What Should Christian's Political Strategy on Abortion Be?

All right, we're live on the conversations that matter podcast and I appreciate everyone's patience in advance because I've been getting messages from stream yard for the last hour. Telling me that they're having a lot of people on the platform.

And so they might have some problems with Delays and that kind of thing. So Lord willing this will all work out. If not, I'll upload the conversation later because it's also being recorded locally. But we have two guests with us today.

Neither of whom have been on the podcast before. We have Ben Zeis loft and we have AJ Hurley. How you guys doing? They're good. Thank you so much for having us. Yeah, my pleasure. So I've been in chat groups with Ben for more than a year I would say at least and so yeah, we've kind of gotten to know each other in that and It was I think it might have been since the daily wire and all that.

So I mean, yeah, yeah AJ I know I've started talking to you more recently. But I have heard of the white rose resistance and excited to hear what you're gonna bring to this. Let me just explain to everyone kind of what we're doing and why you guys are that because I've had some people reach out and say Like do a debate series on this and get my guy in and my and there's a reason that it's you guys.

And the main one is because You guys respect each other. And if this is a tense topic. But you can both be adults about it and there's already a rapport built and I just think that makes for the best Discussions on these things when you respect each other, but you're still unapologetic about the positions you hold.

So.

Ben.

Both of you I should say but I'll start with Ben.

Has.

Really a platform and an expertise to bring to this. So Ben, I know you've kind of been around the block in political activism. You like I mentioned before you're at the daily wire, but now you are the lead editor at the Republic Sentinel.

Where can people find about your work or website or whatever? Yep.

So our site is Republic Republic Sentinel comm on Twitter. We're at Republic Sentinel and then I'm on Twitter as at Ben's ice loft. Perfect.

All right, and then AJ I know yours is pretty long. You sent me your bio. You can just do the bullet points man all good so you are instrumental in exposing Something that happened in DC at the beginning actually about a year ago now.

Where there was a baby two years. Okay. Sorry two years ago where there was some babies kind of like left in a box and you expose this and You've been a respiratory care practitioner and worked with different pro-life groups like National Director of Activism at live-action and survivors of the abortion Holocaust.

And now you're at white rose resistance. So so you've been around the block on this issue and you both have clear views on what we're gonna talk about today and Some I'll just say this and then I'll let you guys talk.

Some have said this is a debate. I think actually you guys Ben I know has already this is a debate. So I'm like, well, I guess it's a debate now, but there's no debate format here. So I asked the guys when this started developing into more of a debate.

Do you want to do like? Rebuttals and opening statements and that kind of thing and they were cool with just keeping things kind of fluid so that's what I'm gonna do I'm just gonna let them both talk and Then if we reach a point in the discussion where questions would be appropriate I may ask some questions if we have questions from the audience I may put those in there, but I'm gonna try to be as fair and equal as I can.

So if I give Ben a question, that's hard. I'm gonna try to find a hard question. That's equally hard to give to AJ. So that's how we want to do it this evening. And I view the podcast as like this is my house your guests in my house.

So I want you to feel that way and I want everyone else who's participating to feel that way. So here's the big question first. Who wants to go first or does it matter to you guys?

I'm good other way. Yeah me too. I mean I can go first if you'd like. It doesn't does. Usually who talks first is is the is the one that he doesn't want. You know, you usually people don't want to talk first in these type of things because if he if he talks first usually loses.

But I mean I can I can go. Well, you're gonna go back out for.

So so yeah, I mean this is sort of like an opening statement, but just your position and usually the person who goes first in a formal debate right would be the one who's Supporting the the view and then the person who disagrees would be the person who goes next usually.

So the view as I understand it, this is what we agreed on was whether or not Approaches to ending abortion that are incremental are Morally acceptable that's as I understand it. So that's what we're gonna be talking about today.

And I know Ben disagrees with this. AJ thinks that that's permissible. So I think AJ probably you should go first Explain why you think that's a permissible thing and then we'll let Ben respond and we can go back and forth.

Sound good.

Sure. Yeah. Yeah. Well, all right, I think it's helpful to start with basically just and I'm getting a little bit of an echo. John, too. I don't know what that's all about. But um, I think it's a little it's very helpful for me to just right out the gate kind of established.

What? What biblical incrementalism or whatever you want to call it righteous? Arguing or voting for righteous increments to end a political evil. What it is in what it isn't. So, you know when I say I'm not an abolitionist It's funny because different people have different perspectives of what what that even means like and it's actually it was funny because I Texted some friends that aren't even Germane to this whole thing, but they kind of know the gist from the periphery on these and ask them.

Hey. How would you define are you an abolitionist and then they said yes, and I said, what is that and one of them said well, that means that you don't believe in rape or incest exceptions and Another one said that well, that just means that you you want to criminalize abortion.

And.

So I think a lot of people get really confused when because they don't know all the insider baseball. When it comes to these topics because if that was the case, I would be an an abolitionist as well.

And I actually I used to be an abolitionist For the first few years until I the some of the wheels started coming off for me. So, let me just say what I don't believe before I say what I do. Just maybe we can cut some Come like some unnecessary conversation out because I don't want to argue for I don't want to defend the pro-life movement.

I don't want to defend people that think that we should forever Regulate this issue. I don't want to defend people that want to victimize women. I I want to End this political evil and I want to save as many children as I can while I'm doing it and so I would like to end this with I mean, I'm I don't necessarily think this will end without a great awakening or a revival of some sort or at least Restoring of the family unit, but but regardless I would like to curtail evil as much as possible.

So I I believe abortion should be criminalized I believe it that murder if you willfully like I mean if you I Held the babies of third trimester, baby I mean if you are the guy who is dismembering that or you're you're the person who is who is Responsible for the death of that child you need to be held to the fullest extent of the law.

So I think rapists and murderers deserve the death penalty according to God's standard right, it's gonna take a long time to we all recognize that the Beauty and dignity of every single human being to where our laws reflect that but yeah, I I do think that there are examples of biblical incrementalism and and I also think that That it's not a you know to saying that we are for some type or against killing all some babies does not mean that we are for killing all babies.

So and when it comes to like a heartbeat bill or something depending on some heartbeat bills I would outright reject giving the circumstances others in if like it's in New York in California or someplace that that is Unbelievably hard and they're they're killing most children and even I mean, California is a destination spot killing 20 20 30 40 50 thousand late-term abortion now It's like if I could get that I would save a lot of life.

And so I don't believe that Saying I believe in protecting babies with heartbeats Means I'm sanctioning the killing of babies without heartbeats and so I think that all of those analogies would apply there in terms of saving we need to save all the life lives we can and And while preaching the gospel while we do it, so that's essentially my perspective real quick, too I my perspective is not that's not that Incremental ism is unjust.

But that it's inevitable and I actually where the wheels came off for me with the whole abolition thing was when I started realizing that equal protection does not equal biblical justice if the punishment if I get out life at conception bill and the punishment That's a result of that is is You know a 50-cent fine that might be equal protection, but it's not biblical justice and so if a heartbeat bill is Indirectly sanctioning the children the death of children without heartbeats then an equal protection bill is.

Is.

Indirectly sanctioning. Putting image-bearers of God in a seven-foot cage for 20 years to life and something that God would never prescribe as just either. So it's not that biblical that's not that incremental ism is unjust.

It's that it's inevitable. You just need to determine which type of incremental ism you want to biblically enshrine. Methodology the methodologies of such. So that's essentially my perspective.

Alright, awesome, so Ben what what do you want to say? You can respond to some of that if you want, but maybe just make the case for your position first.

Absolutely. Well, thank you so much for having me. Yeah, sorry if I framed it as purely debate. I know it's supposed to be discussion. I was using the term debate loosely, but in essence I'm I agree with AJ that increments in some sense are inevitable.

But I think I think you said in there that incremental ism is inevitable, which is what I would disagree with. I would say the incremental ism the way I'm defining that term is Explicitly pursuing change by degrees.

Which I think is not something that God want us to do as Christians because never really what you do is you codify iniquity? So some of those, you know pro-life bills he was mentioning I haven't read many Harvey bills.

But I was just doing some research into Mike Johnson's History of pro-life activism and one of the bills that he had was the unborn child Protection Act when he was a member of the Louisiana House and that bill does explicitly say, you know.

Just because we're allowing we're banning, you know, late-term abortions with when you get to go in and cut up the baby. It's not to say that you know, and then there's a list of other methods you can still do to kill a baby.

So it depends on The kind of increment you're pursuing, you know, I would concur that yes increments are inevitable, but Incremental ism is not medical you immediate ism is something you can actually do to Truly move the ball down the field and pursue justice and I think that's what God would call us to do.

You know, he does say establish justice like there are actual biblical commands for how we go about this. So one thing I would like AJ to do at some point tonight if he's willing is is to kind of show us why?

You know his approach is not violating, you know, Psalm 94 Isaiah 10 these explicit passages where we're told do not codify iniquity. You know do not, you know prescribe death by decree for the fatherless.

So I lined out today on Twitter a handful of other arguments. But we have to consider also the prudential failures of incremental ism over the past 50 years because that's that's the way we've gone about it for a long time now post row is Is teaching the culture that with the way we should end abortion and teaching Christians the way we should end abortion is by increment.

So I think we can examine the fruit there. But what we've had after 50 plus years of pro-life ism in the United States is a culture. That is extremely confused on what is human life. It's only got more degenerate even in other spheres, you know, what is a woman?

We don't know the answer to that question. But on the abortion issue, you know when I do sidewalk counseling here in Philadelphia when I talk to women, you know. They'll use the pro-life excuses. They'll say well, my baby doesn't have a heartbeat yet.

My baby's just six weeks old whatever the case may be and they're picking that up from pro-life laws where if if Christians have been. You know the whole pro-life rights or pro anti-abortion rights have been saying no.

We're not murdering babies at all from the very beginning. We wouldn't be in a situation like that the battle lines would be a lot more clear and I think AJ recognized. That's where he wants to be but I think he said earlier today as well that If you're giving me if I'm wrong, it's essentially that.

He's not a he wants to abolish abortion, but he's okay in the meantime with regulating abortion. That's where I would I think the heart of the disagreement lies where I would say let's not regulate abortion.

Let's actually establish equal justice in the process trying to think if I miss any points, but. Maybe maybe a helpful synonym for incrementalism is regulationism. I heard that T. Russell Hunter said that recently.

I think it's a good distinction. Because obviously we can't go about and just say, you know, here's here's the book of Deuteronomy. Let's enshrine this entire loss, right? Because I would entail entire wholesale restructuring of the legal system of the criminal justice system the way that we, you know adjudicate murder and homicide.

Which I think everybody recognizes that's not what we're trying to do. The question is are are these increments sins against God and I don't think in the abolitionist case that is what's happening.

Cool. All right. Well yours was shorter. So I'm trying to keep track of this so you have like you have two and a half minutes if you want it Ben. So, well, do you want AJ to respond now or do you you want to keep talking?

It's up to you.

That's fine with me. Yeah, you can respond. All right.

Yeah, so, um much I agree with there. I I First thing you talked about the I think the unborn infants Protection Act I think that was a really bad thing for a few reasons because one day they Admitted outright that it probably it was just something that they could kind of grandstand that they passed.

But it wouldn't really save any lives. And so yeah, I don't think I think we should be very careful as to what type of message we're sending. Especially if If it's not going to result in the net positive of saving people's lives.

So this understanding of teaching by increment, I do think there is some perspective there because I do believe that the law is a tutor. However, I just I guess I think my response would be like if if there was in Nazi Germany If there was ten Jews that were lined up about to get gunned down by by the Germans.

If they said to me Basically, should we save five of them? In in that regard it would be kind of disingenuous for me to for somebody to say to me Oh, well, if you save if you save five of them, then you're teaching them that it's okay to kill some of them so in especially with these things in regards to Unjust weights and measures.

I think we'll get to that like in that circumstance If they had said, oh, well, should we just should we kill the one or should we save the ones that? That aren't Jewish. I I don't think it would it would be pretty just ingenuous if I said, oh Well, that would be unjust weights and measures.

So so I Know you shouldn't so I think we're left with this inevitability in an unjust system where Like look all of these we live in a system where everybody all unborn children are up for grabs. So like in California, you can kill him to the day of birth.

So if I was to get a heartbeat bill passed It would be so disingenuous for me to to think to make the argument that I'm actually Sanctioning the the death of children without heartbeats. No, actually the abortion industry is doing that that the people that have written laws that's already taking place.

My my law is just simply saving. Saving some that that I can based on whether that it's politically feasible.

Mm-hmm. Yeah so with the I'm glad you mentioned political feasibility because I think that's one of the issues at hand where We're convinced that only certain Increments or certain measures in in this discussion are actually politically feasible where really what the Christian should be doing in politics and this gets Into the conversation.

We're all having a month or two ago with with Trump and how do we respond to Trump is Buying into the paradigm that you know. There there's these set outcomes in politics and we have to pick, you know.

Between the less of the two evils where really the way that political engagement works. It's all about power. What you do is you exert as much power as you possibly can to change the outcome, right? We're saying, you know, you need to support this bill.

We need to identify the legislators that are on the fence about you know My abolition bill where the whatever the case may be and say if you don't support this bill I'm gonna you know direct funds, you know get boots on the ground to knock doors in your district and make sure you don't get reelected next year, so It's I don't like the the mindset of buying into a false paradigm and saying that we must have incremental ism.

Or else, you know, we will get nothing. I don't think that's true. And I think you we actually when we buy into the paradigm we ensure that that's the best we can ever get is incremental measures. And I think that's why over the past few years We've had legal abortion where some states have kind of increments and right now a lot of the states are passing 15-week bills.

Which actually allow 94 of abortions before and anyway. So they're pretty much ineffective because even those that last 6 could just have the abortion. You know beforehand and just adjust their behavior and I'd bring up a similar concern with the heartbeat bill even considering that you know.

Most of those Harvey bills have exemptions for the mother, which I know that you're opposed to and so forth. But it's it's important to reframe our thinking on this matter to you know. From like oh what is what is feasible because you know that may have be a broader sample said that we can think.

It's actually how do we change the outcome of this? How do we you know preach righteousness both, you know preaching the gospel, but also calling for repentance. Which in the civil context looks like establishing justice.

Well, let me take it out of the feasibility.

You know the abstract and actually give you an example and I'm so glad that you mentioned the 94 and the 15-week bills. Because what I'm trying to illustrate is this this isn't our this isn't nebulous this isn't some theory that I'm bringing up that that these Distinctions actually matter and they're actually that if you get this wrong If you if you don't try to save the actual babies that you can Then what's going to happen is you will actually allow for more bloodshed.

Let me give you an example I'm glad you said you said 94 of the children are killed at Before 15 weeks. So 15 week bills do do absolutely nothing. I Completely little to nothing. I completely agree there, but it's the abolitionist position.

That.

Allowed for. That a 15 week bill to happen in Arizona just two weeks ago or a week ago. Not even a week or a week or two ago. And what. Let me explain what happened. There was in 1864 bill that was already in the on the books and this bill said basically criminalized abortion for the abortion provider, but the the gist of it was.

That.

It wasn't a crime for the mother and the AHA and the abolitionist groups Lobbied with the Democrats to basically say Don't repeal this or repeal this bill Because it creates unjust weights and measures and now as a result of the Democrats Siding with AHA and the abolitionists the bill got repealed and now 94 of the babies are being killed in Arizona if that stat is correct there.

So this isn't arbitrary. This isn't abstract. These these ideas have consequences and in this particular this political Idealized this ideal ideology Has victims.

Yeah.

I don't know that's quite accurate the abolitionists. I saw who were opposing the 1864 bill. First of all for the record I was just saying, you know, leave that bill intact leave it alone. If anything somebody should just amend it um and and make an equal protection bill and then and then pass that instead but.

That's all I. I didn't see any abolitionists necessarily saying, you know repeal that bill. Yes, you know, go ahead and repeal that bill. Anyway, um, maybe you have counter examples, but yeah.

Yeah, I do. If I could speak to that real quick, well, I mean jeff jeff durbin got utterly destroyed for supporting it I mean the the the AHA groups and and abolitionists rising were were completely coming after him publicly.

For trying to support retaining that bill and not and not removing it and put up putting an equal protection bill in.

And.

I mean in that regard it's like. So I guess we could get out of the abstract and I could ask you uh, why why it would be okay in that circumstance to vote for. If I was if you could vote for that right and rather than just leave it alone.

Um.

Why would that be okay if it's sanctioning unjust weights and measures? But um. And not just outright unjust in something that we should and incorrectly preaching to the masses. Telling them that that if you kill a.

If a certain class of humans kills an unborn child, then that's not a crime.

Yeah, I mean I was not the one nor were any abolitionists or anyone really any pro-lifers either because it was in 1864. Nobody put that law on the books. Uh, at least I can say what I was saying publicly, you know, I was writing about this and quoting You know jeff durbin and an abortion now and right state reform and the groups that are on the ground.

You know fighting to keep that bill intact but also for equal protection. I was quoting them saying that you know, you know, leave that bill alone. And let's just do equal protection. We introduced a bill three years ago.

You know in 2021 in arizona that the pro-life establishment killed then by the way. They went on to take away the the penalty the adjacent penalty in the 1864 territorial law. That did penalize the woman because we used to have those on the books in the united states.

And it was the pro-life movement that actually took those away in arizona. Uh, that's at least what I was saying. I mean, maybe it's a bit inconsistent. But you know, I I would say, you know, that does just because i'm inconsistent or you know.

On that point doesn't mean that you know incrementalism is correct.

So, you know, well sure sure but but but that's my perspective. My perspective is unjust. Incrementalism is inevitable. So so if if your bill is we need we can never establish anything other than biblical justice.

We need to establish justice for our pre-born neighbors. Well, why wouldn't you resist that bill? Because clearly it doesn't establish justice, so I actually in a sense I I I Appreciate the other side the abolitionist the hardcore abolitionists on this perspective because at least they're being consistent.

At least they're saying we want to establish biblical justice. This bill doesn't therefore. It's not worthy of our support.

Can I jump in real quick? I apologize. I just need to uh explain to everyone. I keep you see I keep looking down. Um, so Ajay, do you still hear the echoing?

Uh, I do but it's it's tolerable. Don't worry.

It's just okay because I was hearing it too and that's why I was muting you ben. I was trying to anticipate when you were gonna talk and stuff. So i'll keep doing that to monitor things also. Put myself in the middle here since you guys are the ones disagreeing here.

Um, do you mind if I ask a clarifying question to both of you that I feel like might tease this out a little bit so.

Um.

This is the impression i'm getting so far in this. Uh,.

This.

Debate over the arizona law and so forth is that I think ben you're looking at uh, And maybe I shouldn't say that law because I don't know if you think this about that law but heartbeat bills and incremental Uh arrangements that aren't perfect biblical justice and that kind of thing you look at those things It seems like as affirming standards.

Like if you vote for these things you are affirming That like this should be the standard. And I think aj you correct me if i'm wrong either of you It looks like you're looking at these as restrictive standards.

So i'm voting for this as a restriction. I know this isn't The standard but this is a restriction. So I i'm not voting to kill people on sunday through wednesday. Um, i'm voting to save them on wednesday through sunday, right so I I think that might be a different way.

You're looking at the same thing like a aj's looking at it as a restrictive thing And ben's looking at it as an affirming thing. So Um, I I don't know if that clarifies it. I thought it might so either one of you I think ben you were up next.

Uh, does that.

Clarify the issue. Is that how you're looking at it?

Yeah to an extent and really what. One of the reasons why i'm holding the standard is because I actually read these bills frequently for what I do for work. You know when i'm reporting on these things.

And they're it's just like these don't do anything like these these laws are they. These regulations can be easily worked around. And if you if you're really determined enough to kill your baby, you can you can skirt.

I mean i'm writing a book right now all about this topic where you know I tear apart all the you know Pro-life bills that have been proposing the place of abolition bills over the past 10 15 years. And you know, oklahoma louisiana Arizona all these states where there have been these big abolition battles.

And that's that's what you are doing when you vote for one of these bills is you are affirming. You know, it is okay to kill a baby, you know before this point but not after this point or whatever the case may be.

Um.

So that's that's what i'm having a problem with and you know. There are explicit biblical commands to not do that sort of thing to codify iniquity and i'm reading the bill. I'm, like yeah, there's the codified iniquity section in like, you know section 3a or whatever the case may be.

Okay, so that's standard across the board on pro-life. Uh what you're calling pro-life legislation like heartbeat heartbeat bills and that kind of thing. Yeah for the most part. Yeah. Okay, so aj what do you think of my characterization there?

Well, no, you're I. I I mean I would put it in simpler form.

Um.

I would I would just say.

That.

Um.

Protecting a child the protecting. Uh, like like okay i'll just give a very Simple like that if you vote for a heartbeat bill in certain circumstances. Obviously, there's wisdom that that that needs to be going to that decision in certain circumstances.

Voting for a for a heartbeat bill does not equal. Sanctioning the babies the death of babies without heartbeats. That's what kind of rare I would like to get but I. But I did also want to address what what.

Uh, what ben just said too.

So i'll let sure yeah go for it.

Um, well, you know you had said one of the reasons why you you didn't support these was because they don't do anything. I mean I can go into the the practical aspects of of whether these bills do anything.

But that's that's beside the point I think and not to the crux of the issue here. Um, because if they did do something, would you support them? Because I hear a principle.

So.

Uh, I mean and back to the debate topic at hand the the debate topic was is it morally? Uh permissible to to. Not necessarily do they do anything because most of these heartbeat bills I wouldn't support either right?

It's a very actually when when uh, ben and I Really agree when it comes to the practicality of a lot of this stuff. Like we're not very far off like like I know ben enough to just by kind of looking at him from afar that We when it comes down to the brass tacks of whether we would actually vote for some of this stuff We probably agree in 99 of the cases but that's a different thing than what what I why i'm here is I am, very careful about um Binding people's consciousness towards one type of political uh way of ending evil.

Yeah, yeah, I certainly understand that in you know. One trying to drill down on is that there are actual biblical commands that guide how we do this, right? Where you know, uh, I don't think I would reject the category the notion that you know Politics is all prudential or all compromise I said there actually are you know standards that god does have for believers in in politics and I you know I am convinced, you know I'm reading through isaiah right now and constantly there's these calls for biblical justice protecting the fatherless all these sorts of things.

But then also like i'm saying, you know explicit prohibition saying, you know. You you do not pass bills that god hates essentially sure, you know because then you you will you cannot expect his blessing as a result of that.

Um, so I do i'm not trying to bind consciences, you know, I think there is legitimate, you know disagreement and and and so forth. That's why we're having discussions like this, right? We're we're allowed to disagree as as brothers and sisters in christ on this but you know, I do think there is there is a Extent to which it becomes sin and then you know and also not prudential I mean we're supposed to be wise as serpents innocent as doves.

And really what a lot of these bills are doing is allowing, you know, the politicians, you know. The pro-life republican politicians and lobbyists to you know. Pull fast ones on believers where they take their money and they say, you know, give me give me this money I'll pass this like equal, you know, um.

This born alive protection act or you know, i've seen bills that say, you know. You have to give the baby a proper burial once they die. It's like are you kidding me? Will we ever pass this bill if it were like in the case of serial killers, you know.

You can serial kill all you want and then you have to properly bury the victim, you know. It just makes me mad even talking about it, right? And it should make all of us angry that our Our lawmakers are this weak and in this inept and I think a lot of it is because.

You know, we're buying into these false narratives saying we must have these these, you know. Incrementalist measures and I think you asked a question where you said, um, you know, if it did do anything.

Would you support it? Uh, and I would just reject that premise because I don't think they do anything I haven't seen an example of you know, a bill like you're talking about that does actually meaningfully save people in lives, you know.

And even setting aside, you know, if we have a six-week standard, you know, maybe it'll save some practically and you know I'm not i'm not denying the fact that you know. If texas or florida or something has a six-week bill that some babies will be saved and some moms will say all right.

I'm not going to do this.

But.

You know, I I don't think that actually meaningfully happens to a provable degree because still you know. There's the abortion pills you can cross state lines, you know, there's self-managed abortion.

There's all sorts of ways. Yeah. Sorry. Uh.

Yeah, yeah, no, oh no I was agreeing with you. Like totally agree like no we need to we need to close these polls man and and we need to have serious laws in place against abortion trafficking and and trafficking.

Of of uh, I mean, look i'm i'm.

I think.

States that can do it and criminalize abortion and actually make it a crime. We need to do that. Um, but uh I I still have. I don't know if I heard a A specific answer though like in terms of like if if a heartbeat bill actually did save 99 percent.

Uh 0 .9 of the babies would you vote for it?

Yeah, well, I I still reject that premise just because I don't think they saved 99 .9 of babies.

No, I I know i'm i'm intentionally giving you a hypothetical to determine um to determine like. What your where your standards are like is the issue the wording is the issue the amount of. Is the is the practicality of it or is the issue just the principle?

Yeah, I mean again i'll repeat, you know I've never seen i've been looking at these bills for a few years now. I haven't been around the block as long as as long as you in this in this orbit. But you know, i've never seen a bill that actually does something like that.