Relatable with Allie Beth Stuckey - Ep 81 | Purity Culture

Episode Date: February 28, 2019

First, we discuss the failure of the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act and how enthusiastically Democrats have embraced infanticide. Then, we talk purity culture: the goods, the bads, and the ugly. Copyright Blaze Media All Rights Reserved.

Hello, relatable listeners. Welcome to Theological Thursdays. I hope that everyone is having a great week. So, as I said, we are going to talk a little bit about theology, but I also want to talk about some abortion news because, you know, some things just happen during the week and they need to be covered even if they don't fit into our categories for Tuesday, Thursday. As most of you guys know, Tuesday, I typically do news. Thursday, I typically do Bible-type stuff or approaching some kind of cultural issue from a biblical

perspective or something that's happening within the church. Today, there's a lot to talk about, but I do want to talk about this item in the news, which is that the Born Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act that was authored by Ben Sass was shot down by mostly Democrats in the Senate. And I want to talk about what that bill was, what that means for the pro-choice movement or the pro-choice side, what that says about Democrats. what we as pro-lifers need to be saying and doing. And we're also then going to transition into purity culture, which is something that I ranted about on my story last week, I think,

and where that is within the Christian church and the different ideas of what purity culture should be, how it's been damaging, how it's been beneficial. And I'm going to give my take on it. If we have time, I want to talk about the Methodist Church and the vote that was just held in St. Louis for the Methodist denomination. I'm not sure if I'll have time to get into all of that, but a lot of you guys have messaged me about the Methodist Church and their stance. They're, well, I'm not going to talk about it quite yet, but their stance on LGBTQ matters. So first, let's talk about the Born Alive Abortion Survivor Protection Act. Very long name of the bill.

Like I said, it was authored by Ben Sass. This bill does not address abortion, okay? Shouldn't be controversial. We shouldn't even be talking. about whether this is a pro-life bill or whether this is a pro-choice bill. This is just a practical bill. It has nothing to do with abortion. It doesn't have to do with late-term abortion, doesn't have to do with partial birth abortion. This is a bill that says that a baby who survives an abortion who is out of the womb. So laying next to the mother, laying in the operation room, is alive because it survived a botched abortion that that baby has to be taken care of, just like you would take care of a wanted child,

that you have to attend to that child's life and care for that child efficiently, effectively, and diligently, just like you would care for a wanted baby or any other patient. So this is what the bill says, which you can read at Congress.gov. It says, one, if an abortion results

in a live birth of an infant, the infant is a legal person for all purposes under the laws of the United States and entitled to all the protections of such laws. Two, any infant born alive under an abortion or within a hospital, clinic, or other facility has the same claim to the protection of the law that would arise for any newborn or for any person who comes to a hospital clinic or other facility for screening and treatment or otherwise becomes a patient within its

care. So what this means is a child is immediately and diligently cared for. I'm still reading from the summary of the bill, by the way. Child is immediately and diligently cared for as you would any other child. A child is admitted to a hospital as soon as possible, requires any employee of the clinic or hospital who witnesses a failure by the provider to care for the child and admit them to a hospital must report it to a state or federal law enforcement agency. The guilty abortion provider, so the abortion provider who fails to care for the child and admit them to the hospital would be subject to a fine or up to five years in prison. Personally, that's not enough of a penitle.

A penitle. What? Penalty. I don't know what I was trying to say. Penalty for that. I think it needs to be much harsher. whoever intentionally performs or attempts to perform an overt act that kills a child born alive described under subsection A shall be punished as any as anyone else would for intentionally

killing a human being. It also says the mother of the child will not be prosecuted. So like I said, nothing to do with abortion. No restrictions on abortion. There are no loopholes that makes it harder to get an abortion in this particular bill. In fact, in 2002, there was a similar bill that was signed by George W. Bush called the Born Alive Infants Protection Act. That bill defined infants as persons under U.S. law, but it didn't give requirements for how an abortion provider would have to care for the born alive child who survived an abortion. That bill, though, that defined a child that was just born as a person, which is not a radical concept, it's radical to think that some people wouldn't agree with that definition. That bill passed in 2002, passed the Senate

unanimously. So Democrats all agreed that, yeah, this is obvious. This is a common sense piece of legislation. This is something that we all agree on. This is not a partisan issue. This is a compassion issue. This is a practical issue. It has nothing to do with politics and whether you're pro-choice or pro-life. This is about protecting born children. Democrats agreed on that in 2002. And now just 17 years later, you don't have a single Democrat. Well, actually, some Democrats did agree. Democrats, the vast majority of Democrats, except for a few, I think it was three Democrats who actually voted for the piece of legislation. The vast majority of Democrats voted against it. That is yet another sign of just how radical and how radically left the left and Democrats

have gone. So that was the reason, though, the fact that the Born and Live Infants Protection Act did not actually specify how abortion providers should care for the babies if they survived an abortion. That is why the new bill was authored by Ben Sass. The bill needed 60 votes to proceed. Fifty-three were in favor and 44 opposed, all except for three Democrats. Like I said, three Democrats opposed. Three Republicans, including Murkowski, did not vote. This shows you, this shows you just how, just how far Democrats, pro-choicers, people on the left are willing to to go to advance their agenda, that they're not even willing to protect children that are born. And they want to scoff at us. They want to laugh at us when we say that they're pro infanticide.

But what else are we supposed to think? I mean, they're now on the record saying that they don't want to defend, protect vulnerable babies that have been born alive after an abortion. I mean, there really is no two sides to this. There are no two moral sides to this. And yet, Planned Parenthood, of course, is defending themselves or, uh, attacking this piece of legislation or this bill that was authored by Ben Sass. The CEO of Planned Parenthood tweeted this. At Planned Parenthood, we will always fight lies and misinformation designed to restrict patients' health and rights, including the right to safe legal abortion.

Again, Bill had nothing to do with abortion, you lying weirdo. Thank you to the pro-reproductive health senators, who blocked this bill. hashtag protect providers. And then she tweeted along with that a statement from Planned Parenthood that said that this bill would have singled out providers and subjected them to harsh criminal penalties, the fine in five years. Harsh criminal penalties based on misinformation. My question is, what misinformation? You had a lot of Democratic senators, Chuck Schumer, Maisie Hirono. I think that's her name standing up and saying that this is based on a lie. There's so much misinformation in this bill.

No one that I heard cited any specific language in the bill to say what was actually misinformation. Where's the lie? I would love for a Democrat to tell me what the lie is. Stephen King tweeted that Republicans that President Trump was lying about this particular bill protecting born children. There's a no, that's deception. That's misinformation.

I guarantee you the vast majority of people that are saying this is misinformation and a lie and deception have not read the bill. It takes only a few minutes. to read the bill, get some information, get some knowledge before you spout off about things that you don't know. But it's actually crazy that they're not even trying to defend the morality of not protecting life outside of the womb. They're just saying it's a lie. They're just in denial about it. They're just going to say that it's not true because they know there is no moral defense for the stance that they're taking. There just isn't. This is eugenics. This is saying because

a child is born into a vulnerable situation, because a child isn't wanted, because a child might end up poor, because a child might have a hard life, and because mostly, because the woman just doesn't want to raise a child, that they should be killed, that they don't have any dignity, they don't have any sanctity of life, that they don't have any protection under the law. Why? Can you tell me one logical, moral, philosophical, religious, legal reason why that makes any sense besides the fact that you're bloodthirsty? There just isn't one. So President Trump tweeted, Senate Democrats just voted against legislation

to prevent the killing of newborn infant children. The Democrat position on abortion is now so extreme that they don't mind executing babies after birth. This will be remembered as one of the most shocking votes in the history of Congress. If there's one thing we should all agree on, it's protecting the lives of innocent babies. Absolutely an amen.

Now, do I think that President Trump wrote that? Probably not. I don't really care. It's his administration that is pro-life and they've done a lot of great pro-lay things. I'm going to get to one that they just did in a couple seconds. But he's absolutely right. And you had all of these people, like I said, tweeting at him saying,

this is a lie. This is a lie. You had Planned Parenthood, the president of Planned Parenthood saying that this is a lie. This is not true. Where's the lie? What misinformation is it? Can you tell me which part of the bill is based on misinformation and a lie? Which part?

The part that says a baby that survives in abortion is a huge. human being? Can you scientifically tell me why that's not true? Of course you can't. Of course you can't. I mean, I cannot even, I cannot even think about, I can't even think about how you justify that in your minds. Like, how exhausted do you have to be to do that much mental gymnastics to justify letting a child die, gasp for air, a child who just wants to be held by its mother. a child who instinctively is reaching for its mom, a child who is probably writhing in pain because it just survived its murder. And you can just sit there and let the child cry, let the child suffocate, let the child just die slowly. I don't, I don't understand how you can claim to have

any moral credibility on any issue whatsoever and stand for that. This is not about being pro choice or pro life. We're not even talking right now about your stance on abortion. We're talking about your stance on babies. And let me just say for a second to the hipster, the hipster woke social justice Christians who always have something to say about what's going on in the news, who always talk about the least of these, who always talk about how we need socialism to help the poor, who always talk about the dangers of white privilege who had so much to say after the Jesse Smollett hoax about how dangerous it is to live in this country if you have a certain color of skin or if you have a certain sexual orientation and how important it is for us to just be,

for us to just be loving and inclusive and accepting and to create this great progressive world in which there's no classism, there's no sexism, there's no homophobia, all of this stuff. they have nothing to say about the slaughtering of unborn and just born children. So we can talk about all of the social justice issues that you woke Christians are interested in. That's fine. I am fine talking about racial reconciliation in the church if there is any inherent value in diversity. I am willing to talk about, I'm willing to talk about how you feel about LGBT issues.

We can talk about these things. And we can have honest discussions about these things. That's fine. But you cannot justify your silence on a reality that is so stark, that is so undebatable, as rescuing children defenseless human beings in and outside of the womb. There's just nothing to debate. There's nothing to talk about. We should be united in this.

Even if we disagree on other issues, this is an issue that we should be united in. There is no two sides about it. And I try to be open-minded on particular issues in which the Bible allows me to be open-minded if there is room for debate that I am always, I am always willing and ready to welcome a debate or to welcome a productive conversation or to see another side of it. There are no two sides to this. There is zero, zero other sides other than being on the side of life. So if your favorite Christian leader has a lot to say about social justice,

but the only kind of, quote, social justice they're talking about is diversity. And they have nothing to say about abortion. That person doesn't really care about justice. They care about being woke. And we're not called to be woke. We're called to be biblical. We're called to be holy. And there is, there are very few.

There are very few holier causes than defending the least of these. And that goes for not just unborn babies. it does go for the poor. It does go for those in vulnerable situations. It goes from mothers in crisis as well. That's what we're called to as Christians. There aren't two sides to that. So President Trump, his administration, has done a really good thing. They are set to redirect millions of dollars away from abortion providers. This is according to the New York Times, the Trump administration announced on Friday that it will bar organizations that provide abortion referrals from receiving federal family planning money. So even organizations that provide abortion referrals, from receiving federal family planning money, a step that could strip millions of dollars from Planned Parenthood and direct it towards religiously based anti-abortion groups. Of course, this is a left-leaning publication,

a left-leaning article, which is why they say religiously based anti-abortion groups rather than groups that are aiming to protect human life. The New York Times says clinics will be able to talk to patients about abortion, but not where they can get one. And clinics will no longer have to counsel women on all reproductive options, including abortion. Yeah, that's because abortion isn't a reproductive option. Reproduction's already been done. A change that will make anti-abortion

providers eligible for funding. Again, pro-life providers. No Title Tim funds will be able to go to facilities that perform abortions. In order to get their funding, they will have to perform abortions in a separate building. I believe that's what the stipulation is. This is going to be challenged in court. Of course, you've got people like Planned Parenthood. and pro-choiceers unhappy about this. There already is something called the Hyde Amendment where technically funds are not allowed, taxpayer funds are not allowed to directly support abortion,

but we already know that Planned Parenthood and other abortion providers have sneaky ways to make sure that our tax paying money, the $500 million that currently goes to Planned Parenthood every year, still does support abortions, of course. You wouldn't give money to a known child molester or someone who you know is going to buy child porn, for example, even if that money isn't directly going to child porn, like you're not going to support someone that does that.

Of course not. And so we shouldn't be directing any money whatsoever to abortion providers. I shouldn't have to subsidize Planned Parenthood. Okay. So, well, I was going to say speaking of all of that, but I kind of went out of order. Like I talked about the hipster Christians before I was going to, so my transition doesn't work very well.

So we're just going to do a stark transition where we talked about, we talked about abortion, and now we're going to switch over to talking about hipster Christians yet again. And we're going to talk about it in light of purity culture. So talking about purity culture is something I've seen a lot recently on YouTube, on Instagram, from this movement that's called like bad Christians where they are, they're basically just unbiblical Christians or they call themselves Christians, but they're basically just living on biblically under the name of Christ. They are culturally convenient Christians where they're like, yeah, we can do all this sinful

stuff and God doesn't care because Jesus is accepting and awesome. And we can cuss and be cool and rebellious and look just like the world. But we're awesome because we're, we love Jesus. And they just think that that's super rebellious. And I'm like, that is so old. It's like, that's as old as Adam and Eve, believing the lie that did God really say? And if you do this, you'll be more like, God, you're doing the same thing that Eve did, girl.

Like, that's not cool. That's not rebellious. And part of this is pushing back against the purity culture. If you remember the Lutheran pastor that we talked about last year, the female pastor, who was taking purity rings from her congregation. And I think women around the country, because she writes books, to melt into a gold vagina statue to protest purity culture. You probably remember her, well, she actually did that.

She posted on her Instagram a picture with her and Gloria Steinem, you know, world famous feminist who is like 170 right now with her little golden vagina statue. I'm made of all of these purity rings and she was really excited about that. She did hashtag shameless. And I think that's her whole thing that we shouldn't have any shame over what we've done sexually. She is one of many what they call themselves, they call themselves, I think, sex positive Christians. And what they mean by sex positive is not just the. they think of sex positively, but that they think really most of these people I've seen so far, really just think all kinds of sex goes and you shouldn't feel guilty about it. You shouldn't be

ashamed of it. Someone sent me an Instagram story of a popular sex positive woman the other day, sex positive Christian woman the other day who said that, no, God doesn't care about what you do sexually, doesn't care about. Oh, having sex before marriage. He has a lot bigger things to think about. Okay. So let me just say first that I agree with a lot of these women, they're mostly women, that there was a problem with purity culture growing up in the youth group. I have always gone to church. I went to a Baptist church growing up that is a great church in so many ways. But the books I read in the sermons that I heard about purity growing up were mostly you should not have sex or even get close to sex because then your husband probably won't.

like you as much. There was actually this book. It was called datable. And I remember this distinctly. It was probably, I probably read it before I ever had a boyfriend or anything. I was probably 15. I remember distinctly a chapter with illustrations comparing, comparing you. I think it was probably a girl or a guy, but comparing you the reader to a car. And the more you use a car, the more used it is, the less it's worth. And the less likely someone will be to buy it. They said it's the same thing. The more you do in your physical relationship with a guy or a girl sexually, the less desirable you'll be.

And it's crazy to me looking back that that didn't hit me as completely blasphemous and unbiblical. So the motivation that many of us had, at least that I had and was taught to me in books and in youth group, was that you need to be pure for your future husband or future wife. You need to be pure for your future spouse. That's your motivation. That is your goal. But my problem is with that is not the purity side of it. The problem that these sex positive Christians rebellious, hipster Christians have with

the purity culture is the purity part, which their position is unbiblical because God does call us to purity. Puritiness does call us to purity. My problem with purity culture is not the purity part, but the culture part. the way that they were teaching it, the motivation that they were giving us to be pure, to be holy. The Bible says, be holy because I am holy, not be holy so your husband will like you better. Be holy so you're not like a used car when you are ready to get married. Be holy. And so your husband sees you as whole and pure and beautiful. That is the wrong

motivation. And I kind of look back at a lot of the things that I believed as a teenager. First of all, I'll just say that none of that stuff helped me very much. None of it was very motivating to me to be pure for your husband because all of that stuff doesn't last. It's not internal. It's just kind of this external superficial motivation that doesn't really take hold of your heart and take hold of your soul. And I must have known that innately. But I did have this fixation on my future husband as a teenager. I was obsessed with this idea of who is he? What's he going to be like, what's he going to look like? I can't wait to get married, which a lot of it is completely normal. I have loved boys since I was probably like two years old. Like I literally had a boyfriend

from the time of preschool. So I've always loved boys, always loved the idea of getting married. I think a lot of that is totally natural for women and it's fine. But I had this obsession as a teenager with who I was going to get married to. I had a journal that I wrote to my future husband. I would write like letters to my future husband. I would pray, for my future husband, and that was all part of purity culture, all part of what we were told that we should do to stay pure and to think about our future husband. What I was not told or what I don't remember being told was that we are supposed to be holy and be pure and be obedient for Christ and with Christ and because of Christ and through Christ, not of our own doing, not of our own strength,

and not for our future husband, but because it's the biblical and right thing to do as a disciple of Christ to be obedient to him. And because he loved us so much and because he died for us and he wiped our slate clean, he has made us new. He has introduced us to a new and better and more pure and holier way. I don't remember learning that. I remember this very horizontal motivation of the pure you are, the more liked you're going to be. the more your husband will see you as this fresh, awesome, beautiful, perfect virgin, not be holy because God is holy. So my problem is with the motivation of purity culture that we have taught young people.

And again, it's not the purity part that I have a problem with. The Bible is very clear. Genesis 2.24, therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and be united to his wife and the two shall become one flesh. Hebrews 13-4, marriage should be honored by all, and the marriage bed should not be defiled. The Bible has a lot to say about sexual immorality. The Bible is very clear that sex is only meant between a man and a woman in the context of marriage. So it's not the purity part that I have a hard time with when it comes to purity culture. The part that I have a hard time with is the motivation behind it and that it's not particularly, it's not particularly biblical. And I said this on my Instagram story,

and I know it caused a little bit of controversy, although a lot of you agreed with. with me. This idea of praying for your future husband, I actually saw a really big influencer, she's not a Christian influencer, but she's a YouTuber who is a Christian. She posted about praying for your future spouse. And I think that just made me think really for the first time is that what we should be teaching our kids. And I'm not saying this is like a salvation issue. If we disagree on this, this is just kind of maybe a point of contention that we can have all within the realm of biblical Christianity, I'm not sure that I am going to encourage my daughter to pray for her future husband. It won't be bad if she does. If she decides to write a journal to think about and pray for a

future husband, she wants to do that every now and then I'm not certainly going to stop her, but I'm also not going to encourage it. And I'm going to have conversations with her about that about whether or not she's fixating too much on being married. Because I do think another aspect of the purity culture and saying your motivation for being, being pure is to be pure for your future husband is an unhealthy obsession with getting married that is not biblical. The Bible says, Paul said, it is better to be single than to be married so you can fully devote yourself to Christ. And if that's true and if Christ is our fullness of joy, then no desiring to be married isn't bad. Being married isn't bad. I love being married,

but obsessing over being married and thinking that God is going to guarantee you a husband one day, I think that is wrong. And I think it does distract you from a very early age. from what is important. I am much more concerned with my daughter having her satisfaction and her identity and her hope and her joy and her peace in Christ than I am with her taking solace in the fact that she might get married one day. Because remember, all marriage is is a reflection between Christ and the church. It is a reflection of the gospel. It is a reflection between the divine relationship between Christ and the church. It's just an early, early, earthly representation of that, which makes it beautiful, which makes it holy, which makes it awesome, which makes it something that

can beautifully glorify God. But it is just an earthly rendering of a spiritual reality that is a lot better than the earthly one. And so I am much more concerned with my daughter knowing who she is in Christ than praying for her future husband. Maybe you can do both. I think I found it difficult now looking back as a hormonally charged 13-year-old girl reading, redeeming love over and over again, waiting for my Michael Hosea to separate my hope in my husband or to deprioritize my hope and my husband under my hope in Christ.

It's just very difficult for you to do as a child. And so I don't plan to aid my daughter in obsessing over who she's going to marry or obsessing over being married. Like I said, it's awesome. It's a natural feeling that all of us have. But I want her to know that her most important relationship in her life is her relationship with Christ, her satisfaction in him. And the reason why she strives towards holiness through the power of the Holy Spirit and the reason

why she wants to be pure, the reason why she should conduct her life in a righteous and holy and pure way is not because some guy will like her better, but because God has called her to that and has called her holy and has called her new and has called her a new creation in him. That should be her motivation. And I also just want to speak for a second on this idea because a lot of you listening were probably like me. Like you weren't perfect before you got married. you didn't live this perfectly holy, righteous, sinless, well, no one lives a sinless life or stainless life before you got married. Maybe you got married with some regrets. Maybe your spouse and your spouse has some regrets. Maybe neither of you are virgins. Maybe both of you are virgins,

but you've done things that you don't think are great or one of you has, whatever it is. Know that that if you are a new creation in Christ and you are a believer and you have been saved by Christ, your slate has been wiped clean. There was this ridiculous blog post by the something wife, the happy wife, the joyful wife, some blogger. It went viral. And the title of the blog post was men want debt-free virgins with no tattoos. So be that. And this is exactly what I'm talking about, when I'm talking about the horizontal and the sinful motivations of a lot of people in this purity culture world, the traditional purity culture world, is this idea that you should be pure because your husband wants you to be pure. That's not a godly way to think. I'm sorry,

you can have preferences. But if God sees someone who has committed sins as new, as clean, as pure, as perfect because of his son, then you as a guy or as a woman have no right to see that person any differently. Now, I'm not saying you can't use discernment. If someone, for example, has been guilty for the past 15 years of credit card fraud, like you might want to take a second look at whether or not this is someone you want to marry. You don't have to marry someone. But it is wrong for you not to forgive someone when Christ has already forgiven them because God is really the only person that would be justified in holding a grudge and through Christ. He doesn't for those who are saved. And so it's important to see those who are new creations as new creations and not hold their sins

against them simply because maybe we didn't commit the same sense. I think that's wrong. And so you should take hope and you should take joy and you should be assured by the fact that Jesus has made you clean and what you've done in the past doesn't define who you are now. It doesn't admire who you are now. It doesn't make you any less desirable. It doesn't make you any less of a good prospect for a wife if you are going to get married one day. And just rest in the new identity that he's given you because quite frankly, you have no right to see yourself any differently than he sees you because he knows you way better than you do.

is called you new and clean and through him righteous. So let's see. How much time do we have? Okay, I think that's going to be it. I will just say maybe we'll talk about it more next week because there are developments happening. So, and I'm, as you're listening to this, I am recording this the day a couple days before. So I don't want to give you too much information that is going to be inaccurate by the time you listen to it. But the United Methodist representatives I'm reading from Greenville News Online have rejected plans that would change the denomination's restrictions on LGBT clergy and same-sex marriages. Committee members at an international conference in St. Louis have rejected two sets of plans that would have allowed individual churches to decide for themselves

on LGBT issues and instead advanced a plan that would keep current rules for bidding same-sex church weddings and LGBT clergy. This is the Methodist denomination. A lot of people were surprised by this. there was, I think it was called a one church plan. The LGBT advocates were pushing forward saying individual churches should be able to decide whether or not we want gay clergy, whether or not we want to perform gay weddings. But the Methodist, the United Methodist representative said, no, we're going to stick with the traditional plan. This is what the Bible says about the definition of marriage.

This is what the Bible says about good and holy sexuality. And the Methodist denomination is going to stick under the traditional plan. that is the case for now as I am reading and learning about this, but apparently it could change. There could be a comeback of this one church plan. So I'll keep you updated on that as I can. But that's it for today. Thank you guys so much for listening. As always, please send me feedback.

Send me an email, Allie at the conservative millennial blog.com. You can also message me on Instagram. It's hard for me to see all of those messages. I get a lot of messages on Instagram, which I love. But I can't always respond to them. so if you send me an email, I'm more likely to see it. And if you like the podcast, please leave me a five-star review on iTunes. I would love to hear your thoughts and share it with your friends.

I love you guys. Thank you. Oh, oh, oh, oh, I forgot. I have an announcement. I have an announcement to make. Okay, actually I have two announcements. Okay. One announcement is that this podcast is going to three times a week.

Really exciting, right? Right? I'm really excited. three times a week. I haven't decided on the days yet. So you can give me feedback whether you want it to be Monday, Monday, Wednesday, Friday, or Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, Thursday, trying to figure that out. We're still going to do news theology and then probably a conversation. But if you have any feedback on what you want that extra episode to be, I took a poll not that long ago and I think I have a pretty good idea of what you guys want. But if you want

to give me extra feedback, please do that is my first announcement. My second announcement is smaller than that, but still really exciting. I am. I'm going to be on the show outnumbered on Fox a week from today. And I think it's at 11 a.m. Central time, 12 p.m. Eastern time. And so that means I'm going to be on TV for a whole hour. I'll be co-hosting the show. I'm really excited about that. I think it's the longest I've ever been on Life TV, I think, for Fox.

And so I'm honored to have been asked. It'll be really fun. But all of you guys should tune in for that. My husband and I will be going to New York to film that. and I'm looking forward to it. Okay, that really is the end of my podcast. If you were at CPAC, make sure that you come say hi. I'm speaking today. And I'll talk to you guys next week.