The Positive Gene Podcast: Your Genes Shouldn’t Be Patented: The Urgent Fight Over PERA with FORCE Public Policy Leader, Lisa Schlager

---

(Links mentioned in the Episode are location at the bottom of the page)

Welcome back to the Positive Gene Podcast. This is your host, Sara Kavanaugh, previvor, advocate, parent, and someone who believes deeply in staying informed and empowered, especially when it comes to our health.

So today's episode is arriving outside of my normal publishing schedule, and this is very intentional. What we're going to talk about today is both urgent and time sensitive.

Decisions are happening right now in Congress and they have the potential to affect millions of people who rely on genetic testing for cancer risk, precision medicine, and early detection, including families like mine. Now, I didn't want to wait until the next scheduled episode because this conversation needs to happen now while there's still time to understand what's at stake and how to act.

In 2013, the Supreme Court ruled that human genes like BRCA1 and BRCA2 cannot be patented. That ruling opened the door to competition, dramatically lowering the cost of genetic testing and helping more people catch cancer early. But today, Congress is considering the Patent Eligibility Restoration Act, also known as PERA, a bill that would overturn 150 years of legal precedent and allow companies to once again patent human genes. If this passes, a single company could control testing for specific genes, block research, raise prices and limit patient access to life saving information. Now, somebody living with Lynch Syndrome and CHEK2, this isn't a theoretical issue for me. It affects my medical care, my children's future and the future of countless families trying to stay ahead of hereditary cancer risk.

And with Congress heading into holiday recess, the timing is critical. Now that's why I've invited today's guest, Lisa Schlager, Vice President of Public Policy at FORCE, to help us understand what is happening, what's at risk, and what all of us can do right now.

Lisa, welcome to the show.

Lisa Schlager:

Thanks so much, Sara. I really appreciate it.

Sara:

Thank you. I'm grateful to have this conversation, especially now as this is really an important moment. So let's start at the beginning for listeners who may be hearing this for the first time. What is the Patent Eligibility Restoration Act in plain language? And why is FORCE so concerned about it?

Lisa:

Thank you for asking and thank you for shining the light on this. So for those who have not heard of it, and I expect most people haven't, the Patent Eligibility Restoration Act, or PERA, is a piece of legislation that's been introduced both in the House and Senate that basically is striving to evolve or modernize Section 101 of U.S. patent law.

So that section of patent law is where things like gene patents and other types of things reside, the laws around that, the guidelines around that. And the rationale essentially is that there have been a few court cases where the judges have said, we need a little clarification here because the current statute isn't clear enough, statute. And in other cases, we suspect that industry, certain members of the biopharmaceutical industry and others are interested in having the ability to further protect their investments in innovative new research and products.

And as we discover more and more about genetics and genomics, obviously it could be quite lucrative for a company to be able to corner the market on a particular biomarker, for instance, or some other type of DNA that's discovered within the body.

So this bill essentially aims to wipe out everything that currently exists in Section 101 and then to replace it. And in that language, which is a little, I guess it competes with itself - In one area, it says you can't patent products of nature and human DNA. And then it goes on later to say, but if you have to purify it or if you have to use a machine to evaluate it, then it becomes patent eligible. Well, you can't see DNA with the naked eye.  You must isolate it to look at it and purify it for that matter. And then you need to use a microscope or some type of other machine to look at it.

So that's why we're so concerned because if you read it at first look, it seems like it's maintaining the current landscape. But if you dig deeper, unfortunately, it contradicts itself and it opens us up to the possibility that we might once again have patents and silos on particular parts of our DNA or things that are happening genetically within the body.

Sara:

So let's make this real for the people who rely on genetic testing, like myself, if PERA passes, how would it affect everyday families navigating hereditary cancer risk, maybe rare diseases, what's really at stake here for us individually, and as families?

Lisa:

So it's interesting to note that one of the arguments has been that the whole human genome has been sequenced. So there can't be anything new to discover, right? Well, that's not really the case because while the genome has been sequenced, there's certain parts of that genome that we don't really know much about. And we're still learning and discovering and researchers and scientists are working hard to connect certain parts of that genome to certain things that happen in the human body. And they may increase risk of disease or cause other conditions. So there's certainly much to be learned and much that could be discovered as we move forward.

The other thing to consider is something like a biomarker. So for instance, if you get cancer, they have discovered certain biomarkers react well to certain therapies or if, for instance, you're at risk of Alzheimer's disease, they've now discovered that there are certain biomarkers in the blood up to 10 to 20 years before you actually have symptoms.

Now imagine if a company is able to patent one of those biomarkers, for instance, and you want to go in and get testing to see if you might have increased risk of any diseases. Well, if they have the patent on that particular gene or biomarker, they don't have to allow anyone else to test for that particular marker in your blood. So in fact, you might go and have panel testing, which is commonplace these days where they test for multiple gene mutations or multiple biomarkers in a particular area, whether it be cancer or other types of diseases.

But that particular one might not be included because maybe the patent holders decide they want to maintain exclusivity. And so therefore, that panel that you take isn't really comprehensive. On the flip side, maybe they allow someone to put that in their test, but then they charge licensing fees. And that raises prices.

So ultimately, it's a negative for the patient no matter how you look at it because either prices go up or you have limits around what you can test for and who you go to for the testing. None of us wants to have to go to multiple companies and have to do multiple tests for a particular type of condition or disease. We want to have a one and done. Under this scenario that wouldn't exactly, it wouldn't facilitate that type of approach to things.

Sara:

Yeah, absolutely. When I first got my genetic testing, I didn't really understand what that, kind of, landscape looked like. I mean, we were testing for cancers primarily because I just wanted to understand my breast cancer risk. You know, obviously, it led to a whole different level of discovery, but I didn't even understand what they were testing for much less understand what Lynch Syndrome was or what a CHEK2 mutation was. But now putting it into perspective for me to say like, if somebody had patented the CHEK2 gene, I guess I want to sort of make this real for me.

Lisa:

I can give you a great example - if you wanted to test for the CHEK2 gene, but it was patented, you might go and have testing for a lot of other mutations, which includes Lynch Syndrome. But then CHEK2 might not be included in that test. So one of two things could happen. Either you wouldn't be tested for CHEK2 and therefore you wouldn't have the information and the knowledge about your mutation or you would have to proactively seek out additional testing, which is highly unlikely unless somebody suspects that you really might have that mutation because CHEK2 runs in your family or something. it really creates a challenging landscape for testing.

And I'll just piggyback on this by saying that this is personal as well as professional for me. I carry a BRCA1 genetic mutation. And when I had my testing, this was genetic testing was still very new. And in fact, one company did have the patent on the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes. And so it was very limited access. The prices were high. I happened to test through research. So that was a benefit to me. But it also took three months to get my results. And there were no other options for testing. That was it. And there was no other testing for other genes at the same time either. Because again, it was, you know, the focus was these genes and this company. And that doesn't really bode well for patient information and for patients getting what they need to be proactive with their health.

And so we really want to be conscientious about ensuring broad access to whatever tests are available and to the most comprehensive testing that you can get. And if we have silos, that's just not going to be the case.

Sara:

Yeah, exactly. And thank you for sharing your own experience with that because it's really interesting that you had it at a time when it was very early in this process. And for me, like I said, my testing was done a bit narrowly focused to look at my breast cancer risk. And it turns out I had an even higher endometrial and colon cancer risk because I had a comprehensive panel.

Lisa:

Right. If they had only tested you for breast cancer related genes, your Lynch Syndrome test would not have been included. And that's why we're learning so much because we have these visions of what these mutations are associated with, what types of cancers. And the more we test with broader panels, the more we learn that those lines are not so clear and that there's a lot of crossover between the different mutations. And it really helps us grow our knowledge base by finding out, you know, who carries which mutations that may not fit into what we think is the traditional mold of the cancers that might have been associated with that mutation.

Sara:

Yeah, absolutely. I mean, even using your BRCA1 mutation, have an increased risk of, pancreatic?

Lisa:

Yes, it's breast, ovarian, prostate, pancreatic, and melanoma at this point, but there's also some other more rare ones that people don't really think about much. So yes, it's super important as we move forward with genetics and genomics to help facilitate those broader panels so that it increases our knowledge, but it also, for science, but also our ability to be more proactive with our health.

Sara:

Well, for families like mine, whether we are previvors because we tested or considered previvors because of family history, or even those who don't know their status, what are some of the emotional and practical consequences of this that we might need to understand?

Lisa:

Well, it really comes down to accessibility. So, you know, if prices go up because a particular gene or biomarker is patented, then it costs more money. And obviously that limits access sometimes because cost is definitely a barrier. If that particular mutation or biomarker can't be included in a panel, then that hinders awareness of having that mutation that that information might benefit someone. And even now, the system isn't perfect. We do sometimes have different labs that classify variants of uncertain significance, for instance. That's when they discover something different in the DNA and they're not sure what it means to a "VUS" or variant of uncertain significance is studied further and then typically reclassified. And, you know, when you have one lab that says, well, we've decided this does, this is associated with higher risk of disease, but then you have others that are saying, well, we're not so sure. You have that disconnect and that can be really hard when somebody was tested through one lab and they're told, you're high risk of this disease. And then family members or other people with that same variant are told, no, we don't know what this is yet. And you can imagine that the emotional distress of, well, you know, is this associated with disease or not? What, you know, should I be doing something or not? And so having the definitive knowledge and the ability to test for all the mutations that we know of at this point that are meaning there's something you can potentially do about it as far as risk management or disease management, that can make a huge difference. And so this is why we are big advocates for the panel testing.

For someone like you, if you only tested for a very limited panel, you may not know that you have two mutations, which confer very different cancer risks.

And that's why this panel testing and the ability to include as many genes as possible without them being carved out due to patents is so important.

And this is what the environment was like before the Supreme Court decision in 2013. And I was part of that effort. So it's so strange that we're revisiting this now.

But the Supreme Court ruled unanimously that this is something that shouldn't be allowed. And these are things that occur naturally in the body. It's not something that anyone has created.

Maybe they create the machinery or the technology to study those things within the body, but they're not creating the DNA or the gene or the biomarker. And so we want to very much be clear about that and to separate those things so that we can ensure that, you know, just because you isolate a particular thing in the body doesn't mean you created something new.

And there is the possibility that somebody could apply for a patent and not get it because they'll say you haven't done anything innovative. But we don't want to take that chance. We don't want to take the risk of potentially allowing us to be set back to before 2013 when this was something that was permissible.

Sara:

Yeah, let's look back on that why the gene patents were so harmful before the Supreme Court decision. BRCA testing was expensive. It was limited in terms of like not being very accessible. It was controlled by a single company. The competition just wasn't there. It was a monopoly, basically and correct me if I'm wrong in using that term but I feel like, you know, there was just competition wasn't allowed it was cost thousands of dollars. So how did everything change once those patents were removed?

Lisa:

So this particular company was, at the time, a bad actor.And essentially they had patented the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes. And they said, nobody else is allowed to research these genes. Nobody else is allowed to test for them. I think the one exception was Mary Claire King, who was involved in helping to discover those genes. They allowed her lab to do research, but no others. And they would take legal action against anyone who they discovered was trying to research these genes or to develop tests for them. So it really was limiting access. There was no choice of companies. You couldn't shop around, you know, to see if there any, you couldn't even get a second opinion.

Sara:

Hmm, interesting.

Lisa:

What if you wanted to confirm your result was accurate? There was nobody to go to because this particular company didn't allow anybody else to test. Now, I will say not all patent holders behave that way. Many times, patent holders will give licenses and allow others to utilize whatever they have a patent on it still adds cost. Again, cost is an issue. know our health care system is so, you know, everything is expensive in health care. So we want to make sure that we keep these costs down and so the everybody's heard of the BRCA mutations, which is interesting.

But think about it, if you tested with this particular company previously, and you tested negative, you may think, "Well, I don't have a mutation because I had, 'genetic testing'". Well, it was so limited. And so sometimes people will come to us and say, well, I had genetic testing. I don't have a BRCA mutation. And we say, wait, whoa, whoa, whoa. You know, there's a lot more than a BRCA mutation these days. And you really, if you did test negative and you have strong family history, you really should retest with a broader panel.

And so it really created silos for people who thought they didn't have a mutation when in fact they might. But also because of the cost, it really did limit access. And it wasn't like today where we have competition and you can actually pay out of pocket for a relatively lower cost testing like under $300. That just wasn't an option.

And the reason that this became an option is because of the 2013 Supreme Court decision, which was basically brought by the Association for Molecular Pathology. So these are the pathologists. They're the ones that said this is not right. And so that says a lot. If the people who are doing the pathology, you know, feel strongly about this, then it makes sense that we support it. And also the geneticists are against patents as well.

So, you know, the folks who work most closely and intimately in this field truly believe that patents on these products of nature are wrong.

And so when the Supreme Court did rule unanimously that these things couldn't be patented, it opened up the floodgates. Immediately, multiple companies, labs entered the marketplace, offering the tests at more competitive costs. But also they combined the testing for the BRCA mutations with other mutations, which really hadn't been possible before. And that absolutely changed the landscape of genetic testing. We've evolved quite a bit in the past 12 years.

And honestly, the industry is booming. And so one of the arguments for the patent reform is that people need to protect their investments and they won't invest in new technologies and innovation and new discoveries with the current patent system because they can't protect their investments. Well, the proof is in the pudding. The industry has done exceptionally well in the past 10 to 12 years just by leaps and bounds. And we do have some statistics on that.

And we've seen so much growth and we expect to see continued growth, you know, especially in cancer, but now we're seeing it also in ALS. They've discovered certain genes, put individuals, about 10 % of individuals at increased risk of a genetic form of ALS. Similarly with Alzheimer's, and we're going to be finding that with so many other diseases as well.

Again, we don't want to create these silos. And more importantly, we want to make sure that research can take place and as much research as possible. And so that means letting these products of nature, as they call them, be available to anyone who wants to study them so that we can really make progress typically as we move on through time and history.

Sara:

Yeah, well, you've set me up for the next question perfectly. So another part of this that struck me is how gene patents could have impacted something like the COVID-19 response. So if one company owned the genetic sequence of the virus, we would have had fewer tests, we would have had slower development, we would have bottlenecked during a super critical time during the pandemic. So maybe you can help us understand how maybe PERA could slow down research and limit innovation, not just in cancer, but across medicine and the examples that you just gave for ALS and Alzheimer's, which have also been fighting for continued research and progress, which is so needed. So how does this impact us across medicine and public health in general?

Lisa:

Yeah. So I think rare disease is a little different than something like COVID-19. But we use the COVID example when we talk to lawmakers. Just imagine the pandemic hit. We had no tests. We had no therapies or treatments at all. And if somebody had patented the COVID-19 protein, it would have meant that nobody else could research and develop products to test for the virus and to address the symptoms, And so it already was such a crisis and such a scramble to get tests. I don't know. It seems like it was ages ago already, but we had to wait nearly a year for a vaccine to come to market. And that could have been delayed even further if a particular entity had held the patent, because they might have said, we're not letting anybody else to develop a vaccine for this. We own the protein. We're going to be the ones to develop the vaccine.

And that would have meant there was only one option available. There would have obviously been greater, greater need and more limited access. And as it was, we really only had two or three vaccines that were developed here in the U.S. of, you know, three different companies. I don't know where it stands for other other countries. And I will say it is different from country to country as far as, you know, the patenting laws.

But we would have really been in a tough spot. And so while we were able to get expedited approval through the FDA and the CDC acted quickly, there definitely would have been additional hoops and barriers to jump through had somebody had the ability to patent anything associated with COVID-19 or any disease. And that's really what it comes down to.

Rare disease is a bit of a challenge because as the word rare indicates, rare disease is typically associated with 200,000 or less people, at least that's the FDA definition. And so if you want to develop a therapy or a treatment for a rare disease and to get incentives to develop that, the community affected has to be 200,000 or less. You know, developing those products is less lucrative for a lot of companies because they're much smaller populations. It's not like if you're developing a breast cancer treatment, you're talking millions and millions. But if you're talking, one of many, many rare conditions, you could be, you know, 10,000, 20,000, 50,000 people, And so you don't stand to make as much money.

But that's why the FDA has incentivized research and development in that space. And so we feel that that's an adequate counter to needing to patent or protect certain things that are discovered versus incentivizing innovative technologies and therapies to help address those diseases. And we think the FDA structure has done quite a good job in that regard. And actually, we recently solidified that coverage and protected it again, because it was compromised and inadvertently under a new law.

So we believe very strongly that these genetic components should be completely open for research by anyone. But then of course, the therapy development and technologies that go along with it, those things could be patented if they are new and innovative.

But otherwise, there are very nice incentives to develop therapies and treatments for some of these rare diseases.

Sara:

Yeah, absolutely. And earlier when you were talking about the global aspect, bringing it back to that COVID-19 example. I mean, the collaboration that had to happen on the international stage was, you know, such a critical aspect to moving things along and scientists having to work together, you know, where maybe they hadn't worked together in certain spaces before, but they did for the greater good. And I think there's a lot to be said for that.

Lisa:

There is a lot that aspect of collaboration is so critical for science to advance and it will definitely be limited or more or hindered in some way, if if they're not allowed to study certain things because a particular entity, a corporation, a pharmaceutical company, a lab, whoever it may be, has full rights to study that product of nature or that gene or DNA or biomarker. The collaborative nature of things is really where we see incredible progress. And you're right, that wouldn't be able to happen even if they allowed researchers to study this particular thing, whether it be DNA biomarker, they might require licensing fees to do it. And that just, again, puts up barriers because as we know, a lot of our academic institutions have encountered some challenges in recent years with funding, especially with all the research grants being cut, and they may not have the resources and therefore we're losing some great minds and great scientists who might be able to help advance our progress in some of this research and to help ideally create innovative treatments and potentially cures.

Sara:

Yeah, for sure. So let's talk about the timing. You know, we moved this up because Congress is heading towards a holiday recess. So at the timing of this recording of this, it's the day before Thanksgiving in 2025. So that means sometimes things can shift as they're getting ready to head out. You mentioned previously that they're still looking for some co sponsors on this. So what do we know about the current legislative timeline and why it's this moment right now we need to be speaking up?

Lisa:

So let me just give some background on the bill. The key sponsors in the Senate are Senator Tillis from North Carolina and Senator Coons from Delaware. And this is sort of Senator Tillis's, I don't want to call it his baby, but he wants to pass this. And this is going to be his last term serving in Congress, he's stepping down. So he wants this to pass sort of as his final accomplishment and he's heavily invested in it. And so that's why, even though this is the third Congress that we've seen this bill introduced, I believe it's the first time that they've had a hearing, a committee hearing. it's interesting because the bill itself doesn't have a lot of co-sponsors at this point, but because of who Senator Tillis is and because of the roles that he holds in Congress, he's a pretty powerful member of the Senate and he has influence with certain key committees. And when you get a hearing with the committee, that means that your bill has a chance of moving. You might have a bill with tons of sponsors, hundreds of sponsors, but if it doesn't get a hearing, honestly, it's not going anywhere.

So it's a little odd, but there was a hearing on the PERA bill and they had people come and speak on behalf of why it's needed. I will say, I believe there was only one patient focused organization that spoke in support and we've been in touch with that organization and we have to agree to disagree.

But ultimately we have a concern that there is going to be an attempt to include this bill in an end of the year package.

So what is an end of the year package? Typically, come mid to late December, there are certain bills that members of Congress want to prioritize and they want to get those things passed. And so rather than pass them one at a time, they put together a big package of different bills and they pass it. Ideally, try to pass it in one big sweep. There has been some resistance to these big sweeping packages in this Congress, but given that Senator Tillis is aligned with the administration as far as his political party and that he does have influence in certain committees, we want to make sure that this bill is not included then we will deal with potentially with what happens after December and make sure that it doesn't move further in the rest of the congressional session.

So that's why we're acting now. We wanna make sure that members of Congress know that we don't wanna see this bill in any end of year package, that it is a controversial bill. We think it's a bill that's bad for patients and bad for medicine and health.

So that's why the urgency. So this podcast will probably be heard sometime in early December, and that is perfect timing for us to contact our members of Congress and let them know that we have concerns about this legislation and what it would mean for the patient community and for health overall.

Sara:

So for the listeners that want to help, and I know so many of you will, what is the most meaningful action that people can take today when they hear this?

Lisa:

So the key action that individuals can take is to reach out to their members of Congress. We have FORCE, the organization I work with, Facing Our Risk of Cancer Empowered. We represent the hereditary cancer community. And we've set up an email ⁓ campaign through our Advocacy Action Center. And it has a pre-written email that can be customized based, you you can change it to say whatever you want to share a little bit about your story or why this issue is important to you, or you can just send it as is, but you can identify your lawmakers, it will automatically send the email to them, letting them know that they need to oppose this bill, that we really want them to support us in opposition to this.

Another thing that individuals can do is pick up the phone and call their lawmakers. And again, you can use the email that we've written as sort of a script. And finally, I would say if you work for an organization, whether it be a corporation, a hospital, a nonprofit, we do have a letter that is being sent to Congress. And organizations, not individuals, but organizations are able to sign on. And so if your organization is interested in seeing the letter and potentially supporting this effort, we can share my email address (lisas@facingourrisk.org) and people can reach out to me so that we can push you in the right direction to take action.

Sara:

And by organizations, this nonprofits or for profit organizations?

Lisa:

Yes, yes, we'd encourage nonprofits and for-profits. In fact, especially for-profits, because I think their perspective is important in this particular case, because many for-profits are the companies or the industries that might, again, stand to profit from patents, as well as academic institutions even.

We wanna make sure that multiple types of stakeholders are represented and they can see that this is something that is of concern to people from all in organizations, from the bottom to the top essentially.

Sara:

All right, well as we wrap up, is there anything else that you'd like to share?

Lisa:

Yes, so our organization, FORCE, does a lot of work in the public policy space. There are a number of issues that we touch on. Most of them are cancer related, but sometimes we dig into issues that affect broader communities like the incentives for development of rare therapies or therapies for rare disease communities. So I encourage folks to check out our Advocacy Action Center and to reach out if you have interest in any of the issues that we are tackling or issues that we might need to know about.

We're working on things like genetic discrimination and lifelong term care and disability insurance, as well as things like access to care and obviously innovation and things like that. So step therapy and...all kinds of barriers that we want to try to eliminate so that people have access to the best health services that they can get. So again, we just appreciate the opportunity to share information about this particular issue, PERA, and enjoy working with the community to increase access to care.

Sara:

I appreciate you sharing a bit more of that background on FORCE because as you know, I mentioned FORCE often on the show because I'm not only an advocate and peer navigator, but I've participated in multiple advocacy days and joined FORCE at the Rally for Medical Research in DC a few months ago and just love all the work that you guys are doing and really grateful that, I mean, just personally, that you guys have been such a big part of my journey since I found out of my hereditary risk. And so I thank you guys for all the work that you're doing there.

Lisa:

You're an incredible advocate and you have really, I like to say, taken lemons and made lemonade. I think that's something that we can all appreciate.

I will say not everybody feels they have the time or the energy or the motivation to be as strong an advocate. And so that's why things like this email campaign campaign are so easy. It takes less than five minutes and people can do it very easily from the comfort of their home and not have to know the ins and outs of the issues.

So even if that's all you can do is log on and send an email that another organization has developed, that's advocacy and that's, you know, that's taking control and helping make change. So I encourage folks to do that.

Sara:

Yeah, absolutely. I mean, having met firsthand with some of our legislators and their staff, they want to hear from us. Like, if they don't hear anything, no matter what side of the perspective you have, then they don't know that it may be affecting a portion of their population or they love hearing from advocates and patients in instances like this because it helps make the experience real for them so they know what they are fighting for.

So definitely encourage people - a simple thing like sending an email and you've all made it very simple to do that. I've used the resources multiple times and sending letters to my legislators - It's a quick process, you're right, it takes like five minutes. So definitely encourage folks to do that.

Okay, well, let's wrap it up. So I want to close today with a reminder that the fight for access and equity and the right to own our genetic information is something we need to stay vocal about, which is why I wanted to push to get this episode out as soon as possible.

As I'd mentioned, genetic testing, it changed my life. It helped how I plan my future, gives me tools to help protect my kids. And so for many of us, this is more than policy, but we're talking about, you know, survival, about hope.

And then I think even as important is just having that ability to make informed choices and having the access to be able to do that. So, you know, the thought of it being limited once again, it hasn't been that long since this all changed with the Supreme Court decision in 2013, but it's just difficult to wrap my head around this.

But as you've heard today, you know, there's good news. We are not powerless in this. Our voices do matter, as I'd mentioned, reaching out to your legislators. So know, when thousands of patients and advocates and organizers and families and survivors, lawmakers are going to listen.

So take a few minutes today, go to facingourrisks.org and send a message to your members of Congress. We'll have links provided in the blog. They'll also be in the show notes.

Please share this episode with someone who needs to hear it, talk about it with your family, post it on social media.

Every action counts.

So I'm going to thank Lisa for joining me and for the work that you guys are doing to relentlessly protect families like mine and so many of our listeners.

And then to all of you listening, thanks for showing up. Thank you for caring about this issue and for being a part of the community that believes in staying informed, staying empowered and resilient.

We appreciate you being here. We'll see you next time.

Resources Mentioned

• FORCE's Advocacy Action Center - Email Your Legislators

• FORCE's Policy & Advocacy Page - Learn more here

• Find Your Congressional Legislator here

• Press Release on PERA (Thom Tillis Website)

• Oppose PERA. - Prewritten Social Posts from FORCE

• Email Lisa Schlager: lisas@facingourrisk.org

Disclaimer:

This podcast is for informational purposes only and is not a substitute for professional medical advice. Always consult your healthcare provider with any questions about your health.

Copyright © 2024, Sara Kavanaugh. All rights reserved.

All content on this blog, including text, images, and any other original works, unless otherwise noted, is the sole property of Sara Kavanaugh and is protected under international copyright laws. No part of this blog may be reproduced, distributed, or transmitted in any form or by any means, including photocopying, recording, or other electronic or mechanical methods, without the prior written permission of the author, except in the case of brief quotations embodied in critical reviews and certain other noncommercial uses permitted by copyright law. For permission requests, write to the author at sara@sarakavanaugh.com.