FRAMING THE IMPORTANCE OF CLIENT CUES
Abortion healing providers often rely on what clients say to understand their experiences—but words are only part of the story. Many clients communicate just as much, if not more, through nonverbal cues shaped by grief, trauma, fear, and nervous system responses. Learning to notice and respond to these cues is essential for building trust, fostering safety, and supporting meaningful healing.
This webinar explored the science and practice of reading nonverbal communication in abortion healing work. Drawing on neuroscience, polyvagal theory, and real-world facilitation experience, presenters examined how the body often speaks before words are available—and how providers can recognize signs of regulation, activation, or shutdown in both in-person and virtual settings. Special attention was given to differences in how nonverbal cues may present in men, in clients whose abortions were recent versus long ago, and in the context of today’s medication-abortion landscape.
Through practical examples, facilitator insights, and applied strategies, this training equipped providers with tools to respond compassionately and effectively when words don’t tell the whole story. Participants gained guidance for meeting clients where they are emotionally, supporting nervous system regulation, and creating spaces where clients feel seen, understood, and safe to engage in the healing process.
Support After Abortion communications manager Michele Mazelin began by framing nonverbal cues as “key pieces of the puzzle” in understanding what someone is communicating. She explained that communication involves three core components: conveying a message (through words, tone, body language, gestures, and more), decoding what was conveyed, and responding based on the interaction and one’s understanding of the message.
Michele outlined five ways experts describe human communication: verbal (the words we say), vocal (how we say them—pitch, speed, volume, articulation), bodily (eye contact, gestures, posture, facial expressions, and even clothing or grooming), touch (the nature and location of contact), and action outside the interaction (such as sending a follow-up note).
Michele explained that the training would focus on recognizing and compassionately responding to nonverbal cues in clients across a range of contexts—including male clients, virtual and in-person support settings, and clients whose abortions were recent as well as those whose abortions occurred years or decades ago. She noted that the webinar would also address the science behind nonverbals and the current abortion landscape, including the impact of medication abortion on how clients may present.
Michele referenced the previous September quarterly facilitator training, where Karin, Nyles, and Stacey used roleplays to demonstrate how a facilitator’s facial expressions, pacing, tone, and posture can either build safety or shut someone down. She encouraged participants who missed that session to watch the replay and explained that this webinar would build on that foundation by shifting attention from what facilitators bring into the room to what clients may be showing them.
Michele invited participants to quietly reflect on a time they sensed something was “off” with a client even if the client didn’t say it directly—such as laughing while describing something painful or saying “I’m fine” while avoiding eye contact. She used the image of an iceberg to illustrate the idea that what clients say is only the visible portion, while nonverbal cues often reveal what lies underneath the surface.
WHEN WORDS AREN’T THE WHOLE STORY
She emphasized that the session was designed to help providers notice those moments, read between the lines, and respond in ways that better support clients, whether their abortion experience was recent or long ago. Michele underscored that “what someone says is only part of the story,” and that a client’s body, voice, and energy can communicate as much as their words.
Michele quoted modern dance pioneer Martha Graham: “To me, the body says what words cannot; it’s gesture, it’s communication.” She explained that Graham’s interest in body cues was influenced by her father, a physician specializing in nervous disorders, who taught her that people may say one thing while their bodies reveal something else. Michele connected that insight to abortion healing work, encouraging providers to read the holistic picture when verbal statements and nonverbal signals don’t align.
UNDERSTANDING THE “93% NONVERBAL” MYTH AND WHAT IT REALLY MEANS
Michele addressed a communication statistic many people have heard repeated as fact: that 93% of communication is nonverbal. She noted that the claim is often shared in a way that seems to diminish the value of words—sometimes framed as the 7-38-55 model, where communication is described as 7% words, 38% tone of voice, and 55% body language.
But Michele clarified that Albert Mehrabian’s research—the study the statistic is drawn from—wasn’t quite saying what people often assume. In his experiment, participants heard single words spoken in different tones and paired with different facial expressions. Mehrabian then asked a specific question: How did they know what the speaker really meant? Where did they find the cues for intent behind the words?
Michele explained that participants reported decoding intent from visual cues 55% of the time, tone of voice 38% of the time, and only 7% of the time from the words themselves. But the takeaway wasn’t that words don’t matter. The insight, she noted, was about what happens when words and nonverbal messages conflict.
Communication experts summarize Mehrabian’s core point this way: when someone’s words and nonverbal signals don’t match, people tend to believe the nonverbals every time. Michele offered a simple illustration: someone asks, “Are you still angry with me?” and the other person says “No”—but in an angry tone, arms folded, facial expression tense—making it clear the real answer is “yes.”
Michele emphasized that this is why observing nonverbal cues matters so much. We often pick up emotional intent from behind someone’s words from what their body and non-verbals communicate alongside it.
In abortion healing, emotions can override thoughts and the nervous system can speak before the mouth does. For example, a client may say, “I’m fine,” while trembling, clenching their jaw, or tightening a fist. In those moments, Michele noted, the nonverbal message tells the clearer story.
And for many clients, she added, it isn’t just that their emotions are intense—it’s that they may not yet have words for what they’re feeling, or they can’t access those words when they’re distressed.
THE SCIENCE BEHIND NONVERBAL CUES
Michele introduced the science behind nonverbal cues by naming a common experience in abortion healing: a client may be carrying grief, trauma, or heavy feelings, and then suddenly seem to hit a wall—becoming defensive, agitated, or shut down. She noted that these shifts can feel confusing in the moment, especially when it seems like the client was engaging and then abruptly changed course.
To make sense of that, Michele invited participants to think about the nervous system like a traffic light. When someone is in distress—especially around an emotionally challenging experience like abortion—their emotions don’t just live in the mind. They show up in the body, and the brain and nervous system move through different states automatically.
Michele pointed to Polyvagal Theory, developed by Dr. Stephen Porges, to explain why these shifts happen. A client shutting down or becoming defensive isn’t necessarily a conscious choice, she explained. Their biology is responding to a sensed threat and trying to keep them safe.
In the green zone, the body feels safe—often described as the relaxed, ventral vagal state. Michele explained that this is the zone where a person can engage socially and stay present. Cues include soft eye contact, relaxed shoulders, a melodic or calm voice, and the ability to listen and reflect. When a client is in green, they’re open to collaboration—and this is where deeper conversations and healing work can happen.
The yellow zone reflects sympathetic activation—fight or flight. Michele noted that a client may begin to fidget, their voice may tighten, or their breathing may become rapid. They might start scanning the room, looking toward the door, or their tone may become sharper and more agitated. In this zone, the client has become activated. Michele cautioned that if you push for details or a next healing step here, the client may boil over—or shut down. When a client is in yellow, she explained, your role is to be an anchor: helping them regulate and move toward green.
Michele encouraged providers to slow down when those cues appear. Don’t press for more content. Focus on grounding. Use a calm, steady voice, and acknowledge the tension in the room before moving forward. She offered language that lowers demand and increases safety, such as: “I can see this feels really heavy right now. Would it be okay if we did a breathing exercise together?”
The red zone is dorsal vagal shutdown—the freeze response. Michele noted that to an untrained eye, red can look like calm because the person is quiet, but what’s often happening is numbness. She explained that the body is signaling overwhelm. Cues may include a fixed gaze, a monotone voice, slumped posture, and numb or minimal responses like “I don’t know” or “I don’t feel anything.”
Michele noted that our instinct in those moments may be to ask, “What are you thinking?” or “Why did you stop talking?” but she described those as high-demand questions that can push someone deeper into shutdown. The nervous system has essentially pulled the fire alarm and left the room emotionally to protect itself—often from overwhelming pain.
Instead, Michele encouraged providers to use very few words and focus on physical presence and safety. She emphasized that you can’t talk someone out of the red zone, because the prefrontal cortex—the logical part of the brain—has gone offline. The goal isn’t to force an elevator back to green, she said. It’s to build a ladder up from the basement.
In the red zone, Michele encouraged validation and slowness. You might say, “It makes sense that you feel numb right now. We don’t have to rush.” From there, she suggested inviting low-demand sensory grounding—small, gentle steps that support the nervous system’s return to safety.
Low-Demand Grounding for Clients in the Red Zone
Michele then introduced three kinds of low-demand grounding providers can use when a client is in the red zone: internal, external, and gentle choice. She encouraged participants to think of these tools as scales or dimmers rather than an on-off switch—small, steady invitations that help the nervous system begin to shift.
With internal grounding, Michele explained, you’re inviting a client back into internal awareness through quiet presence. She offered language like: “Would you like to just sit here in the quiet with me for a minute? We don’t need to find any words right now. I’m just going to stay present with you.” Michele noted that this can be effective because it removes pressure—pressure to perform, pressure to heal—which may have been part of what triggered the shutdown in the first place.
With external grounding, the focus moves to the environment. Michele suggested simple sensory anchors like noticing feet on the floor or feeling the weight of the body against the chair. She explained that this works because it gently pulls the nervous system out of internal freeze and back into the physical world without being intrusive or demanding.
A third approach, Michele shared, is offering a gentle choice. She modeled low-stakes options such as: “Would you like to take a sip of water? Or maybe just look out the window for a moment. We can stay right here as long as you need.” Michele explained that trauma and pain often involve a loss of agency, and even small choices can help the nervous system reconnect with a sense of control.
Michele emphasized that when someone is in the red zone, they may be experiencing a kind of functional collapse. Whether you use internal grounding, external grounding, or gentle choice, the purpose is the same: you’re offering a handhold—a ladder—so they can begin to climb from red toward yellow, and eventually return to green.
She emphasized that the vagal zones aren’t separate rooms with locked doors. People don’t snap cleanly from one state to another. Instead, the nervous system is constantly sliding back and forth along a continuum throughout the day—and even throughout a single session—with overlap between safety, fight-or-flight activation, and freeze.
The Role of the Vagus Nerve
Michele then named the thread that runs through all three zones—the steady “master controller” that helps manage them: the vagus nerve. She explained that while each zone is led by a different part of the nervous system, the vagus nerve is the thread connecting them all.
Michele invited participants to think of the vagus nerve as an information superhighway in the body. It isn’t only about what happens in the brain. It is physically connected to heart rate, breathing, digestion, and emotional state. That’s why, she noted, when a client feels emotionally red or yellow, they may experience it in the body first—tightness in the chest, a drop in the stomach, tension in the neck, or sensations elsewhere.
The vagus nerve reacts to the “vibe” in the room and shifts a client’s physical state long before they can find a sentence to explain that they feel overwhelmed. So when providers watch for nonverbal cues, she explained, they’re often listening to the vagus nerve—paying attention to the messages it’s sending.
Michele also encouraged providers to help clients learn to notice those messages for themselves. She suggested gentle questions like: “When stress shows up for you, where does it land first—your stomach, your jaw, your shoulders, your neck?” Some people clench, she noted. Some carry it in their gut. Some get headaches. Michele encouraged validating those patterns and normalizing what the body is doing: it isn’t being dramatic or overreacting. “It’s your nervous system doing its job,” she said.
NONVERBAL CUES IN MEN
Nyles Pinckney, men’s healing coordinator with Support After Abortion, described patterns that can be common in men, including silence, humor, stillness, overactivity, keeping busy, and sudden topic changes. He emphasized the importance of noticing what men are not saying. He offered an example of a man admitting, “I still fight with guilt a lot,” while avoiding eye contact, and suggested that providers can name that kind of disclosure as a “small win” and affirm it as bravery.
Nyles cautioned that these patterns are often misread. A provider might assume a man is disengaged or unaffected, when he may be protecting himself from shame, guilt, or emotions he’s not ready to name. He encouraged honoring a man’s pace and recognizing that he may be operating from a yellow or red nervous system state.
Nyles recommended straightforward language and low-pressure invitations such as: “Only share what feels right for you. There’s no judgment here,” or “If you just want to listen today, that’s completely fine.”
INVITING FACILITATOR INSIGHT: READING NONVERBAL CUES IN GROUP SETTINGS
Michele thanked Nyles for sharing insights to support men, and introduced two seasoned facilitators—Karin Barbito and Sylvia Blakely—who joined the conversation to share patterns they see in group settings. Karin serves as Healing Support Specialist with Support After Abortion. And Sylvia is the founder and lead mentor for Arise Daughter, an after-abortion recovery ministry.
Michele explained that she would be asking about cues they notice in clients and ways they respond to build trust and connection.
She also previewed the flow of the conversation: first, reading client cues in both in-person and virtual settings. Then, a brief overview of the current abortion landscape—especially medication abortion. Followed by a focus on how cues may show up differently for clients whose abortions are recent versus long ago.
READING NONVERBAL CUES IN IN-PERSON GROUPS
Michele began with Karin, asking her to think back to in-person sessions and describe the physical cues she relied on to know how a client was doing—what she noticed in posture, hands, and even the way someone walked into the room.
Karin shared that some cues of engagement can show up immediately. A client might walk in confidently, sit forward, maintain eye contact, and nod in an affirming way as others share—signals that they feel present and connected to what’s being said.
She also described how the opposite can be just as telling. A client might enter hesitantly, sit back with arms crossed, avoid eye contact, look down, or appear overwhelmed—sometimes with a shocked or blank expression. Karin added that she also watches for fidgeting cues like knees bouncing or toe tapping, which can signal that something is happening internally.
At the same time, Karin emphasized the importance of not making assumptions as a facilitator. A client’s cues may not be about their abortion, she noted—it could be stress, awkwardness, or simply having a hard day. Rather than interpreting too quickly, Karin said she stays curious, often asking a gentle question to the whole group rather than singling out one person, such as: “What kind of day are you having today?”—giving everyone space to name what they’re carrying as they arrive.
VIRTUAL NONVERBAL CUES & UNEXPECTED BENEFITS
Michele then asked Karin to rewind to the shift in 2020, when COVID pushed groups onto Zoom. Michele noted that Karin had previously described feeling hesitant— resistant—to virtual support, yet later found it easier to read cues in that setting, even though that can sound counterintuitive.
Karin openly shared that she was a skeptic at first. She wasn’t sure connection could develop through a screen, and she wondered whether participants would be more distracted at home, or more likely to miss sessions without the effort of traveling to a physical location.
But Karin explained that the pivot to virtual revealed unexpected benefits. Participants didn’t have to travel or find transportation, which removed a major barrier for some. They didn’t need childcare. Many seemed more comfortable in their own space and more able to find a quiet, confidential spot where they wouldn’t be interrupted. As a result, Karin said, people often appeared more relaxed—and in many cases, shared more openly and honestly. She also noted that for some, it felt less confronting than walking into a room full of strangers to talk about something they don’t want to talk about.
Karin also highlighted a practical advantage she hadn’t anticipated: in a virtual group, she found she no longer needed a co-facilitator for the purpose of scanning the room. In person, she explained, one facilitator might stay fully present with the person sharing, while the co-facilitator watched the room for reactions and followed up with open-ended invitations like: “Hey, I noticed you had a reaction—what’s going on? Do you want to share a little?”
On Zoom, Karin said, she can see all participants at the same time—typically capping the group around ten so all faces remain visible on one screen. She described noticing shifts in posture and expression through her peripheral vision, then circling back after someone finishes sharing—acknowledging the reaction and gently inviting reflection. She added that not needing a second facilitator can also increase impact—two facilitators can each run a group rather than staffing one together.
OFFERING OPTIONS: WHY USE A CO-FACILITATOR?
Michele then invited Sylvia to share a different approach, emphasizing how much Support After Abortion values offering options. Michele noted that Sylvia values a second facilitator in her virtual groups and asked her to describe that person’s role.
Sylvia explained that she intentionally “tasks” her co-facilitator with being what she called a “spiritual spotter.” She described this role as someone who keeps their attention scanning the Zoom squares, because Sylvia knows she can sometimes become focused on presenting the material well and may not catch every subtle shift happening across the screen. Sylvia shared that her co-facilitator has permission to gently pause the session if she notices someone struggling, creating space to check in with the group.
Sylvia described some of her favorite language in those moments: “Let’s close the book,” and “Let’s breathe.” She noted that this creates an opportunity for co-regulation—not only because the co-facilitator may notice discomfort, but because as group trust grows, participants begin noticing and responding to one another as well. Sylvia shared that when the group stops and breathes together, it can lower the intensity and help bring people out of activation. She also noted that, in her approach, the pause may open space for prayer or for an activity—such as an art exercise—to help regulate and bring the “temperature” down.
Michele added that when she and Sylvia spoke previously, Sylvia had also shared that her co-facilitator watches body movements and sometimes initiates a private chat with someone who seems to have something going on, which can support client care and the facilitator in real time.
VIRTUAL NONVERBAL CUES: AVOIDANCE RESPONSES
Michele then asked Sylvia to describe the nonverbal cues she notices in virtual settings, especially the avoidance behaviors she has observed.
Sylvia shared that one lens she has been learning to look through more deeply is a postpartum lens. She noted that many women carry postpartum symptoms that can range widely, and that some are particularly traumatized—especially around their period—because it can bring them back into the experience and intensify distress. Sylvia described how some clients experience flashbacks, and others experience what she called “flash forwards,” where they appear to be mentally pulled into what they’ve been through and what they fear looking ahead, even when they can’t find words to describe it.
Sylvia shared several nonverbal cues she associates with that level of trauma, especially for clients impacted by medication abortion. She described clients fidgeting, speech becoming halted, pulling at clothing, and—one she said she sees frequently—sliding off screen. She also mentioned avoidance behaviors like pulling a hoodie down and avoiding eye contact.
Michele referenced a specific example Sylvia had previously shared: a woman who couldn’t stop moving and walked around for much of the session—something that virtual settings make possible.
Sylvia agreed and noted that clients may change rooms repeatedly, or seem to attend to other objects in the environment that wouldn’t normally catch their attention. She also described one client who used a rubber band, repeatedly pulling and releasing it—suggesting it functioned as a coping mechanism for physical tension, offering a small outlet for regulation.
UNDERSTANDING THE ABORTION LANDSCAPE
Michele then transitioned the training toward reading nonverbal cues in two different contexts: clients whose abortions are recent, and those whose abortion experiences were long ago. But before moving into that discussion, she paused to ground the conversation in the current abortion landscape—especially medication abortion—and how that landscape can shape client experiences and support needs.
The Changing Landscape of Medication Abortion
Michele shared that the Guttmacher Institute reports 63% of abortions are medication-based within the formal healthcare system—meaning through clinicians and clinics. She noted that this includes 27% of abortions via telehealth in states without abortion bans. She also explained that telehealth access can include states that allow someone to travel into the state for a telehealth appointment and receive the pills within that state.
Michele described how, in practice, this sometimes looks like women traveling over a border and doing a telehealth visit from a parking lot, having pills shipped to a hotel or friend in the state, or using mailboxes that can forward medication to their home state. She emphasized that laws and logistics vary—but the reality is that many people are navigating complex and creative pathways to access abortion.
The “Invisible” Landscape: Shield Laws and Self-Managed Access
Michele explained that the familiar 63% statistic often misses a broader, less visible landscape that includes shield-law telehealth and self-managed abortions. She shared that about 148,000 women obtain abortions via telehealth through shield laws—meaning they live in states with abortion bans, stay in their home state, and receive medication by mail through telehealth from clinicians in states that protect providers from out-of-state legal action.
Michele noted that eight states currently have this type of shield-law structure: California, Colorado, Maine, Massachusetts, New York, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington. She also shared that an estimated 60,000 women per year obtain medication abortion pills from international sources and community networks, such as Aid Access.
Taking this wider landscape into account, Michele offered a best estimate that the true share of medication abortion in the U.S. right now is roughly 69%. She also noted that travel to other states for abortion care appears to be decreasing—likely because more women opt to stay in their home state and access mail-order medication through shield-law telehealth.
Michele connected the data back to client experience by noting that medication abortion has been legal in the U.S. for 25 years. That means clients reaching out for support may have experienced medication abortion either many years ago or very recently—and those with very recent abortions are especially likely to have had a medication abortion.
Reading the Map: State by State Patterns
Michele then referenced a state-by-state breakdown of medication abortion as of 2023 (the most recent available data), explaining that it can help providers better understand what clients in their own state, and around the U.S., may have experienced. She described a color scale ranging from 80% medication abortion in the darkest states to less than 50% in the lightest states.
She also explained that states shown in gray represent states with total abortion bans—but that this does not mean women in those states are not having abortions.
Michele added that the white percentage indicator represents states where telehealth mail-order abortions are now higher than that state’s pre-Dobbs abortion count. She pointed participants to the Society of Family Planning’s visual breakdowns, sharing that she finds their 2024 and mid-year 2025 charts especially illuminating. She noted that the 2024 report includes state-by-state comparisons from 2020 and 2024 showing routes to abortion for residents of ban states—whether abortions were in-state, involved travel out of state, occurred via shield laws, or came through international access.
She noted that the data in the map on the slide reflects shield-law telehealth access and does not include women who travel out-of-state for both medication and surgical abortions.
Michele also noted that the map on the slide shows yellow pinpoints to highlight the states with the highest percentages of abortions for women traveling into that state for abortions, including both medication and surgical. These include: UT, NM, KS, IL, and DC.
HOW THE ABORTION LANDSCAPE CAN AFFECT CLIENTS’ NONVERBAL CUES
Michele brought it all together by naming why this information matters in a training about reading nonverbal cues in clients who have experienced abortion: understanding the abortion landscape a client has navigated is part of the puzzle of their experience—and it can shape their openness, trust, and readiness for healing.
She highlighted two key ways this may show up in client interactions. First, women in states with bans often share that they’re afraid to tell anyone they’re struggling—even counselors or doctors—because abortion is illegal where they live. Michele noted that fear of legal repercussions or judgment can increase a desire for anonymity and heighten the need for reassurance around confidentiality.
Second, Michele shared that clients in states with bans or restrictions often describe their emotions as compounded by the stress of travel or the frustration of navigating confusing options. Many describe feeling rushed to make a decision before they had time to fully think through the pregnancy or what parenting might look like for them. Michele noted that some clients carry anger about these landscape realities on top of their other emotions about experiencing abortion—and may often want a safe, nonjudgmental space to vent and let it all out before they can even begin the work of healing.
READING NONVERBAL CUES WITH RECENT VS. LONG-AGO ABORTIONS
Michele then turned back to reading nonverbal cues in two different contexts: clients whose abortion experiences were recent, and clients whose abortions were long ago.
She invited participants to imagine a recent abortion as the epicenter of impact. Some clients reach out while they’re still in the process of their abortion, or within days, weeks, or a few short months. Other clients reach out years—or even decades—after their abortions. Michele described those long-ago experiences as the impact of an event rippling outward over time. The cues may change, she noted, but the body still tells a story.
Michele also emphasized that a person who experienced abortion long ago can also have a fresh, acute impact in the present. In those moments, providers may be reading layered, complex cues—signals shaped by the initial experience years ago, the client’s ongoing struggles and challenges, built-up defenses or coping mechanisms, possible layers of healing or layers of hurt—and then a fresh trigger landing on top of it all.
Michele shared examples often heard on the After Abortion Help Line: a friend’s pregnancy, a new grandchild, milestones or anniversaries, harsh words or judgment, news stories, and other moments that can suddenly reawaken what the person thought was settled, buried, or distant.
INVITING FACILITATOR INSIGHT: READING CLIENT NONVERBAL CUES WITH RECENT & LONG-AGO ABORTIONS
Michele then invited Karin and Sylvia to speak directly to the differences they see between clients whose abortions were recent and those whose abortions were long ago—how those experiences tend to present now, and what kinds of cues show up in the room.
She began with Sylvia, noting that Sylvia had previously shared helpful insights about engaging women whose abortions were recent—particularly the intensity of fresh grief and emotion, the impact of hormonal changes, and the importance of understanding the dynamics of their experience in order to meet them where they are.
Recent Medication Abortion Nonverbal Cues: What Do You See?
Michele asked Sylvia to describe how clients with very recent abortions often present, and what signs she sees most often after a recent medication abortion.
Sylvia shared that she has learned to look through a postpartum lens. She noted that some women may present with sadness, depression, or grief, while others can show symptoms that look like euphoria—appearing overly excited or heightened in the wake of what they’ve just been through.
Sylvia explained that she often sees flashbacks, especially with medication abortion, because women frequently describe the full experience in vivid detail. She noted that this can be an acute trauma because the client administered their own abortion—they remember everything. Sylvia added that as a facilitator, she has to remember that her own surgical abortion was a different experience from theirs, and that she must approach it through a different lens than she may have in the past.
Sylvia also described something she said she has only recently begun encountering: “flash forwards.” She explained that women may become consumed by thoughts about where their baby is now—questions like whether the baby could be in plumbing or in a landfill. They may be carrying distress and imagery that many providers may not have considered before.
Sylvia emphasized the importance of allowing women to share the fullness of their experience. She noted that many clients come without any clear “marker” for how they’re supposed to feel. Some may feel afraid to share their reactions—that they were afraid to flush their child, that they were unsure what to do when the baby appeared on a period pad, that they were not prepared to manage the experience on their own.
Virtual Nonverbal Cues: What Might You See?
Michele then asked Sylvia to speak to what she notices in nonverbal cues—especially in virtual settings—mentioning how Sylvia had shared with her cues such as crying, eye contact, and other signs that show up on a Zoom call.
Sylvia explained that one major cue is the inability to hold a conversation. Some women are re-traumatized by talking, she said, and in those moments, giving them permission to be silent—to not share—can be a gift.
She also noted that discussion of menstrual cycles can be a specific trigger for some women, and that this can make participation in group settings especially difficult. Sylvia shared that some clients may not engage during a group at all because they simply aren’t group-ready yet. For those women, she often chooses to work one-on-one, giving them space either to be quiet or to talk in a way that feels safer and more contained. She emphasized the importance of offering that option as part of trauma-informed care.
“Don’t take it personally”: offering grace when clients struggle to show up
Michele then reflected on another point Sylvia had shared with her: that clients with recent abortions may struggle with showing up consistently. She highlighted Sylvia’s phrasing—“don’t take it personally”—as a key takeaway.
Sylvia affirmed that it can be easy to assume a client is ghosting you or not interested, but she encouraged providers to interpret missed sessions or a pause in communicating with you through a different lens: maybe they’re just not ready yet. Rather than writing someone off, Sylvia encouraged offering grace—”the kind of grace we would all want to have in that situation.”
THE MALE EXPERIENCE AFTER MEDICATION ABORTION
Michele then invited Nyles to speak into the male experience, noting that Sylvia had been describing what women often encounter after medication abortion—and that Nyles has personal experience with a partner having gone through it. Michele asked what it can be like for a man when his partner has a medication abortion, and what nonverbal cues providers might notice in men.
Nyles shared that medication abortion often unfolds in real time, in shared spaces, and in ways you can’t predict. From his experience, men may witness a partner’s significant pain and bleeding, and he noted that much of what men carry in those moments is uncertainty.
Nyles described how, for many men, this can be the first time they realize they can’t fix or protect the person they care about. He named the cultural narrative that men are supposed to be protectors—and how destabilizing it can feel when, in that moment, they aren’t able to be that.
Internally, Nyles explained, men may feel a mix of guilt, responsibility, grief, and confusion, but those emotions often aren’t expressed out loud. He noted that cultural expectations around masculinity can push men toward responses like “be strong,” “move on,” or stay quiet—even when something has clearly shifted inside them.
For providers, Nyles suggested watching for cues that can include emotional withdrawal, over-functioning and staying busy, increased guilt or self-blame that surfaces later, distance in the relationship, and avoidance of the topic. He also noted irritability and shutting down as common reactions when emotions come up—because many men haven’t been taught how to handle what they’re feeling or what to do with it.
Nyles emphasized that many men don’t automatically connect these reactions to grief, and providers can help men along that journey. They may not name it as a loss at all, he said. Simply acknowledging that this experience can affect men too—and offering permission to talk about it—can open a door that has been closed for a long time, especially for men who haven’t had space to share or weren’t sure the room could hold it.
TEXTING AS A SAFETY NET FOR RECENT ABORTION CLIENTS
Michele then noted Sylvia had spoken with her about how significant texting can be, and invited her to dig into practical guidance for providers and share her tips—especially with younger clients and clients whose abortions were recent.
Sylvia explained that talking verbally about the situation can sometimes re-traumatize clients. She encouraged providers to recognize that many younger clients communicate through texting, and that being available by text can create a meaningful safety net. Sylvia noted that texting often becomes a channel where clients share things they wouldn’t feel ready to share face-to-face or even on a Zoom screen.
Sylvia also described a “high touch” approach in her work. With permission, she may send supportive resources—such as songs, sermon notes, or scripture. She also shared that she may send a voicemail to let clients know they are being thought about, that she’s praying for them, and that they are not alone.
Sylvia emphasized that because the experience of medication abortion can be so different from what many providers are used to, she works to keep every line of communication open—giving clients space to share when they’re ready. She noted that this kind of support isn’t always on an 8-, 9-, or 10-week timeline. It takes time, commitment, and intentionality to stay in touch with young women through terrain that feels unfamiliar for both provider and client.
Michele affirmed Sylvia’s texting tips and added a nuance for providers: Sylvia’s suggestion of sharing sermon notes and Bible verse can be powerful when a client is religious. If a client isn’t religious, Michele noted, the same principle can apply through other forms of encouragement—such as inspirational notes or resources that fit the client’s worldview and support needs.
READING NONVERBAL CUES IN CLIENTS WHO EXPERIENCED LONGER-AGO ABORTIONS
Michele then shifted to Karin, asking about cues and patterns that may be common among clients whose abortions were longer ago—years or even decades.
Karin shared that in her experience when leading in-person groups before Covid, many clients with decades-old abortions came through church communities, where they first heard about the groups.
She noted that some people have learned to cope over the years, while others have not. Many may still feel sadness or regret, but can “get through the day” for the most part. Referencing Michele’s visual of ripples from an epicenter, Karin explained that the emotional pain may not be as intense as it once was, even though the impact remains.
At the same time, Karin emphasized that stages of life can bring up new layers of grief and regret. She described examples such as approaching the end of life, living alone, seeing friends with grandchildren, or wishing for closer relationships with family. Karin also noted that some clients may feel that God has forgiven them, but still struggle to forgive themselves—or may want to feel closer to God while experiencing abortion as a wedge that holds them back.
Karin also described a pattern she has witnessed in religious clients that she called “using God as the catchall.” She explained that, for some, faith language can become a way of pushing pain under the rug—“God took care of it. Let’s move on”—without actually engaging the grief beneath it.
Karin emphasized that emotional pain is real and doesn’t disappear just because a person wants it to. Healing often requires working through what cannot be changed, coming to terms with it, and moving forward toward peace and closure.
Michele affirmed Karin’s point and added that they see a similar pattern with secular clients as well. For many reasons, people may push the experience aside as time passes because it helps them keep moving through life. Then something happens—a trigger, a milestone, a shift—and they reach out again. Michele shared that one of the farthest timeframes she remembers was someone reaching out 70 years after their abortion.
THANK YOU & REFERENCE HANDOUT
Michele then thanked Sylvia, Karin, and Nyles for sharing their insights. She also shared an easy-to-reference handout on reading client cues to accompany the training. While not exhaustive, she explained, it includes solid cues to observe and what they might mean.
Q&A
Q: How can providers tell the difference between a nervous system cue and someone who is naturally introverted, or comes from a culture where direct eye contact or outward emotional expression isn’t common?
A: Karin emphasized that the key is focusing on a person’s baseline rather than comparing them to a standard. For example, she explained, if someone began the session making eye contact and then stopped when a specific topic came up, that shift is a cue.
If a client has been quiet the entire time, Karin noted, it may reflect personality, cultural comfort, or simply needing more time to warm up and feel safe in the space. She also pointed out that in some cultures, avoiding eye contact can be a sign of respect rather than evasiveness, and that directness can feel uncomfortable in other cultural contexts.
When in doubt, Karin encouraged staying curious instead of making assumptions. If a facilitator is unsure, she suggested gently asking something like: “What helps you feel safe in conversations like this?”
Q: HOW CAN I TELL IF A CLIENT IS READY FOR A PROGRAM OR JUST NEEDS PRESENCE
A: Karin named this as important discernment and pointed participants to a practical tool: a client group readiness assessment She explained that it includes about eight questions that can help determine whether someone may be ready for a group, need or follow-up questions, or would benefit from professional therapy.
Karin also noted that if a client is fidgeting, overwhelmed, unable to stay with one thought, or emotionally flooded, they may need presence first. She referenced something Nyles frequently says, “It’s their journey and it’s at their pace”—adding that this aligns with that perspective.
Karin explained that presence-first support might look like shorter check-ins, text-based support, or simply giving someone space to vent and grieve. She noted that many people call the After Abortion Line because they just want to talk to someone—to say it out loud—and that doesn’t necessarily mean they’re ready to move forward into a program.
Michele affirmed Karin’s response and thanked everyone for the questions and discussion.
CLOSING
She closed the webinar thanking Karin and Nyles, and special guest Sylvia for being part of the conversation. She thanked everyone for attending and encouraged them to attend next month’s trainings.
© Support After Abortion
LINKS
Click here to watch the video of this webinar.
Click here to register for the next Abortion Healing Provider webinar.
Click here to access Support After Abortion’s Resource Library.
Click here to explore Support After Abortion’s services, resources, and training for Abortion Healing Providers.
© Support After Abortion