project 2025, has a strong presence there.

Rovner: Yes, we’ll all be watching the convention carefully next week. I assume that they’re going to do the job that they’ve done so far, which is to keep everybody singing from the same songbook. That’s clearly the goal of every party convention, and so far they seem to have managed to play this both ways enough. As you mentioned, they have the anti-abortion groups on board, but they’ve gotten the mainstream media, if you will, to say, “Oh, look, they’re softening their abortion stance.” We’ll see if that lasts through the week.

So in my conversation with Jen Klein, which we will hear a little bit later, we talked about how the two abortion cases at the Supreme Court this term challenging the abortion pill and the federal emergency abortion requirements under EMTALA [Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act] are likely to come back at some point since the court didn’t reach the merits of either case.

But those are far from the only cases that could come back to the justices in the next year or so, regardless of who gets elected president. There are also going to be cases about whether women who live in states with abortion bans can travel to other states where abortion is legal. And whether states can really shield doctors who prescribe abortion pills to patients who are residents of states where abortion is banned. The court by itself could effectively ban abortion no matter who’s elected president or controls Congress, right?

Luthra: There’s definitely a lot of unanswered legal questions that we will see coming to the court. The shield law question is one that I think is incredibly interesting with significant tremendous ramifications for how people get abortion. I don’t know that we’ve seen incredible test cases yet that could become the one that the court weighs in on. But it really is only a matter of time until abortion opponents in particular find a way to develop a legal challenge and then advance it.

Rovner: I’m watching the travel cases, because I mean, even [Supreme Court Justice] Brett Kavanaugh wrote in one of these abortion decisions that you cannot ban travel from one state to another. There certainly seem to be ways of trying. I know that there’s been a bill that’s been kicking around in Congress for three decades to make it a crime to take a minor across state lines without the minor’s parents’ permission.

It was based off a case where the guy’s mom took the kid from Pennsylvania to New York. That was the origin of this case in 1997. But certainly that was the first bit of, maybe we should do something about people trying to travel from state to state since we now have cases where abortion is legal in some and not legal in others.

Raman: We’ve definitely seen that historically that certain types of things that if it starts with minors and things like that, that it can grow. I mean, that’s a thing that they’ve been messaging a lot on with the gender-affirming care. If it’s starting with youth, that slowly the age range creeps up. So that even if this is something that starts just in a few states like with what Idaho has been doing with minors, it could change.

Rovner: Well, meanwhile, the number of states with complete bans or major restrictions continues to grow. The Iowa Supreme Court, which ruled as recently as 2018 that abortion was “a fundamental right under the state constitution,” has now reversed itself and has allowed a six-week ban to take effect. Shefali, that’s going to have ramifications way beyond Iowa, right?

Luthra: It always does. We are now up to 14 states with near-total abortion bans and four more with six-week bans. That means Iowa. That is South Carolina. That is Georgia. That is Florida. And what we know is people try and travel from one state to another to access care. And there weren’t a large number of abortions being done in Iowa. I checked the data after this ban took effect, and it’s a small state.

But we’ll see what we always see, which is people trying to travel somewhere else where they can get care, creating longer wait times at clinics that are under-resourced already, overtaxed, making it harder for everyone to access not only abortion, but any other health service they might provide, whether that is STI [sexually transmitted infection] testing, whether that is family planning services, whether that’s cancer screenings.

Rovner: And we’re also seeing doctors leaving some of these states with bans, which means that there’s simply less care available in those states.

Luthra: Absolutely. We’re seeing people have to go from their home states to neighboring states just for basic pregnancy care for when they deliver, because they don’t have maternal fetal medicine specialists. They don’t have OB-GYNs. And eventually they’re going to have fewer family physicians and doctors of all kinds practicing in these states for the reasons, as you’ve reported so often, Julie, that in part they don’t want to practice somewhere where their profession isn’t fully legal. And also they would like full access to health care themselves.

Rovner: Yes, for themselves or their partners. Well, back here in Washington, it’s a million degrees this week and Congress is back, not that those two things are connected, just mentioning. Anyway, unlike last year when the House basically abandoned the appropriations process, culminating in the spending bills for the current fiscal year not being finalized until this past spring, like more than halfway through the year, House Republicans are in fact moving the 12 regular appropriations for next year. Although not in a way that’s likely to become law.

Sandhya, you’re following the gigantic Labor, Health and Human Services, Education spending bill that got marked up in a full committee yesterday. What’s it look like at the moment?

Raman: So yesterday we had our monster markup. Six hours that it took just to get through that bill to approve the Labor-HHS-Education bill. We had 15 different amendments come up, which takes up the bulk of the conversation. What we had approved on a party-line vote was $107 billion in discretionary money for HHS. So if that were to become law, that’s a drop of about $8.5 billion from what we currently have.

And so this is just the first step because the Senate will put out their version in the coming weeks. We can help and they’ll come together on a deal. And even during the markup, it was acknowledged by leadership that this is the first step. This was on party lines. This is not what we’re going to get when we come to law. Democrats had a lot of issues that they voiced throughout the process about the big cuts.

Rovner: Oh, there’s some pretty dramatic cuts in this bill.

Raman: Yeah. The bill, as it stands, would cut a lot of the CDC [Centers for Disease Control and Prevention] prevention programs. It would cut all the funding for Title X family planning funding. It would cut a lot of HIV prevention funding, and has smaller numbers for a variety of programs throughout. And that has just been a nonstarter.

Ranking member [Rep.] Rosa DeLauro has said that she wants at least a 1% increase over what was there last year, and she cited the budget deal that Congress and the White House had agreed to last year, whereas Republicans had said that the numbers in the bill that was approved reflects what they see as following that model. So we’ll see as the Senate moves and then this should eventually get to the House floor if they stick to it.

I mean, last year we had a subcommittee markup and it never went to full committee because of various issues there, but they did take it to the floor. It’s been a different process.

Rovner: It was basically too extreme to pass last year.

Raman: Yeah. Well, last year they also revised it to make it more conservative. And so that also brought up some issues there to get everyone on board. But this is just the first step and we will see what happens in the coming weeks with what the Senate puts out.

Rovner: One of the things that interested me in the bill is that it looks like these are the appropriators. They’re not supposed to be making policy. They’re just supposed to be setting spending, but they seem to want to completely overhaul the National Institutes of Health: cut the number of institutes in half or more; eliminate the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. Where did this come from? Does anybody know?

Raman: So this has been like a pet project of [Rep. Robert] Aderholt, the subcommittee chairman of Labor-H, as well as [Rep.] Cathy McMorris Rodgers, the [House] chairwoman of the Energy and Commerce Committee, and they …

Rovner: Which is the authorizing committee.

Raman: … Yeah. So they came together and did an op-ed a little while ago about how this was something that they wanted to do and they’ve put it in this bill. But a thing that has come up at both of the markups on this has been that we have not had hearings on this. This should come up through an authorizing committee, like Energy and Commerce, if you want to make changes.

And I think there are people like Rep. Steny Hoyer who were like, “We’re not against reforming different parts of NIH, but it needs to come through that process rather than this,” especially when this is a partisan bill if we’re going to do something as big as that. Because NIH is one of the biggest agencies in any department. And so changes of that grand of scale need to be done through that process rather than in appropriations.

Rovner: And it has been bipartisanly popular over the years. It was the Republicans who first proposed doubling funding for NIH. So it’s interesting that that popped up. Well, meanwhile, we’ll see how this bill fares when it comes to the House floor and how it changes in the Senate.

Congress is also moving on separate must-pass bills, including the annual defense authorization. There’s a defense appropriation, too, but the authorization is where the policy is supposed to be made, as we just said. And as in years past, the defense authorization is picking up riders that don’t have a lot to do with defense, right?

Raman: Yeah. I think that this is increasingly where we’re seeing some of the varied riders related to gender-affirming care. The Senate and the House’s versions both had provisions related to that. I mean, you could see that, again, as the broad issue for Republicans. Even within the labor age bill, we had different things related to that within the education portion. And so I think that has been the big thing that people are watching there on the health front.

Rovner: And abortion too, right? This continuing concern about allowing service women and dependents to travel for abortion if they’re in states with bans.

Raman: Yeah, and we had that whole issue just last year when we had the Defense nominees held up over a hold from Sen. [Tommy] Tuberville over that policy. So the pushback against those kind of policies in the Defense Department, the VA [Veterans Administration], are not ending here.

Rovner: Yeah.

Luthra: What I find so striking, Julie, if I can add something on, in particular, the exclusion of gender-affirming care, is that trans service members have seen what the laws and their protections are really zigzag back and forth over the past several administrations. And there’s something that I think we haven’t fully grappled with or articulated about the implications for that, right?

Because if you start accessing health care that you want to stay with for the rest of your life, in theory, and you keep seeing your benefits change on and off, that’s not adequate health care, that’s not appropriate. Because your ability to access your medications — for instance, is really subject to the whims of Congress in a way that wouldn’t be the case for other forms of medication — wouldn’t really be tolerated. And I think we haven’t fully understood exactly what this means for service members’ long-term lives and health outcomes.

Rovner: And as we say, and their family members. And when you sign up for the military, I mean, it’s not like you can just get another job with different health benefits. You make a commitment. And you’re right, the commitment that’s made back to you keeps changing. That’s probably not great for military morale.

All right, well, turning to health industry news, the Federal Trade Commission is taking square aim at pharmaceutical benefit managers. On Tuesday, it released the results of a two-year investigation that found the three largest PBMs now control 80% of the nation’s prescriptions while the six largest control 90%. The study also demonstrates what we’ve known for a long time: PBMs tend to steer patients to their own pharmacies even when that tends to cost patients more. And the PBMs pay themselves more than they pay independent pharmacies for the same drugs.

After letting that all settle in for about 24 hours, the agency then leaked the news that it plans to sue those three largest PBMs — the ones owned by UnitedHealthcare, Cigna, and CVS — for a variety of their practices, including steering patients towards more expensive insulin products that the PBMs get larger rebates for. In other words, the patients have to pay more so the PBMs can get more money.

Jessie, PBMs have been targets for several years now. Is this finally something that could take them down a peg? I know Congress has been wringing its hands over this for the last four or five years.

Hellmann: So the announcement hasn’t been officially made, but the FTC has been talking about this for several years. I guess they just wanted to wait until they had this big report out to bolster their case against PBMs. But it seems like this lawsuit specifically might be looking at the rebate situation. According to the report, they just have a lot of concerns about how the rebate structure can favor more expensive drugs, more expensive branded drugs over generics. And they think that that’s anticompetitive.

I know they have said in the past that they think these structures could potentially violate antitrust laws. And so if there is a lawsuit filed targeting these kinds of structures, that could chip out away at a major revenue source for PBMs. The rebates that they get on some of these expensive drugs are really large. In many cases, the patients don’t see those benefits when they’re paying for a drug at the pharmacy counter.

So if you’re a patient and your formulary says, “If you want to access this type of drug, you have to go for this branded amount,” that could increase your out-of-pocket costs. So any kind of lawsuit could take years. But Congress has also been really interested in the rebate issue. There has been many bills that, I think there’s some consensus on that would tie these rebates, basically making them a flat fee versus tying them to the list price. So it’ll be interesting to see where that goes.

There’s been questions about whether that should extend to the private market, and I think that’s what’s been holding up some of the action on this front. But …

Rovner: Rather than just Medicare and Medicaid?

Hellmann: Yeah, exactly. Because Congress prefers to just tweak Medicare and Medicaid and hope that that will change how private insurers behave. But maybe this report, it does have some new details. The FTC was able to access some contracts. It shined more of a light on it. So maybe this report will change that conversation in Congress. We’ll see.

Rovner: I must have gotten a hundred emails from Congress after this report came out and it’s like, yes, you guys have had legislation on this since 2015, and it’s bipartisan. It just never seems to make it over the finish line.

Hellmann: Yeah, it’s going to be interesting to see what happens over the next six months because some of these PBM bills could save money. And Congress wants to pay for a lot of things at the end of the year, like telehealth expansion and things like that. So I think if they can figure it out in the next few months, that could definitely happen this year.

Rovner: What they’re doing on their summer vacation. Also, this week, updating something that we’ve talked about a lot on this podcast; the future of the medical workforce. A billion-dollar gift from Johns Hopkins alum Michael Bloomberg will enable the Johns Hopkins Medical School to go tuition-free for students whose families earn less than $300,000 per year, and will pay tuition and living expenses for those families who earn under $175,000 a year.

Johns Hopkins thus joins NYU, UCLA, and a couple of other medical schools, in helping prevent medical students from graduating with crippling debt that all but forces them into the highest-paying specialties rather than primary care, which is where, of course, they’re most needed. Except that it seems that a lot of these subsidized doctors still aren’t going into primary care. So maybe it’s going to take more than just money to get people to do the hardest job in medicine.

Hellmann: Yeah, I feel like even if someone’s tuition is fully paid for, I don’t know if that’s enough to make them want to go into these lower-paid specialties like primary care. It’s a trend that we’ve seen for a long time that people just want to make more money. And primary care, there’s been a lot of conversation lately about how it’s just the most unappreciated specialty that you can go into. Especially there’s been a lot of frustration around dealing with insurance companies. So I don’t know if this is it.

Rovner: And PBMs.

Luthra: Building on Jessie’s point, we have programs that make it easier to become teachers. That does not mean we have a glut of teachers because of the longer-term underappreciation we have for professions that are quite valuable in our society. And having those benefits early on doesn’t make up for yearslong lower pay and general career frustrations that have only grown in recent decades.

Whether that is because of physician practice consolidation. Whether that is because of electronic health records that doctors find to be so frustrating. Whether that’s just having to navigate patients’ different insurance. And now on top of that, more and more restrictions on health care that you provide. It’s already a really tough industry to go into.

And if you’re going to go into it, there are arguments that you might benefit from a higher-paid specialty and one where you don’t have to navigate as many of these really frustrating challenges that doctors still have to deal with.

Rovner: Yeah, a lot of it is lifestyle. I mean, it’s not just that you get paid less. Even if you got paid more, you’re on call a lot. We’ve seen graduating medical students gravitating towards things like dermatology, and emergency medicine, even, because there’s a shift; you’re either on or you’re off, or you don’t get called in the middle of the night.

Being a primary care doctor is hugely stressful and hugely time-consuming and not the greatest lifestyle. And yes, having $200,000 of debt is a good reason to not go into it. But apparently not having $200,000 of debt is still not enough of a reason not to go into it. Sandhya, you wanted to add something?

Raman: No, I was just going to say that part of this is just that we have to broaden the pipeline in general, and these are careers that take years and years of study and training to get to. So I think a lot of this we’ll have to wait and see that if someone is excited by something like this now, getting up to making this a possibility for them and then going through the training is going to take a while to dig through and see how that data is really affecting people.

Rovner: Yeah, we will. Another space we shall continue to watch. All right, that is this week’s news. Now we will play my interview with the White House’s Jen Klein, and then we will come back with our extra credit.

I am so pleased to welcome to the podcast Jennifer Klein, director of the White House Gender Policy Council. Jen oversees administration policy on a wide range of subjects, domestic and international, affecting women’s health, economic security, and gender-based violence. Jen, welcome to “What The Health?”

Jennifer Klein: Thank you so much for having me.

Rovner: So I want to start with the Supreme Court. In the last few weeks of the term, the court punted on two big abortion cases, one challenging the FDA’s approval of the abortion pill mifepristone, and the other challenging the Biden administration’s interpretation of the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act, EMTALA. What’s the status of both of those and has anything changed as a result of these cases?

Klein: Well, as you noted, the Supreme Court didn’t really reach the merits on either of those cases, and in fact, both will be ongoing. And so I won’t get into the back and forth on the litigation, which the Department of Justice is tracking that closely. But I will say, first of all, on the first case, the case about access to mifepristone, we are going to continue to fight to make mifepristone medication abortion available. As you know, this is a drug that has proven to be safe and effective.

Twenty years ago, the FDA approved it. And in 2023, the FDA took independent evidence-based action to give women more options about how and where to pick up their prescription for medication abortion, just as they would for any other medication, including through telehealth and through a retail pharmacy. And earlier this year, two major retail pharmacy chains became newly certified to dispense medication abortion under a new pathway created by the FDA in 2023.

And so we’re continuing to encourage all pharmacies that want to pursue this option to seek certification so that this medication can be widely available. Because back to point one about the Supreme Court, it still is. While they didn’t reach the merits of the case and they sent the case back on standing grounds, they didn’t actually resolve the underlying legal issues.

So we will continue to defend our legal point of view and also make sure that people, first of all, know that this drug should remain available and people should be able to access it, and then do everything we can to make sure that that is easy for people who actually need access to the medication.

Rovner: And then on EMTALA?

Klein: On EMTALA, same issue. As you noted, the Supreme Court didn’t actually reach the merits of the case. So it’s first very important to point out that currently in Idaho, which was the state where the Department of Justice brought this suit to ensure that women in Idaho could have access to emergency medical services when they’re in the middle of an obstetrical emergency. And so they are in Idaho still able to access care.

And we are going to continue to make clear both our legal point of view, but also our policy point of view, that all patients, including women experiencing pregnancy loss and other pregnancy complications in the middle of an emergency, should be legally able to access emergency care under federal law. The federal law is called the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act.

And what that says is that if somebody is in the middle of a medical emergency and they need care and that care includes abortion, that care is legally available to them. And so what we’ve done, and we are going to continue to do, is make sure that patients know what their rights are and that, importantly, that providers know what their responsibilities are under EMTALA.

So HHS, the Department of Health and Human Services, has issued a number of comprehensive plans to make sure that people know their rights and responsibilities. They have created new patient-facing resources, offer training to doctors and health care providers. They actually created a dedicated team of experts at HHS to educate patients and hospitals about their rights and obligations under EMTALA.

And most recently, CMS [Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services] launched a new option on CMS.gov, which is the ability in both, by the way, English and Spanish, to allow individuals to more easily file a complaint themselves if they have been denied emergency care. The reason that’s important is because previously that had to be done through a state agency, which in some states you might imagine is less possible, less easy to do, than in others.

Rovner: So obviously, as we mentioned, both of these cases are likely to come back to the Supreme Court in the next couple of years. Is there anything that you can do to shore up either of these policies to try to legally brace against what’s likely to be another assault? And we already know, I guess in both cases, the next assault is already ongoing.

Klein: Yeah. I mean, as I said, the Department of Justice is going to be defending our legal point of view, and I can’t really get into that. But what I can say is that we strongly believe that both the medication abortion should be legally available, and is now legally available, and emergency medical services should be legally available, and are legally available under EMTALA. And we are going to continue to do whatever we can through executive action.

This was the subject of … Actually the president has issued three executive orders and a presidential memorandum. The presidential memorandum was focused specifically on medication abortion. The other three were broader, covered all sorts of reproductive health services, including contraception, as well as abortion. And we’re continuing to implement those, every day.

And I will add that today, actually, there’s a new regulation, a notice of proposed rulemaking, I shouldn’t say a regulation, that has come out today from the Department of Health and Human Services, which builds on work we’ve done to improve maternal health and reduce maternal mortality. And what that does is proposes the first-ever baseline health and safety requirements for obstetric services in hospitals.

So separate and apart from EMTALA, which speaks more generally to the services that you get when you walk into an emergency room, what this proposed rule would do is make sure that there are protocols and standards in place for obstetrical emergencies, and also procedures for transfers when somebody is in the middle of an obstetrical emergency or pregnancy complication and that hospital where they are can’t provide the care that they need.

Rovner: So we’ll see how that one goes. After last month’s debate, a lot of abortion rights supporters were dismayed that President Biden didn’t very effectively defend abortion access and didn’t really rebut falsehoods repeated by former President Trump. We know that reproductive health isn’t the issue that the president feels most comfortable talking about anyway. What do you say to those who are worried that the president won’t go far enough or isn’t the right messenger for this extremely critical moment?

Klein: I would say a couple of things: I would say look at what this administration has done under his leadership. I was with him in the Oval Office the day the Dobbs [v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization] decision came down and he was angry. And why was he angry? The same reason we were all angry, because never before had the Supreme Court taken away a fundamental constitutional right. And he has been fighting and asked me to help lead the fight for the last two-plus years to do whatever we can.

And he also was quite clear on that day that the only way to replace a constitutional right that was lost is to restore the protections that existed under Roe v. Wade for nearly 50 years. And that’s what we intend to do, what he intends to do. And he has said many, many times, while the other side would actually ban abortion nationwide, what he is attempting to do and what he will sign the minute a bill reaches his desk is to restore the protections of Roe in federal law so that every woman in every state has the right to access abortion care and other reproductive health services.

By the way, as you well know, many other reproductive health services like contraception, like in vitro fertilization, and other fertility services, are on the chopping block as well. And Republican elected officials, whether that’s in Congress or in states, have been not only unwilling but dramatically invested in reducing access to care and restricting access to care. And so what this president is doing is fighting to make sure that people do have access to abortion and the full range of reproductive health services.

And I think the second point I would make is the contrast could not be clearer. And so as people think about who is protecting their rights and their access to health care, I think that the choice is obvious. And then the third thing I would say is we also have a vice president who has really led and traveled, I think, to 20 states around the country, met with 250 state legislators, state attorneys general, presidents, met with governors. We are here to support the states, which are really the front lines. And she has really led the charge for reproductive freedom.

Rovner: And obviously it is an issue that she does feel comfortable talking about, and does a lot. Speaking of restoring Roe v. Wade, there are a lot of people in the abortion rights community who say that that’s actually not far enough. That even under Roe, there were many, many restrictions on abortion that were still allowed, most notably, the Hyde Amendment that bans virtually all federal funding of abortion. Would the administration support efforts to expand abortion rights beyond Roe?

Klein: Well, the president has been on record, obviously also the vice president, against the Hyde Amendment, would remove the Hyde Amendment to address exactly the issue that you just raised. And yes, what we want to do is ensure that people have access to health care. In the moment we are in, we are fighting that in states across the country, and also want to have a national law that protects access to abortion and all of the other reproductive health services that were lost.

Rovner: So we’ve seen a lot of predictable outcomes of abortion bans around the country, but also some that were more maybe unexpected, including a spike in infant mortality in Texas and graduating medical students avoiding doing their residencies in states with abortion bans. Are you working on policies to address those issues? I guess you mentioned infant mortality already.

Klein: Yes. We’re very focused, as we have been, by the way, the administration released a maternal health blueprint two years ago, actually before the Dobbs decision came down. And we are continuing to work on that. So in addition to what I mentioned earlier, another great example of the work we’ve done is to extend Medicaid postpartum coverage from two to 12 months. That now exists in 46 states, plus the District of Columbia.

The other thing I would say is you raised a very important point, which is, first of all, clinics are closing because of extreme abortion bans across the country. Secondly, training. People are not able to get the training to provide the services that their patients will need in many states. And so we are very focused on addressing issues of training, issues of access to clinics, and other reproductive health services across the country. That’s why we’ve increased Title X funding for family planning clinics.

So the short answer is, yes, we have a very broad agenda. And by the way, this week in Congress there have been several bills introduced on issues like training, to ensure that people have access to care. So the three that were introduced were, first, the freedom to travel for health care, which is obviously another very important issue. Which, by the way, there are states and state attorneys general who are attempting to block people from traveling to seek legal reproductive health care in other states.

There’s another unanimous consent resolution this week to protect health care providers from being held liable for providing services to patients from other states. And third, a unanimous consent resolution to protect reproductive health care training. So those are what our colleagues on the Hill are working on and we firmly support efforts to do that.

Rovner: And obviously two of them got tried yesterday and blocked. And so we know that Congress has stuck on this issue. Even if President Biden is reelected and Democrats keep the Senate and take the majority in the House, it’s unlikely that Congress will be able to pass broad legislation to protect abortion rights.

There has actually never been a pro-choice majority in Congress while a Democrat was in the White House. So how will the administration be able to advance reproductive rights, particularly in light of the Supreme Court’s decision striking down the Chevron doctrine that’s going to make it easier for outsiders to challenge administration actions in court?

Klein: Yeah, this is not easy. We have seen a very concerted effort on the other side. First of all, to pass extreme abortion bans at the state level. We now have 20-plus states with extreme abortion bans in place. One in three women of reproductive age live in a state with an abortion ban right now. And yes, we see that the courts are also challenging. On the other hand, you raised the question earlier about being frustrated with only restoring Roe.

I think our view, my view, is that we need to start somewhere. And while, yes, it has been very difficult at the national level to pass any legislation to support reproductive freedom, I remain optimistic. The president, as we all know, is an eternal optimist. I remain optimistic that we can do that and that we can get bipartisan support.

Because what you’ve seen across the country in states that might not have been obvious, but when people have had the opportunity to speak out about this, state ballot initiatives, we’ve had states like Kansas and Montana. And most recently there’s a few states that have just put abortion ballot initiatives on the ballot for November, like Florida, like Colorado, like Nevada.

There is a broad range of states where when people are given the opportunity to speak to these issues, they speak really loudly and clearly for reproductive freedom. So that’s why I actually remain very optimistic, despite the odds that you rightfully point out, that actually Congress could pass federal legislation which the president would sign.

Rovner: Last question, there’s been a lot of talk about the Comstock Act, it’s 1873 anti-vice law, and whether a future Republican administration could use it to basically ban abortion nationwide. Congress, as I mentioned, seems unlikely to have the votes to repeal it. Is there anything the administration can do to try and forestall that for a future administration?

Klein: Not for a future administration, which is why our interpretation of what the Comstock Act does and doesn’t do is really important. So this Department of Justice under the Biden-Harris administration has made it clear that the Comstock Act does not apply to lawful abortion. And by the way, four appellate courts, Congress for more than 50 years, agreed with that interpretation.

So we stick by our interpretation, which means that there’s no restriction on the transport, shipping of medication abortion or, by the way, any other supply that’s used in abortion for lawful purposes. And there is a lawful purpose, by the way, in every state for medication abortion because it is also used for miscarriage management, for example. And there are states which have exceptions for rape or incest, where obviously medication abortion could be used in those cases.

So our interpretation I think is not only legally viable, but just makes a lot of sense. And I do think that people should really understand that a future administration could come in with a very different view, and actually have completely signaled that they would do that. If you look at some of the policy papers and documents, it makes really clear that the other side doesn’t think they need to pass a national abortion ban. They think they have one on the books, and they think that’s the Comstock Act.

Rovner: Jen Klein, thank you so much for joining us. I hope we can do this again.

Klein: Thank you so much. It was great to be with you.

Rovner: OK, we’re back. And now it’s time for our extra credit segment. That’s where we each recommend a story we read this week we think you should read too. As always, don’t worry if you miss it, we will post the links on the podcast page at kffhealthnews.org and in our show notes on your phone or other mobile device. Shefali, you were the first one to choose this week. Why don’t you go first?

Luthra: I’m very excited about this story. It’s by Caroline Kitchener at The Washington Post, who everyone should be reading all the time. The headline: “These GOP Women Begged the Party to Abandon Abortion. Then Came Backlash.” And the story fits into a pattern of reporting that we’ve started to see about what it means to be a Republican woman in state politics at a time when the party’s views on abortion are out of step with the national norm.

We saw these effects happen in South Carolina where the Republican women who opposed their state’s abortion ban have all lost their seats. And Caroline’s story does a really good job of getting into the tensions that have come up at the state GOP convention and how these women have said, “Hey, maybe abortion is not a winning issue. We already have an abortion ban. Maybe we shouldn’t make this the thing that is our No. 1 concern. Maybe we should focus on other things.”

And at the same time, you have very influential anti-abortion organizations in the state that are not satisfied with the status quo and want a place like Texas to go much further, and to find ways to ban medication abortion from being mailed into states or find ways to restrict travel. And what happened to these women in Caroline’s story is they fought at the convention to have abortion not be an issue, and then afterward they were ostracized.

And that I think is going to be very indicative of what we will see in the Republican Party moving forward. And it’s something that has come up over and over again; is that lawmakers on a state level are really nervous about the politics of pursuing further abortion restrictions. But also there is a very influential group of people who do not want them to stop. And this is only going to be a tension that keeps coming to a head and very often on lines of gender.

Rovner: I’m old enough to remember when abortion was not a completely partisan issue, when there were lots and lots and lots of Republicans who supported abortion rights and lots and lots and lots of Democrats who didn’t. I think in both cases they’re being… Each is being shoved into the other party. Sandhya, why don’t you go next?

Raman: So I picked “For at Least One Abortion Clinic, Dobbs Eased Stressors,” and that’s by me this week on Roll Call. So following the Dobbs decision, North Dakota’s only abortion clinic of the past 20 years moved to Minnesota. And so I spent a week there in June in Moorhead, Minnesota, where they moved, which is on the border with Fargo, North Dakota, and just looked at the mental well-being of people associated with the clinic and the community and was surprised by what I found.

Rovner: Well, I’m looking forward to reading it because I haven’t actually read it yet. Jessie?

Hellmann: My story is from North Carolina Health News [“N.C. House Wants to Spend Opioid Money on Multiple Abstinence-Based Recovery Centers, While Experts Stress Access to Medication,”] and it’s looking at this debate I think a lot of states are going to be facing pretty soon, about how to spend the massive amount of money that’s coming in from these opioid settlements. And in North Carolina specifically, there is a little bit of a push to award funds to clinics that may not be using evidence-based approaches to the opioid epidemic. Some of these centers, they don’t offer medication at all, which is the gold standard for treating opioid use disorder.

Some of these centers go even further and say, “If you are on these medications, you cannot stay in our facilities,” which is very antithetical to how you should treat someone with opioid use disorder. And then some of these centers are not licensed. So I think this is definitely something that we’re going to be seeing coming up in the next few years about who is qualified to treat people for opioid use disorder and how are they doing it.

Rovner: Yeah, lots of important stories for local reporters to pursue. Well, my extra credit this week is an investigation from Stat News by Tara Bannow called “Troubled For-Profit Chains Are Stealthily Operating Dozens of Psychiatric Hospitals Under Nonprofits’ Names.” And it’s about how nonprofit hospital systems, who are in many cases desperate for places to put psychiatric patients who are crowding their emergency departments, are creating these joint ventures with the two major national for-profit psychiatric hospital chains, UHS and Acadia, both of which have been cited repeatedly by state and local regulators for lack of staffing, lack of training, and lack of security that’s resulted in patient injuries and deaths.

Under these deals, the psychiatric hospitals operate under the banner of the nonprofits, which are usually well-known in their communities, and then the revenues get split. But some of the stories here are pretty hair-raising, and you really should read the whole story because it is quite an investigation.

OK, that is our show. As always, if you enjoy the podcast, you can subscribe wherever you get your podcasts. We’d appreciate it if you left us a review; that helps other people find us, too. Special thanks as always to our technical guru, Francis Ying, and our editor, Emmarie Huetteman. As always, you can email us your comments or questions. We’re at whatthehealth@kff.org, or you can still find me at X, @jrovner. Sandhya, where are you hanging these days?

Raman: @SandhyaWrites on X.

Rovner: Shefali?

Luthra: I’m @shefalil on the same platform.

Rovner: Jessie?

Hellmann: @jessiehellmann on X.

Rovner: We will be back in your feed next week. Until then, be healthy.