Julie Gunlock joins the podcast to discuss this month’s policy focus: the United States Dietary Guidelines—A Recipe For Health Or Harm? We review the history of the federal government’s guidelines and the goal of trying to control positive health outcomes in America. With school feeding programs, prison menus, military diets, and more, is the government’s nutritional advice inadvertently manipulating the food market and eroding public trust?
Julie Gunlock directs Independent Women’s Network and IWF’s Center for Progress and Innovation. She is also the Monday/Tuesday co-host of WMAL FM’s morning drive radio show O’Connor & Company, the leading talk radio station in the DC area. She is the author of the book From Cupcakes to Chemicals: How the Culture of Alarmism Makes Us Afraid of Everything and How to Fight Back and hosts The Bespoke Parenting Podcast.
TRANSCRIPT
Beverly Hallberg:
Welcome to She Thinks, a podcast where you’re allowed to think for yourself. I’m your host, Beverly Hallberg, and on today’s episode, it is our policy focus. This month, we’re looking at the United States Dietary Guidelines; are they a recipe for health or harm? We’re going to look at the history of these instructions and the government’s goal of trying to control positive health outcomes in America. The school feeding programs, prison meals, military diets, and more on the menu. Is the government’s nutritional advice inadvertently manipulating the food market and eroding public trust? Well, joining us to break it all down is one of the co-authors of this report. Julie Gunlock joins us. Julie Gunlock directs the Independent Women’s Network and IWF Center for Progress and Innovation. She is also the Monday, Tuesday, and Wednesday co-host of WMAL’s morning drive show O’Connor and Company. She is the author of the book From Cupcakes to Chemicals, and she hosts The Bespoke Parenting Hour. It’s always a pleasure to have you on She Thinks, Julie. Thank you for joining us.
Julie Gunlock:
Thank you. I always listen to my bio and I go, “Gosh, I’m kind of busy.”
Beverly Hallberg:
You’re very busy and you’re also a mom of three boys. You have a lot going on and you do so much with IWF and we appreciate all you’re doing. I first want to congratulate you on a victory. There was a big piece of legislation passed this past week. Correct?
Julie Gunlock:
That’s right. The Parents’ Bill of Rights. I am a Virginia mom. I’m even a Northern Virginia mom, which is sort of synonymous with activist mom and I certainly consider myself one; and the moms and dads, I have to say, in Northern Virginia and throughout Virginia and throughout the United States, have worked really hard to have their natural right of being a parent, of having ultimate control over what their child sees and does and having the right to have information about the curriculum in schools, about their own welfare and their health, and their mental health and their mental wellbeing.
These are things that, Beverly, I became a mom in 2007 and I cannot believe I’m talking this way now, that there needs to be Congressional action to reestablish the role of parents in a child’s life. It’s astonishing, but sadly, we are there. We’ve seen what the school boards are doing. We’ve seen what sort of activists, leftist teachers are doing with the help of the school boards and the teachers’ unions. So yes, this had to be reestablished. I have some issues with the bill, particularly the enforcement mechanism. It did pass in the House, unlikely to come to the floor in the Senate, so the battle is not won, the war is not won, but this was certainly a victory on the battlefield.
Beverly Hallberg:
Definitely a huge victory on the battlefield. Congrats on that. I know a lot of parents thank you for your hard work personally. I know you care personally about this issue. They can tell just by hearing you talk, and something that parents care about as well, they care about having rights that their child is their child and not the government’s. They also care about what they eat. I think it’s so interesting as we look at the United States dietary guidelines this month, this is our policy focus. It’s been interesting to look at the history. What has this meant for Americans’ health, including what has this meant for children and their meals in schools? I want to start by just you giving us an overview of what even started this. Why did the United States think that they should be involved in our dietary guidelines?
Julie Gunlock:
First of all, I want to give a shout out to our junior fellow, Patricia Patnode, who actually was the author of this policy focus. She did a great job. This is a policy focus — we wanted it to come out before the new dietary guidelines come out in 2015. The dietary guidelines committee is meeting right now as we speak, going over the past guidelines and looking if they need to be altered, supposedly looking at the new nutrition science and other sort of medical information that has come out from when they did it in 2000 and, let’s see, 18? No, 2020.
Beverly Hallberg:
2020.
Julie Gunlock:
2020, thank you. So it’s every five years that they renew these and is, again, they’re supposed to look at new information, new scientific in information that’s come out. The dietary guidelines were established to give people guidance and to give, really, government agencies guidance. You mentioned in the intro, the military, school lunches, prisons all follow this. Also, nutritionists follow this. Also, when you turn your food over and it says serving size, they follow the dietary guidelines. It actually has quite an impact. The problem is, as we’ve seen, I’m Gen X and I certainly remember the pyramid.
Most people my age will remember the pyramid. Which put, if you look at it today, nobody eats the way the pyramid told you to eat because it put meat way up high and it put carbs down low. It put fat way up high. When I say a triangle, it meant eat less meat and less fat and eat carbs and so eat lots of sugary fruits was sort of the one above it. So obviously nutrition guidelines have changed over the years, but if you look when the nutrition guidelines came out and then you track obesity in the United States, when you look at childhood obesity, that has gone straight up. As the guidelines were launched, there was a definite increase in obesity and other things like high blood pressure and other comorbidities got worse.
When you consider the fact that, for instance, the dietary guidelines are followed for school lunches — I mean, we remember Michelle Obama tried to reform the school lunch process, but she didn’t really have an impact on the dietary guidelines. The bottom line is lunches are awful to this day. That’s why I’ve been a big advocate of packing your kids their own lunch because the government is going to get it wrong.
The reason, and I know I’m giving a long answer here and we can go on to other things, but the reason is that the dietary guidelines give general guidance. Okay? They don’t look at your body mass index, they don’t look at mine, they don’t look at my genetics or your genetics. They just say “In general, do this.” And that’s fine, but that is certainly not necessarily individualized guidance. And the other thing is, when you look at the history of the dietary guidelines, they’ve gotten it just plain wrong over and over again. There are specific examples, which I am sure, I don’t want to just make this a big tangent, but there are specific examples where they’ve gotten it wrong and they’ve said, “You really shouldn’t eat this or that.” And it’s actually been bad advice. So in general, these guidelines are not a good guide for Americans in how they should eat.
Beverly Hallberg:
And I’m Gen X as well, so I’m with you on that one. I do remember the food pyramid, and I remember when we went through this huge craze saying that fat is bad. No fat, just stick to fat-free food. And we remember that the cookies that you would buy at the grocery store would be fat-free cookies loaded with sugar, loaded with sodium, loaded with all these other things because we thought, well, fat is what makes us fat, therefore we shouldn’t eat fat in our food. They’ve gotten it wrong. Now, I will say we learn more as science continues to discover things, so that is part of it, but can you talk to us just about that craze, also the idea that trans fats are better for you than regular fat that you find in butter and eggs? How bad has the government gotten it in years past?
Julie Gunlock:
Yeah, you nailed it, Beverly. And this is the thing, first of all, I just want to say one funny thing. I remember I lived with four girls in college. We had an apartment right near campus, and it was Friday night and we’d put a VHS tape in, oh my God, I’m aging myself.
Beverly Hallberg:
Be kind, rewind.
Julie Gunlock:
We’d all have that sleeve of SnackWell cookies, which were low-fat — they actually had no fat. But you’re right, they were so sweet because they packed it with sugar. And when they came out with this guidance in the nineties, and I think, look, they were bad on fat for way before the 90s, but when they came out with this guidance and they were saying, “Don’t eat fat, fat is fat, saturated fat, animal fats.” And then you had McDonald’s switching from tallow to vegetable oil, which made the fries taste worse. It also impacted the industry, the entire food industry. What you’d have is, I also recall a lot of fat-free salad dressings, right? So what they’d do is they’d take Italian dressing, which would be olive oil and salt and vinegar and some spices, but then they’d make a fat-free version and they’d pack it with sugar, where before it had no sugar.
If you just got Italian dressing, it had no sugar in it. So they would pack it with sugar, and they did this with a lot of foods to enhance the flavor, to increase flavor or they’d increase salt, they would do something. But the bottom line is they weren’t necessarily making it healthy. In fact, in many cases they were making it less healthy. We’ve seen all these mistakes and reversals. For many years, eggs, the dietary guidelines came out and said eggs are problematic. They have too much saturated fat. It raises cholesterol. Fast forward 20 years, the dietary guidelines actually said cholesterol is no longer a nutrient of concern. Can you imagine after all of the statins and the worry about cholesterol and people altering their lifestyles and their food habits to avoid cholesterol, and they took eggs out — eggs are an incredibly nutritious, nutrient-dense food that’s actually inexpensive. You had the egg industry in a complete panic, and they should — understandably so because people had stopped eating eggs.
You had this entire marketing plan. Do you remember there was all these little jingles about eggs and the good old-fashioned, I can’t remember exactly, but Patricia mentions it in the policy focus, how there was this massive multimillion-dollar marketing scheme put out there by the a egg industry to literally save the industry because of the power of the dietary guidelines. You have other things like the dietary guidelines constantly recommends milk in schools, only a certain kind of milk, right, ignoring the fact that there is significant numbers of minority people in this country who are lactose intolerant, it’s common within that minority group. You recommend this for all school kids, not recognizing that, and it sounds like I’m talking about equity, but this is actually very, very important that the children with lactose intolerance not be given milk.
And here’s the dietary guidelines, putting out this sort of blanket recommendation about every kid needs milk. Well actually, it can really harm some kids. Again, you have these examples of mistakes that the dietary guidelines just kind of goes, “Oops.” I want to just say one more thing. Nutrition science is flawed. Unlike experiments on rats, where we can feed the rat a bunch of stuff and then lock that rat up and we control everything that rat comes in contact with from the food it eats to the time it wakes up to what it does through the day. So we can get a really clear sense of what this particular thing that we are feeding that rat, how it affects them. But with nutrition science, and when I’m talking about that I’m like experience [inaudible 00:12:08] medications or chemicals or things like that. And that’s actually not always reliable either because humans are not rats, but you can get a clear sense through those experiments. With nutrition science, you give people like a form and you say, “Write down what you ate all day.”
Beverly Hallberg:
Not everybody tells the truth [inaudible 00:12:23].
Julie Gunlock:
First I had a salad, then I had another salad, and I didn’t have any alcohol and she’s drinking a glass of wine. You don’t want to look like you’re being bad or eating bad. Nutrition science is inherently flawed. As a result, we get skewed results. You can’t lock people in a room for four years and see the effect of this or that. Again, the dietary guidelines just, it’s just never going to be a good source of dietary guidance.
Beverly Hallberg:
I want to talk about the market incentives and what we may even refer to as crony capitalism in this sense. You talked about a committee that is getting together to determine what the health guidelines should be. Well, there’re going to be certain people there who may have a vested interest in a farming category, whether it’s the dairy industry or I even saw in a recent — I don’t know if we have the official food pyramid anymore, if it’s considered official, where they put cereals, like sugary cereals, as something that people should have because there are grains in them. I was thinking to myself, I wonder who at General Mills is on this committee because there’s no way that eating Apple Jacks is healthier than eating eggs in the morning. When we look at the food pyramid or we think about what is deemed healthy, I’m assuming there are market incentives that you do have people in charge of certain industries that have the ear of somebody in Washington.
Julie Gunlock:
Yeah, a hundred percent. Look, these things have been influenced by outside activists for many years. And what concerns me today, and I’m very concerned about industry having an influence on that. Again, that leading to ridiculous recommendations like Apple Jacks. I’m sure many people like Apple Jacks.
Beverly Hallberg:
They’re delicious.
Julie Gunlock:
It’s not healthy and it’s certainly not a health food, although I kind of hate categorizing things. Anyway, I’m getting off on a tangent. The point is, what I’m concerned about today is environmental activism. It is suspected that the dietary guide, and I mean we saw this in the last round of dietary guidance coming out or that came out a couple years ago, was the influence of environmentalists and anti-meat activists who really want everyone in the world, not just Americans, to go to a plant-based diet. You will probably see limits on certain meats, and this is entirely wrong. Again, humans react differently to different kinds of eating. There are people in this country who, it’s a trend now, it’s called carnivore where they all they eat is meat. This is not something I could do, but there are people who have had incredible health benefits and their blood testing and everything, they are incredibly healthy.
They’ve chosen that. They probably, like most Americans, like me, I think it’s pretty common to try different diets and see what works. These people have tried a carnivore diet. Now that is absolutely against the dietary guidelines. A lot of that is because of the influence of these anti-meat activists, environmentalists as well, and animal rights activist as well. I want to say also, we saw a prime example of this a couple years ago when, I cannot believe this, the dietary guidelines actually said, “No level of alcohol is safe.” Just think about that. Okay? Think about you go out to a nice restaurant, it’s been a busy week on a Friday night, you have one glass of wine. According to the, and you haven’t had anything to drink, or maybe you have — you’ve had a couple drinks on Tuesday or something like that — the idea that that would be considered unhealthy.
It’s interesting to me, Bev, because so many times these government agencies issue these recommendations, and it’s in a vacuum. It’s like they don’t consider that having a nice evening with a nice meal and a glass of wine and sitting around a table that’s enjoyable and that brings happiness — and you know what else is good for you? Happiness. It always astonishes me in these government recommendations that they sort of ignore the idea. And this is what I talk about in my book with alarmism. I give one example of a mom watching her child. There was all this alarmism many years ago about kids drinking out of a hose because they said the hoses are made of plastic and then your kid’s going to die of because it’s chemicals. I remember thinking to myself, there is some joy in watching your kid have so much fun outside holding a hose and spraying their friends and siblings.
When you start to think in that way, you’re constantly nervous. That mom, instead of having a good time watching her kids do something we all did, that heretofore was normal. Suddenly she’s like, “Oh my God, my child is being poisoned.” So again, this happens with these dietary guidelines. They issue them, these stark warnings, these really grim warnings. One drink, one sip of alcohol is going to hurt you. Ultimately, that takes away some joy in life because there is some joy in life imbibing now and then. Now they walked that back. Now they’re back to the one or two drinks. The problem now is that they don’t recognize the difference between men and women.
So a man is physiologically very different from women — I know today, we don’t talk about that. I know today that’s unpopular to recognize what a woman is and what a man is. But from a biological stance, there’s differences. We should consider that those differences when recommending alcohol for men and women, but they don’t. But again, at least they’ve walked back the zero-alcohol recommendation. But there’s still so many problems with these dietary guidelines. They tend to be very strict, very unrealistic, not accounting for what humans like to do and enjoy doing. And again, influenced increasingly by activists.
Beverly Hallberg:
I want to talk about the enjoyment of food and bring that up in reference to something you mentioned earlier, and that was Michelle Obama’s school lunch program. So when Obama was president, she introduced this program to bring more fruits and vegetables to kids’ meals at lunchtime in public schools. I think that there are many people who would say on the surface, this looks like a great idea. We want kids to eat healthy, all of this. But for many of the kids, they didn’t enjoy the food. Not only were they not getting the calories that they needed, they were also, there was a lot of waste. Food was being thrown away. So you saw under the Trump administration rolling that back a little bit, and he was blasted for it. His administration was blasted for it.
But the point they were making is we want kids to eat food. For low-income kids, often this is the only meal that they have or the only good meal that they have, or they have enough calories to eat. How should we balance? I think this is the hard thing for all of us. How should we balance the fact that we do want to eat healthy, we want fruits and we want vegetables, we want kids to eat those as well, but we also just need them to eat, even if it is a hamburger at school. How do you see us balancing that?
Julie Gunlock:
For years and years and years, the school lunch program has taken away, has sort of reduced, I should say, the child-parent relationship. I know that sounds dramatic and I’m not going off on some Northern Virginia rant here, but it is very, very important to understand that the most rigorous study on childhood obesity was done at Ohio University about a decade ago, and it stands today. They did an incredible study of how children were eating. They found at the end of the study, and they studied, I think it was 1500 kids, it was very rigorous, very well respected. They found that there’s only three things that help keep kids at a healthy weight, and that is sitting down as a family and eating dinner, at least, I think, three to four times a week; putting the kids to bed at a reasonable time so they get a lot of sleep; and limiting their screen time.
I remember reading articles about this study because the scientists that were behind this study were even like, “What? That’s it? That’s it?” They were looking for some magic bullet, maybe more government intervention. And instead it was actually kind of just being a good parent. A parent’s role in their child’s nutrition is the most important indicator of child health and keeping kids free of childhood obesity. And yet we have a government that pursues a policy — and their goal is to get every child, you realize that Michelle Obama and the School Lunch Association, they want 100% of kids that go to public schools to have a school lunch. You have a government that’s pursuing a policy that is in direct opposition to the studies that show actually a parent’s involvement is important. And it’s important, again, because in school lunches — it’s not just lunch anymore, that’s why it drives me crazy when people say school lunch — it’s school meals because you can now get a breakfast. What’s troubling is some kids have breakfast at home, then they go to early drop-off and they get a breakfast at school, then they get a really unhealthy school lunch. Again, I know your point was Michelle Obama. Michelle Obama tried to reform the school lunch program and it didn’t work. They in fact became grosser and part of the reason that the kids didn’t like them is they did that sort of SnackWell’s thing where they tried to replace white rice with brown rice. They refused to accept regional differences, so they made it much more centralized. And USDA had a list of things that could be in a school lunch. I’ll never forget the example, in Oregon, there were pears on this tree outside and the kids said, “Can we have the pears?” That school lunch administrator in that local school looked at the list and that particular kind of pear was not on the list of approved foods.
It really drove me crazy when people would beat up on the local school lunch person when really it was USDA and it was Michelle Obama and it was the feds that were the real problem here. You had lunch ladies who wanted to integrate more local flavors or ethnic flavors because maybe there was a large group of Ethiopian kids or Hispanic kids and she wanted to integrate that and she wasn’t allowed to. Ultimately, if you want your kids to be healthy, and if you want to avoid school lunch, pack them a lunch. I’ve done the calculation. I focused on this so much about a decade ago. I timed myself, I did the prices, it wasn’t expensive.
And my idea for the federal government’s involvement is expand the food stamp program so that people get more money if they need it to feed their kids a lunch, to pack their kids a lunch. Look, fine. You don’t have money to feed your kid to lunch even though it costs like a buck. And don’t patronize parents by saying it’s hard to take a piece of bread, put a piece of turkey on there, and put another piece of bread on there. This narrative that it’s too hard for parents is pretty insulting to poor people. So look, if there is a funding issue, we can expand the food stamp program to accommodate parents. But ultimately, the federal government should never be taking control away from parents or detangling parents and the role that a parent really should have in their child’s life.
Beverly Hallberg:
I want to come back to this word “guidelines.” That’s what it’s called, it’s called the guidelines that are being used, United States dietary guidelines. But really what you’re talking about are mandates with no exceptions. So you mentioned the local school lunch lady, what she can provide. We want more farm-to-table approach to this, but that’s not allowed. It’s because it is this one-size-fits-all for all children, regardless of their dietary needs, regardless of the location they live in, regardless of preferences of children. I think even this word guideline isn’t a true descriptor of what is actually taking place because it’s the government mandating what children must eat, what people must cook for schools, but also again, what people eat in prisons, what our military eats. All of this comes from a one-size-fits-all, top-down approach. Is there any way that we can push forward with some type of changes to this so it’s more of a guideline, a suggestion, than a mandate?
Julie Gunlock:
Well, two things. Nothing like running into battle fueled by a veggie burger, right, Beverly? That sounds like a good plan. That is an example of why these things are important. They do rule what people eat. Our militaries are important. Our school kids are important. Even prisoners shouldn’t be tortured with veggie burgers. I’m kidding. I know they’ve come a long way. I don’t mean to beat up on veggie burgers. The only way, look, I don’t mean to be negative here, but I really do find it amusing that people are all like farm-to-table and oh, only the best food. And gosh, I need to know the name of the cow where this ground beef is coming from. Then there’s passionate defense of the school lunch program or the school feeding programs, passionate defense of this government control over, frankly, what a lot of vulnerable people in this country eat.
I think what we need to do is really encourage people to avoid this type of thing. I mean, look, I understand that nutritionists and there are people who in that work in hospitals and need to know serving sizes. I think there is room for some very narrow guidance on things. But too often, these guidelines are used to intimidate and sway food companies. It’s used to really harm industry, industry that somehow isn’t approved like the beef industry, like the pork industry, like the egg industry, the alcohol industry, beer and wine and spirits. That is why it’s become, because it is so vulnerable to influence, why it’s become a problem.
I am personally in favor of narrowing it and not having the recommendations being so broad. I also think the federal government is always slow to accept sort of defeat in that there are a million resources. Does anyone actually think I go to the dietary guidelines if I want dieting advice with the internet now? With YouTube? With everything out there for consumers to figure it out on their own? Why in the world do we even need this? But again, I think there are some applications that make sense, but I do think that the influence of the dietary guidance and the use and the control it has over Americans’ diets needs to be reconsidered.
Beverly Hallberg:
Do you think that the control is increasing because of this fact? And that is that the government is vested in our health? Because when you do have people on government health insurance, they care whether or not you are healthy; it’s going to cost more to be able to cover your medical expenses. Is part of the reason why you even saw this introduced in 1980 is the government is trying to lower their costs on health care because they do give so much money to people who need help in the health industry?
Julie Gunlock:
Well, it’s such an interesting question, Beverly, and I wrote a chapter about this in a book that IWF produced several years ago, and I said, “If you want the government …” There’s this movie a couple years ago that came out where the guy goes up to get breakfast and it says, “You’re not allowed bacon today. You’ve hit your bacon allowance for the month or whatever.” It was day two. Who wouldn’t hit their bacon allowance on day two? It was a sort of sci-fi thing. But this is exactly why, if you get the government so involved in this kind of stuff, that’s where personal control really could be a problem. It’s not there yet. I think in the 1980s, when this was introduced, I don’t think they really saw how much government would get involved with health care, but that certainly is an issue today. Look, many of these programs, it’s like they never shrink. They always grow. I think this is important to say on the school feeding programs, that was originally created during the Depression to give super poor kids a meal, it was probably a cold meal, and sort of one guaranteed meal a day. It was for the most, literally kids that were going hungry. Today, anybody can get a school meal. Even the children of millionaires can get a school meal. That makes no sense.
There’s this whole argument about stigma and all of this, but the reliance on these programs, parents’ reliance on these programs is really problematic. It’s enormous. It’s enormously expensive, and the quality of the food is not good anymore because they have to feed so many people. If you are a wealthy person, what are you doing allowing your kid to benefit from a program that was designed for poor kids? The quality would be better if there were less meals made and they would be able to really provide much better meals if they weren’t feeding millions of kids every day. So the enormity of this program is part of the problem, and I don’t mean to be rude here, but the audacity of people who can pack their kid a lunch and have no problem feeding their families using government programs, I think culturally, people need to rethink that and take better control over their kids.
Just to take this full circle, sometimes I have sympathy for teachers and administrators who kind of think they’re in charge of all the kids and parents don’t really have a role. We have signaled four years to school administrators, we’re too busy even to make a brown bag lunch. Okay? What did we expect? We have ceded so much to schools. I wrote an op-ed years ago about how schools are now social service centers. They’re no longer educational institutions. You can get birth control at school and some other pretty scary medical conditions…. At many high schools, they have clinics, some have day cares. You have early drop-off where your kid gets a breakfast and gets entertained. You can keep your kid at school until 6:00 PM in most public schools, they have aftercare, they have all sorts of afterschool programs that are supposed to enhance a child’s learning experience. There’s knitting, there’s flower arranging, there’s sports programs after school.
We’ve gotten to the point that you can drop your kid off at 6:00 AM and not pick them up until 6:00 PM and they are fed every meal in between there. So smetimes as a parent activist and as a parent who’s really angry at how controlling schools have become and they think themselves as better parents, well, what did we think was going to happen? A part of this is there is an urgency to sort of regain control over our children and to reestablish our authority. Part of that is not taking these services that the schools have offered. Certainly, at the very minimum, do what you’re supposed to do and pack your kid their own lunch. [inaudible 00:31:46] guidelines.
Beverly Hallberg:
That’s the moral of the story. We’re going back to brown bag lunches. Do that for your kids. But also, I think you bring up a good point just to wrap this up, and that is the alarmism that we see, ignore it. We have at our access the ability to research what is best for our children, what is best for us individually. We know our genetics better and we know that a one-size-fits-all isn’t the best thing, that we need to look at this individually. So it will be interesting as we see the new U.S. guidelines come out, dietary guidelines. I’m curious to see whether or not, as we look at those, we can kind of figure out who was at that table, who is at that committee based on the industries that were represented there. So take it with a grain of salt; do what’s best for your family. But a really interesting piece, Patricia Patnode wrote it. It’s called United States Dietary Guidelines—A Recipe For Health Or Harm? You can go to iwf.org and look at it there. But Julie, always a pleasure to have you on. Thank you for joining us today.
Julie Gunlock:
Thanks, Bev. Love coming on.
Beverly Hallberg:
And thank you for joining us. Before you go, Independent Women’s Forum does want you to know that we rely on the generosity of supporters like you. An investment in IWF fuels our efforts to enhance freedom, opportunity, and well-being for all Americans, so please consider making a small donation to IWF by visiting iwf.org/donate. That’s iwf.org/donate. Last, if you enjoyed this episode of She Thinks, do leave us a rating or a review. It does help. We’d love it if you shared this episode so your friends can know where they can find more She Thinks. From all of us here at IWF, thanks for watching.
