Everybody, Jim Minnery here on I'm Glad You Said That. Thanks for tuning in. Wednesday, December 4th, 2024. And very excited today to talk with David Fowler. He is my colleague in Tennessee. at Family Action Council of Tennessee, and he actually submitted a brief for the Supreme Court hearing, U.S. Supreme Court hearing. that transpired earlier today actually so it's hot off the press as it were to have dialogue with someone who has a very concerted interest in this case of
The United States versus the state of Tennessee and their Attorney General Scimerti. I think that's how you say his name. They passed a law, as you may know, recently. that basically prevents medical professionals from providing sex reassignment medical procedures on minors. regardless of parental consent, because it has been proven harmful. And, you know, I think what's fascinating about this issue...
That we'll dive into is that there's so many places New Zealand I saw recently is the latest certainly not known as a conservative bastion has put the the brakes on so-called gender-affirming care in that country. And I think that's very enlightening as it is in Great Britain. with the Tavistock Center, which at one point was the world's largest gender clinic, hospital in the world, and they have closed their doors.
not because of any political reasons, but because scientifically they have come to the determination. In some ways, it may be because they saw the... light because they felt the heat. I think there's 1000 lawsuits that are now being filed against Tavistock in London because of the folks who have received that so called gender affirming care are now realizing that in fact, it has done much more damage than good. And I'd like to think that we'll see a good result.
from the case today from what you and i maybe have been seeing on social media even the leftist groups are saying the line of questioning from the US Supreme Court is such that it looks as though they're going to hold up Tennessee's right to protect young children from being mutilated and irreparably harmed by these drugs, just because of transgender activists saying that it is beneficial.
The science has proven that otherwise. And, you know, as my friend Riley Gaines said on her ex... account recently in protecting or affirming House Speaker Mike Johnson's bold declaration that girls
women's bathrooms in the Capitol were to be dedicated solely to those who are biologically female. The individual who was elected recently as a... the first transgender member of commerce or congress um has every right to dignity and respect and so they will accommodate that individual who wants to have access as a male to female bathrooms, but the individual women, Congress women and staff members who work in our nation's capital.
also have the right to dignity and respect. And so it's, it's nice to be able to hear that, you know, individuals who are struggling with gender dysphoria have every right to counseling and compassion, but children deserve to be protected. From these kinds of irreversible harms that are that are foisted upon them by.
a woke medical community. Anyway, I'm very excited about my conversation with David Fowler. So I hope you can stick around for that. Another thing I wanted to chat about today was a fascinating story that you may have heard out of Australia. that has recently enacted legislation to ban kids 16 and under from being on social media. There is actually a consequence of potentially tens of millions of dollars to the likes of Mark Zuckerberg with Meta, Facebook, TikTok, all of them.
are now have been warned. And I couldn't be more in agreement with it. There's going to be obviously a battle in terms of free speech and the rights of kids to get on. I read somewhere that, you know, kids in... in different parts of Australia would be irreparably harmed because they don't have access to social media.
One lady talked to one young lady talked about the fact that she had to connect with her grandma through social media So there's got to be some tweaks I guess to it but at the same time You know we I think have come to an agreement as a society in many ways In fact, Andrew Gray, an openly gay legislator at.
in the alaska legislature out of anchorage has a keen interest in protecting kids from social media he sees that that's a problem and we'll see if we can work with him in the democrat controlled house in terms of protecting kids in that manner from social media. I also think that what happened in Australia is certainly something to consider as well in that there are ways.
to prevent our kids from being addicted and impacted negatively by Twitter and Instagram and Facebook and everything else. And obviously it's a responsibility that us as parents... have fundamentally and primarily in regards to this issue i can't say that i'm the greatest at it uh in all honesty you know it's difficult because there's a lot of good stuff and funny stuff and historical stuff and
research that can be done through social media but there is a cost and we have to address that at some point in society and you know we always hear the stories about the people that are in the high-tech industries not allowing their kids to have access to social media because they are the ones, in fact, who designed the software so that kids get addicted to endorphins. Adrenaline are created because of how the algorithms work in social media where kids, it becomes a drug.
And there's a lot of negativity that's on social media, obviously. And so it's a discussion that hopefully we'll have more and more now that Australia has taken, you know, the lead in terms of international.
efforts to stop some of the madness that is Reeling in our kids and so stick around we'll see how that goes in the upcoming legislature We have some work that we're going to do with the Sarah Vance who's introduced some legislation to protect kids from porn online regarding um internet filters and of course um you know
It'll all depend on whether the Democrats are willing to play. And Andrew Gray, as I mentioned, has said that he is in terms of the social media influence and the negativity of that. Anyway, thanks for tuning in. You're listening to I'm Glad You Said That. I am Jim Minnery, the president of Alaska Family Council. Go to akfamily.org to subscribe. We'll be right back with David Fowler talking about the U.S. Supreme Court today.
that's happening regarding transgender, so-called gender-affirming care. We'll be right back. Hey, everybody. Welcome back. Jim Minnery here on I'm Glad You Said That. Super grateful to have my buddy David Fowler on the line on such an important day as this. He is the Executive Director of President at Family Action Council of... Tennessee. Dave, it's been way too long. Well, part of that's the fact that you live on some...
I don't know, godforsaken time zone compared to me, or vice versa. Well, I think it typically goes the other way. People look at us and say, what in the world? We can see Russia. You know that. Oh, yeah. Well, I mean, well, I won't comment further. I think we had an important case in front of the Supreme Court that we wanted to talk about, not Russia collusion and all that sort of stuff.
But we can revisit the other if you want. I'll take that. Well, no, real quick. How about you just give us a quick, brief moment. David, for you folks who don't know, is my colleague. in the wonderful state of tennessee in fact i'm a buckeye guy i think you know that david and we may see each other in the playoffs who knows man the volunteers have been doing not too bad lately yeah yeah maybe we'll see each other in the playoffs
We'll save those discussions for another day. But yeah, just briefly, one, I'm 66 years of age. Not that that means a lot, but I've been practicing law since 1983. And I've been running the family policy council here. I'm actually retiring at the end of this month. I'm going to pursue some other ventures in discipling folks towards a return.
to a biblical conception of law, none of which we saw in the United States Supreme Court today in the transgender case out of Tennessee. But anyway, that's what I've been doing, and I filed an amicus brief.
on behalf of several organizations in this case that so so i'm particularly interested one i filed a brief on it two it's coming out of my state so uh i was attentive to what was going on there well i can tell you that we're watching closely in alaska we don't have a legislature in place to be able to implement the same kind of restrictions that you guys were able to put in place in Tennessee, along with, I think, 20-some other states that are also watching this very closely.
We have a governor who's interested very much so in signing that kind of legislation, and there's some possible ways that we can work with our Board of Medicine and some other commission-type groups that would provide some guardrails. How about we start off with, and it's amazing because, you know, this case is happening right now at the U.S. Supreme Court. It's the first case like it of its kind to be heard by.
the High Court. Give folks sort of the 30,000-foot view of what has transpired to where they're now listening to Tennessee defend itself. Sure, sure. So I think it was now two years ago. Matt Walsh blew the lid off of Vanderbilt University, which is one of our more prestigious institutions and medical facilities, doing these sex change operations as well as hormone treatments and therapies.
And so the legislature was forced to do something and they enacted a law that says that surgeries are prohibited and hormone treatments can only be applied. if they are consistent with the person's biological birth sex so for example if a if a boy wants drug to increase his male development let's say he's not developing as quickly as naturally as possible he could get the drug but a biological girl could not get it to suppress her development let's say
So it just says there's a categorical ban. You can't use it for that purpose as long as the patient is a minor and parental consent would not justify. that treatment so that's the law that was in front of the supreme court and interestingly there are two cases that are sitting there the one that was argued today and another one remains and i suspect we will see it in the days to come
The first lawsuit was brought by parents who said, we have a right to raise our children. We make medical decisions for our minor children all the time.
and now you're stepping in and saying we can't make this kind of medical decision on behalf of our child that's a violation of our constitutional rights as parents under the 14th amendment then the department of justice intervened and said, well, we think it is a violation of the Equal Protection Clause because you are basing who can get the medicine and who can't on their sex.
In other words, a boy could get a certain drug, but the girl could not get that drug. And so that's a sex-based qualification, and that requires a higher level of judicial scrutiny to make sure the legislature... had legitimate reasons and wasn't stereotyping you know boys and girls and And so that's what was argued today the Department of Justice claiming that this is a violation of the Equal Protection Clause because it's a sex-based classification, and you need to send it back.
Require the state to provide better and more justification for what it's doing. Narrowly tailor the law because you've just passed a categorical ban. And it doesn't matter whether the kids really got it. real threat of self-harm or suicide going on or how old the child is, you just can't do it. And that was the argument today. Well, and what you've been watching it. you know, as we can online and through X, as we talked about, you know.
I'm hearing from different sources and seeing through different sources, not just on Axe, but on Reuters. And there's a bunch of others that that I'm just perusing through. And it looks as though the six. The majority may end up coming down on our side, but is that too much confidence or what's your view on how things are developing right now?
Well, here's what I suspect, and to help your listeners appreciate what goes on in the court. The fundamental thing that a court does is not issue opinions, but issue judgments. and they say this side wins, that side loses. That's really the only authority and power a judge has. Now, the opinions give their explanations for them. It's sort of their essay explaining why they said
Tennessee should win or the Department of Justice should win. And we tend to look at those opinions to get an insight into the court's thinking so we know. what to do on the next case, for example. So here's what I think will happen. I think you're going to find probably Justice Alito Gorsuch, I don't think, even ask a question.
I don't recall his name being raised, but he sat rather silent, I think because of the Bostic case that he messed up on came into play. So he was better off keeping his mouth shut probably. I think you're going to see Roberts, Kavanaugh, and Barrett kind of come together and say, yeah, the law is okay, but here are our thoughts and here are reservations and questions we have and so on and so forth. But Tennessee ought to win.
And then you'll probably have Alito, maybe Gorsuch, and Clarence Thomas all having different reasons. And so we'll get a judgment in favor of Tennessee. But what we're going to have is a mishmash of reasons. Does that make sense? Yeah, yeah. Yeah, so it's like, well, I go to church because my girlfriend's there. Well, I go to church because God's there. I go to church because I want to worship God. I go to church because the choir's really good. We all go to church.
all different reasons for why we're going to do it. And that's where I think we're going to be. And the reason we're going to be there, Jim, and I hope your listeners appreciate that. Because the fundamental issue in the case, the elephant in the room, that was never addressed is what does it mean to be a person under the 14th Amendment? Or in other words, what does it mean to be human? And what was fascinating is Kavanaugh made this statement that...
The state is trying to justify this on public health and safety concerns, not morality. And I wanted to say, oh, poor Justice Kavanaugh, don't you understand that rightly judging... Safety and health depends on what it means to be human, which is a moral question. Right, right. So nobody in the country wants to talk about what it means to be human and what we wound up with.
Just mark my words. That's what happened in Dobbs. The pro-life community would never say, well, who is a person under the 14th Amendment? They talked all about medicine and abortion. Did we have abortion medical procedures? 1868 and 1789 and nobody said well the 14th amendment actually applies to a person so let's let's figure out if the unborn is a person you know now what's happened
is they said, well, let's just vote on it democratically from state to state. And what was interesting is the Tennessee Attorney General was asked this important question. Well, doesn't your logic... justify the state prohibiting an adult from getting these treatments so that they can choose their gender as an adult.
Then you start drawing logical conclusions based on the underlying question nobody wants to talk about. What does it mean to be human? And his answer was, the democratic process, I think this is almost a verbatim quote, is the best means to challenge um the misuse of the law or something like that well that's exactly dobbs right yeah
We don't know what it means to be a person in the Constitution, so we're going to get rid of it on the grounds that something else, whatever, we'll come up with something. But then we're going to let every state decide. Well, that's... Miners should be sterilized. Let me take a quick break, folks. We're chatting with my good buddy, David Fowler, with Family Action Council of Tennessee. He submitted a brief on the Supreme Court case that's literally being heard right now.
regarding Tennessee's ban on so-called gender affirming care. It's right up our alley in what we do, and we're very excited to continue the conversation right after this short break. Welcome back, Jim Minnery here on. I'm glad you said that we're talking about a very salient issue as we speak in terms of Tennessee being able to defend.
It's law saying that kids cannot be mutilated or given puberty blockers, even with parental consent. We're big fans of parental consent, by the way. We've actually passed a parental notification law. in Alaska, and so parental rights is very important to us, but I would say superseding that are the rights of children, as Katie Faust talks about with Them Not Us in her ministry.
you know we you know what we're looking toward right now david is if we if we see this law being upheld what tennessee is doing How does that play out in other states in terms of we talked about the Dobbs decision and what it means to be human and how that's transformed our country, really, but not so much the way everyone thought it was going to in a lot of ways.
How do you see this playing out if we get the decision we want out of Tennessee, given the authority that they deserve? How do you see that playing out across the country? Yeah, well, Tennessee conceded in the oral argument that, for instance, I don't know if they used the term California, but other states could look at the evidence and draw the opposite conclusion.
Now, here's the fundamental point for Christians to me. Is the best the Christian can argue anymore is that it's okay... for some states to allow children to be rendered infertile for the sake of a psychological phenomenon called gender identity. And that's okay. Or should we argue, because we know what it means to be human and a person, you cannot.
Render a person infertile because by nature we are intended to be procreated. That's the Christian argument. That's the common law argument. That's the history of law. is that the fundamental right of every person from Blackstone for hundreds of years before that, going back in the 1600s, 1500s, is you have a right to your limbs, your body, and your health.
So when you accept that, which our side never argues, Jim, you know, I've been pepped up on needing to return to the common law for the last five years. It's seemingly no avail. But then you can answer the question of parental rights. The child has a right, a fundamental right, in order to fulfill their duties to God, to have their body function properly.
to have their healthy limbs, their body parts, okay? And that's why I can't punch you in the face. That's why I can't take a meat cleaver and chop your arm off, you know? That's been the law for centuries. So when you remove a young girl's breast so that she could never lactate or a young boy's gonad so he could never impregnate a girl, you have harmed that person. And the law says that's a harm. Now, the parent…
has a duty to protect their child's rights. Parents don't have rights divorced from their duties. But we live in a world that only wants to think about rights and doesn't say, well, you have a right. to fulfill your duties what is your duty your duty is to protect your child from being rendered infertile for no health reason therefore we have an answer for why
We can say, I have a right to make certain medical decisions for my child, but you can't make the decision that renders your child sterile if they're otherwise healthy. We have an answer, but we won't give it. Because we are afraid to talk about what it means to be human. And that's what I put in my brief. You cannot, as Kavanaugh said, talk about public health and safety.
until you know what it means to be human, because then we don't know what health is. That's right. That's right. So health care itself vanishes. Well, do you see on the abortion issue and this issue and God knows what else coming down the road in terms of transhumanism and AI and whatever kind of hit the court, you know? It certainly seems as though we're in a moment in time that we have the right deck of cards at the court that would be able to hear this issue. Do you foresee that?
That strategy that you're employing and have so eloquently for years now hitting on the docket at the highest court at any level at any time. No, no, and let me tell you why I tried to do that in this case I tried to do it in the Dobbs case And here's here's the salient point and I give this as an example before we run out of time
I dated my wife five years. We broke up a few times, right? But we finally got married. We've been married 43 years. She could have asked me after the first year, do you love me? I said, sure, sweetie. And then she could have said a year later, do you think you want to spend your life with me? Sure, sweetie.
Five years later, she says, well, are you going to marry me? And I say, no. And she says, but you said every year, you know, I said, I know, but you never asked me if I wanted to marry you. You have to ask the right question. So because we're afraid to ask what does it mean throughout the history of the law for centuries, even into the 19th century, what does it mean to be a person? We're going to get a mixed up.
muddled up bag of answers. And so I tried to draft this bill in the Tennessee legislature to say the state of Tennessee is protecting the fundamental right. belonging to all persons at common law, to their life, their limbs, their body, their health. And therefore, this statute is merely reaffirming what the law already says. because they're human right and my legislature and my lawyers all rejected that on what grounds that that well
One, I don't think they even understood it, but they said, well, there isn't any such thing as common law anymore. Judges say what the common law is. Now, that's a perversion of the common law, but the point is I do have – Hundreds of years of precedent on my side. But I've tried to make this legal argument to every organization that you and I both are familiar with. And it's been soundly rejected every time.
I tried to do it in the parental rights cases to say we are merely affirming the rights that parents already have because of the nature of their duties. Because, and why do you want to do that? When Obergefell says we don't know what the difference is between a man and a woman in relationship to marriage, how do you know what a parent is? Particularly when Susie and Sally are now both parents.
So when you pass a bill talking about parental rights, you now have to include Susie and Sally, one of whom has no relationship to that child, at least biologically. That's right. That's right. So if, if we don't as policymakers. begin to think of every bill related to human sexuality in terms of what did the common law say and how do I draft it to force the court to reject hundreds of years of precedent.
then they will avoid it. They will avoid the elephant in the room. You have to shove the elephant in the room and make them look it in the face. And you know what? You may lose. But what difference does it make if... We win on this case, and California and Georgia or Kentucky are castrating their boys. Have I really done that great a thing as a Christian? No.
No, it's right. And I guess I still am not being a lawyer. I can't comprehend how that kind of damage, you know, we developed a relationship and and still are in touch with Chloe Cole, who was. contributed to this case in a number of briefings was the face of the detransitioning movement. And she's suing the hospital in the mega health.
hospital in California. I don't know how that's going to play out. I know that there's a number of lawsuits against Tavistock in Great Britain after they shut down. based on evidence that it was harming their kids. There was nothing in that decision, as far as I can tell, of closing down the largest gender clinic in Europe.
based on politics or anything else. It was just saying, listen, we got the numbers or we got the data wrong. And now that we're seeing it play out and we have a thousand lawsuits against us. We're we're turning the ship around. And I guess I don't understand how Chloe Cole at one time can sue the hospital. I guess that's a question. And we can maybe talk about it after the break because. I still can't comprehend if Chloe wins, and she may not, it's the Ninth Circuit, but it could go up.
to the U.S. Supreme Court. But she's suing as many others are. There is an army, as you know, of harmed patients. that are now the walking living that are having to put up with all this junk. And so their lawsuits are piling up. But then if if the Supreme Court Issues a ruling that says you know what they have the right to implement these kinds of medical procedures Then I don't know how they're liable, but how can they not be liable with the evidence of Chloe?
now being harmed for life. And I want to talk with you and your thought on that right after this last break, folks. We're chatting with David Fowler about the Tennessee case at the Supreme Court. We'll be right back. Welcome back, Jim Minner here. Absolute pleasure talking with my buddy David Fowler with the Tennessee Family Policy Council. We've known each other for a very long time, David.
It's interesting because I think a lot of people and you're going to see it if we get we're talking about the case at the U.S. Supreme Court right now that the Biden administration essentially or the government is fighting against. the Tennessee attorney general and their legal folks to be able to defend their right to say kids cannot be they cannot be butchered and given puberty blockers.
um even with frontal consent because it's a violation um now what yeah i guess that's as i'm speaking it right now how would i finish that sentence they cannot stop Tennessee from preventing this kind of malpractice because why? Well, I'm not sure I understand your question. I think what... What the court would say and what the Tennessee Attorney General would say is these kinds of issues should be decided democratically. That's what he specifically said in the argument.
When asked, well, doesn't your logic extend to adults? And he very specifically said, here's the quote, democracy is the best check on a misguided law. It's like everyone voting, you know, three wolves and a chicken voting on what's for dinner. I mean – Well, that's exactly right.
yeah that's exactly right so so if you happen to be in one of those states you know and you're a parent you don't want to consent to it you may find that you don't have a parental right to that And you may find that if you went through it, and now you want to come back and sue like Chloe Coe, they'll say, well, California permits that, and you were in California, so out of luck.
I mean, fundamentally, at some point, we're going to have to answer the question, what does it mean to be human? Is there anything that's given and true about us? And you see what Tennessee did implicitly, and this is horrible, but they did. They implicitly accepted the idea that some people live according to their gender and some people live contrary to their gender, that those are real categories of human existence, contrary to what the Bible says.
So they have accepted, in principle, transgender theory and just simply said, but we're not going to let you exercise it until you're an adult. You know, it's difficult for me to wrap my head around ever saying that it's okay for a 27-year-old to have, you know, to become a eunuch. based on the fact that they simply desire that, although some would say, hey, listen, if you're 27 and you want to smoke three packs a day, you have that right.
And I almost feel like I can't, you know, I cannot think about anything else right now other than the kids. And that's who I want to protect. It sounds crazy to protect from parents who are wanting to do some social experiment to be woke in their community. And you hear it in Hollywood all the time, you know, all the different people who claim to have two or three trans kids. It's almost like a badge of honor or a trophy. It's just disgusting and sad. When you base things strictly on what...
the scientific evidence happens to be at any point in time, then the law becomes amorphous. So, for example, one of our best friends, at a national level filed a brief in the case in kentucky that was you know it's associated with what tennessee's doing in the sixth circuit and they said well the scientific evidence is not conclusive on whether sterilizing children is harmful
And I wanted to say sterilizing children is harmful per se. And then they said, and the long-term studies don't show the efficacy of it. in other words my christian friend at a national level his brief now i'm not saying he is because he doesn't know he just rely on his lawyer but his lawyer is saying
Well, yeah, I guess if someday they can remove a young boy's gonads and he doesn't have to have 24 more surgeries over the rest of his life, I guess that's okay. So here's the point I would make to the Christian. I plead with them.
Science does not tell us what it means to be human. Why? Because what it means to be human is about more than biology. That's the point of the whole of the Bible. And we've conceded… And in the way we draft our bills and the way these states have passed them, I've argued against them repeatedly. To no avail, I lose every time. Do not base it on science. Do not concede that what it means to be human is strictly a biological matter. The image of God vanishes in that case.
into some kind of material soup. And what Christian would say all we are is a concantation of atoms and matter infused with energy. Yeah, yeah. Well, if you don't believe that, then don't argue like that. I'm sorry I get irritated, and that's partly why I'm retiring. I just gave up. I'll be honest. Nobody wants to hear it except for you. Well, no, I guess I'm I'm of the mindset. It's almost like, you know.
Wilberforce and his arguments that just went on and on and on and on and he never saw the fruits of his labor or he saw some of them in Britain but You know, and the pain and the agony that he went through physically, spiritually, mentally, everything is my hero. Not only because he's short like I am, but that man. He was long, wasn't he? I love a small leader, but what it does to me is it's kind of like similar to our judicial system in Alaska.
We've been going at it forever to try to change our merit-based Missouri plan system and wake the public up. And I don't think I will see it in my lifetime. I honestly don't, but I'm not going to stop. And I'm not saying that you're stopping. You're going to shift gears and do other things that God has in store for you. But I feel like...
After Dobbson, if this happens and then people in different states have the right to take their child out of the womb and kill them after they're delivered, which is what is the law of the land in many states right now. And states like Tennessee and other states, Louisiana, that have the protections in place simply bring those pregnant women to other states.
Same thing with the transgender issue. People like Planned Parenthood are paying for these kids to come into those states, which I think has to be a legal violation if it's not legal in your state. But then you send that kid over. to California or some other place to get the procedure. There's got to be a consequence in my view. But, you know, so we celebrate at some level. And here we are assuming that the decision has been made. I think that that's probably going to be the case.
But I think it's a bigger it obviously is a bigger issue than what we're going to see in the headlines after the ruling, which is celebration and affirmation. When, in fact, we got a long ways to go. Oh, absolutely. I liken it to this. Something has fundamentally changed in America, and I would say even within Christianity, that we can wink.
and nod at gay marriage, which is really nothing other than Roe versus Wade extended. We are not intended to be fertile people. Our basic... physiology is we need to be able to be autonomous individuals not burdened by families the fifth commandment is wrong And so we've now moved that into male and female can be a marriage. So marriage is no longer understood in terms of natural fertility.
And now we've extended that in the last 10 years because we never addressed Obergefell to transgenderism. So it's like what the Christian community is doing is saying we hate grapefruits. So let's go pick all the grapefruits off and hope that we got rid of the problem. Well, guess what you're going to have next year? Grapefruits. That's right. And we don't ever want to lay the axe to the root.
which is what I've been trying to do. But what I'm told by some national leading organization is there's no money for that. And you might lose. I could tell you horror stories that would horrify your constituency. of lawyers saying you have to make the argument that will win. So in other words, there's no Christian conception of restoring the good thing that's been eroded that's led to the bad thing.
Yeah. The best human good we can find is stopping bad things rather than saying, no, here's the great, good, glorious, great thing about being human. Right. Right. Yeah. David, I could talk with you all day. That's why the show is called I'm Glad You Said It, because I literally could talk with you all day. And I mean, you need to write a book, and you have. But you need to write a book about our topic today. God bless you, my friend. I will be seeing you at some point soon.
Just know that you're loved, that you're valued, that you're respected and that you have an intimate and important role in the discussions that we've all been having about this issue and others. I just can't thank you enough for being my buddy and my brother in Christ. Blessings to you, my friend, and we'll be in touch soon, I'm sure. Okay. It was great to be with you, Jim. Bless you, brother. Okay. Take care. Folks, we'll be back next week here on I'm Glad You Said That.