Jay (00:13):
Hi, I’m Jay Ruderman, and this is All Inclusive. A podcast focused on inclusion, innovation, and social justice.

Ruth B. Ginsburg (00:25):
I ask no favor for my sex. All I ask of our brethren is that they take their feet off our necks.

Speaker 1 (00:41):
We welcome today Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

Speaker 2 (00:46):
She’s become such an icon.

Speaker 3 (00:48):
You mind signing this copy.

Ruth B. Ginsburg (00:49):
I am 84 years old, and everyone wants to take a picture with me. A Notorious RGB. Yeah.

Speaker 4 (00:56):
When you come right down to it, the closest thing to a superhero I know.

Speaker 5 (01:01):
Ruth Bader Ginsburg changed the way the world is for American women.

Jay (01:07):
Finding success as a film director is never easy, and it is probably twice as difficult for creators of documentary films. Yet RBG, a documentary about the life and work of Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg was an extraordinary success. It was one of the highest-grossing independent films of 2018 and holds an approval rating of 94% on Rotten Tomatoes, a popular review aggregation website for film and television. RBGs directors, Betsy West and Julie Cohen spent countless hours researching Ginsburg’s life, interviewing her peers, friends, and also managed to get a rare peek into the justices personal life here with me today to talk about Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s legacy and cultural icon status, is documentary filmmaker and television news producer, Julie Cohen.

Julie, welcome to All Inclusive. Supreme Court Justices are notoriously media-shy. In fact, RBG is, as far as I can tell, the first documentary about a living justice. Why did you and Betsy decide to go the hard way and focus your attention on Justice Ginsburg?

Julie (02:29):
Well, it was a story that felt like it would be really interesting to tell, and yes, you’re right. We were the first doc done about a sitting Supreme Court Justice, but we were extremely eager to tell Justice Ginsburg’s incredible story, mainly because she was getting so much attention. She was becoming a pop culture figure in the U.S. in a way that Supreme Court Justices generally don’t certainly in a way that women in their eighties, generally don’t. Because of a series of stinging dissents that she wrote, particularly in 2013 and 2014 as the court was moving further to the right. And she was writing strong descends saying that she thought that some major decisions that the court was making were moving in the wrong direction. And she was writing them to be understood not only by lawyers and judges but also by the general public.

She sort of used the platform of a descent to teach which is something that she had literally been a teacher, a law school professor for many years in her life. And she kind of liked using her platform as a justice to teach, particularly when she thought that the Supreme Court was going the wrong way on issues like voting rights in particular women’s rights, abortion rights, civil rights, just all kinds of areas, where she was concerned as many Americans were with what the court was doing.

So she writes these dissents. She’s writing them in sharp language that the public is going to both understand and maybe get a kick out of. And so some young, particularly young women law students kind of picked up on this, starting calling her the notorious RBG after the Notorious B.I.G. and all of a sudden, her face is on posts and leaflets and internet memes with a little crown on it. And even a couple of people got RBG tattoos, and Betsy and I were aware from previous things we’d worked on and the studies of the women’s rights movement, the absolutely huge and essential role that Ruth Bader Ginsburg as a young lawyer had played in securing women’s rights under the U.S. Constitution at the Supreme Court, where she had argued six cases in the 1970s, all on gender equality and won five of those six. So she had played this huge role in women’s rights.

And yet, that was not very well known by the general public. So myself and Betsy West, my directing partner kind of took the notorious RBG fame and all the interest in her in a pop-culture way as an excuse, basically, to do a deep dive into this very interesting piece of history about how the women’s movement proceeded under law.

Most people that know about the U.S. Women’s liberation movement know quite a bit about the marches in the streets and the Gloria Steinem, half of what women’s activism did in the 70s, but RBG played just a crucial role in that movement. More quiet because she’s a more quiet person, but also because she was doing behind-the-scenes work and in appellate courts where cameras aren’t rolling. We went and actually looked back at some of the news coverage of those cases for the seventies. And first of all, there was very little coverage. And second of all, when there was coverage, it almost never mentioned Ruth Bader Ginsburg by name, she was not famous for this pretty important role that she played in securing women’s rights. And we wanted to change that and also explore the amusing side of an of a woman in her eighties becoming a bit of a rock star.

Jay (06:38):
Right. It’s an amazing film. I would encourage anyone who’s not seeing it to see it. So I have to ask you, how did you and Betsy managed to convince Justice Ginsburg to cooperate with you on the project?

Julie (06:55):
Yes, well, it was a long, it was a very long process, that needs a little bit of history going into it. The first, of course getting, cooperation and access of the subject is kind of a key first step of almost all documentary films. And in this case, the first part of that is actually getting a situation where the person is actually going to see your request. And in that case, we had a big leg up because actually both Betsy and I had interviewed Justice Ginsburg previously. We each had relationships with Justice Ginsburg’s office. That meant that we knew we were going to be able to get a request to her that she would read. We made that request in January of 2015, and her the Justice got right back to us within a day or so. And her initial answer was essentially not yet.

We looked over that email very carefully, and we noted that two words that did not appear in it were “no” and “never”. So we took the not yet to be like, a maybe someday. We went back to her to say, “Oh, we understand that you don’t want to participate in a documentary yet, but it actually takes a number of years to get a project like this together. And we were wondering if you would essentially give us your blessing to go forth and start interviewing some other people about you, with the hopes that someday you might want to participate in this,” and her answer that time was, “well, I wouldn’t be ready to sit down with you for an interview for at least another two years, but if you want to move forward with some of these other people, I noticed that there are three people who are not on your list that I think would be worth talking to.”

And so we basically took that, as our, yes, we were basically by like, okay, she’s giving us her blessing to move forward with this documentary. And she’s saying that she will sit down for an interview in two years. It wasn’t exactly what we had hoped. She was 82 at that point. So we now know that we’re waiting until she’s 84. So we got enough funding to do five interviews. And we made sure that we were interviewing people that Justice Ginsburg really knew with the ex-hope and expectation that they would reach out to her and say to her, Oh, I met with these women. They seem very professional. They seem very serious. They had done a lot of research, and this seems like it’s going to be a really good project. And I will say that of those initial five, three of them were the people that she had suggested because we’re not foolish.

I think we just thought that would make her think that we were taking seriously what her thoughts were at the time we were thinking like, Oh, we don’t have to use these interviews. Like who knows, as it turned out, they were three fantastic interviews. So Justice Ginsburg turns out to be a great documentary producer among, her many intellectual talents. She actually didn’t have or ask for any editorial control or input into our film beyond suggesting those three people. And actually, at a later date, suggesting that we interview her granddaughter, which we were eager to do. Other than that, she had no input in how we shaped the piece. And in fact, she never saw the film until she joined us for the world premiere at Sundance in 2018. She flew out to see the film, even though she hadn’t watched it yet. She just agreed to come. She was eager to see it and she actually never asked to see it.

Jay (10:35):
Well, as I said, it’s an amazing film. And there’s a part that sticks out for me. I want to get into her legal career and the impact of it. But I remember a part of the film when you’re showing her clips from Saturday Night Live and Kate McKinnon doing an impersonation of her. So what was that like showing that to her?

Julie: (10:57):
As her children explained to us beyond the PBS News Hour, she really was not interested in television, as much as she was an art’s lover. She was not a TV person. We happened to ask her adult children and interviewed, “what does your mom think of that Saturday Night Live impression?” And they were like, “you know, I don’t think she’s seen it.” And as soon as they said, they were like, okay, we’re bringing that to the Supreme Court to show to her on camera. We were in a big state lady, Supreme Court conference room where the public relations apparatus had all sort of joined to watch this thing unfold. And when that clip started to play, because we had told them we were going to show them some clips of things from the film, they, fortunately, didn’t ask us what those were going to be.

Because if we had said “we’re going to show the Saturday Night Live clips,” I don’t think we really would’ve gotten the sign-off on that. But so the clip starts to play. She leans in to look at it; the whole room kind of gasps. And then she’s just like, “Oh, is this Saturday Night Live?” And I said “yes.” And she said, “who’s the actress who’s playing me.” And I told her the name. And then as we showed them the film, she just started to burst out laughing. And as soon as she started laughing, there was just like a sigh of relief in the whole room. And then the interesting thing is that we had, montage a few clips together and some of them involve Kate McKinnon doing like a little bit of dirty dancing and kind of a raunchy, or it got like the harder the Justice laugh.

She just thought it was funny. She just appreciated the good, the good comic impersonation of her. There’s a scene where she was in her Popeye, like desire for vigor, she’s scarfing down a whole packet of vitamin C, and it’s falling all over her face. And she just seemed to love it, see really, it was truly, truly a fun moment to be there in the room. And I’m really glad we got to capture it on film.

Jay (12:52):
That’s very, that’s very interesting. So let’s zoom into her career as a lawyer and activist against gender discrimination. And from 1971 to 1976, Justice Ginsburg argued six landmark cases in front of the Supreme Court and won all. But one of them, looking back at these cases, what do you think were the key elements to her success?

Julie (13:20):
So the key elements to her success, which are true, kind of for all of the great appellate litigators who move constitutional law forward, is really carefully picking the cases. There were a lot of potential gender discrimination cases that Ruth Bader Ginsburg could, could have taken. You know, she was working at that time for the ACLU. And so potential cases are basically pouring in all the time. And she picked ones that she thought were winnable. 10 and 20 years before Thurgood Marshall, another fantastic Supreme Court litigator who also had later became a Justice, had done the same thing on civil rights cases had been extremely careful about what cases he picked didn’t overreach. Didn’t go crazy trying to tear down all of the walls at once. Had a very much a one step at a time incremental approach that had been extremely successful. And RBG, in her whole gender equality struggle, was just absolutely following the path that had been set by Thurgood Marshall.

She followed his strategy, his one step at a time thing. I mean, he had been so successful. I forgot the number of cases, but it was more than 30. And, won just the huge, vast majority of them also by advancing the ball, very incrementally because, getting the Justices adjusted to change another extremely clever and I think unexpected tactic that the young Ruth Bader Ginsburg used was to take gender equality cases in which the man was discriminated against because of the way that laws that distinguished by gender, actually her argument was actually hurt both women and men. And so the great example that we use in the film is a man, a New Jersey man named Steven Wiesenfeld, who tragically lost his wife in childbirth.

Ruth B. Ginsburg (15:40):
Mr. Chief Justice and may it please the court. Steven Wiesenfeld and case concerns the entitlement of a female wage earner, a female wage earner in his family to social insurance of the same quality as that accorded the family of a male wage earner, neither was attending school. And Paula was the family’s principal income earner. In 1972, Paula died giving birth to her son, Jason Paul, leaving the child’s father, Steven Wiesenfeld, with sole responsibility for the care of Jason Paul. Well, the eighth [crosstalk 00:16:25]

Julie (16:25):
And his wife had been the main breadwinner, but now he’s left raising this little baby and then toddler alone. He wants to be a stay-at-home dad. And when he applied to get the death benefits, that he thought, Oh, you just get this for the death of a spouse. And my wife was the breadwinner. So I want to get some benefits because she’s passed away. He was told like, Oh no, those are widow benefits. Those aren’t widower benefits like a guy can’t get that. And so basically, in his case, sexism really hurt the man. And RBG just recognize right away that this would be a great case for her to take to the court because she knows, little lady, that she was she’s arguing. And if you’ve ever been in Supreme Court, Main Chamber, it’s an extremely imposing place at the Justices are like a good, I’d say like five to ten feet above where the lawyer is down there with the podium where you’re looking up at these black robe figures before you, at this time in the 70s, you’re arguing a case to nine men.

And she just thought she was going to have a better shot at making the case that gender distinctions are a problem. If she could show them an instance that how this really hurt a man, because she thought that Steven Wiesenfeld was going to be relatable to these guys, even told us that she purposely arranged for him to sit near the front of the courtroom, which isn’t usually done in that way. And she sort of subtly referenced him. I don’t think she said, you know, it’s not like a regular trial. Like you see on TV, like, Oh, the witnesses is there, nobody’s really, referencing, but, she just wanted the Justices to put themselves in his place. Like, Oh, how, would you feel if this happened in your family? She just thought she had a relatable. And that was not the only case that she took, where a man has been discriminated against and had been the victim of a discriminatory law.

Speaker 6 (18:33):
Weinberger, Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare against the Wiesenfeld. Under the social security act. When a covered male worker dies, leaving a wife and minor children, survivor’s benefits are paid both to the children and to the widow. However, when I covered female worker dies, leaving a husband and minor children, survivor’s benefits are paid only to the children and not to the widower. A three-judge district court in New Jersey held that this sex-based discrimination was unconstitutional because, in violation of the equal protection component of the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment, we agree. And we affirmed Mr. Justice Powell joined by the Chief Justice.

Julie (19:33):
So Incrementalist and looking at both women and men being harmed by gender discrimination were her two really great strategic insights.

Jay (19:46):
So I think that was a really ingenious approach, but take us back to the mindset of the court at that time in the seventies. And, you have a very successful and intelligent litigator in, Justice Ginsburg who at the time was not a Justice, but, was arguing to a court of men, all men who were steeped in a different error. And she’s talking about gender discrimination. I mean, how accepting was the court at this time to even hear these arguments and culturally understand where she was going with it?

Julie (20:28):
Yes. Well, it was, the Supreme Court, and it was kind of everyone in society when the women’s rights movement were starting, just didn’t get it.

They just didn’t understand because the thought was, I don’t know what you mean that women are being discriminated against. We’re really nice to women. We hold doors open for them. We treat them deferentially. We put them on a pedestal. I think it’s hard for young people today to understand how deeply the world has changed on these issues. In 50 years, there was just a completely different mindset. I mean, the idea that it would be okay for a woman not to be able to have her own credit card. The husband had to get the card and then give off an extra to his wife or, a woman, not being able to get a mortgage for herself. Or, yes, of course, you can fire someone who gets pregnant, which is actually something that RBG experienced once.

And then on, in a second and a later job where she went, she got pregnant with their second child. She just wore her mother-in-law’s clothes. With the hopes that no one would notice that she was pregnant. The idea that you could just openly discriminate against women was so accepted that bringing it up was seen as very radical.

At the time that RBG was advancing these ideas, it was quite radical. And I think that’s very obvious in some of the audiotapes that we play in the film of young RBG, arguing her case to these Justices who are often just like openly snickering at her and think it’s okay to be, very condescending. She’s a petite person. She’s so lovely. It was sort of like, yes, you’re a cute little lady, but why don’t you sit down? [inaudible 00:22:27] RBG, throughout her life, had an extreme amount of deliberateness and patience. And she just dealt with that by patience. She didn’t snap back. She didn’t get into an argument. She just very calmly and carefully explained her case with a degree of logic and with the degree of reliance on the law, that was quite difficult for the other Justices to argue with.

Jay (22:58):
So I want to talk a little bit about your last point about Justice Ginsburg’s, personal style of activism, which is often described as you say is strategic, but she’s famously quoted as saying “that anger in activism is self-defeating,” and this was not a universal view at the time. And probably not today. [crosstalk 00:23:23] Many activists at this time in the feminist movement, but also other movements were in favor of a very aggressive actions, chaining themselves to fences and taking very strong actions in the street. And that, wasn’t what she was about. She was about this quiet activism. So can you talk a little bit about, about that and maybe how was she accepted by the feminist community back in, in the 1970s?

Julie (23:55):
In terms of how other feminists responded to her? Sometimes I think in their view to careful and to deliberate approach, there’s a big mix. Gloria Steinem is, and was throughout just a huge fan of RBG’s approach and could see how it provided a yin and yang, that it was good to have someone, to have ladies out on the street, doing loud protests. And as you suggest, some civil disobedience, but also important to have some people who can quietly step into the halls of power and start making some changes within, she always thought the two things worked out well together, but there were others, including in the feminist legal community that thought that RBG should be pushing, that you should be, we should be pushing more aggressively, like jumped right in there and say, let’s change everything all at once.

And RBGs point was like, no, incrementally is the way to make changes, especially in the law, because otherwise, you’re courting a backlash, but that’s like a debate that lawyers looking for all kinds of different rights have argued between them. In many, many different instances, there certainly have been cases in the movement for civil rights and later in the movement for gay rights where the legal developments have come out way in front of legislative developments. And then the country and public opinion has, in fact, caught up with a court ruling. So it can work that way. So there was not initially completely smooth sailing between RBG and all parts of the women’s rights movement that tended to change, especially on the abortion issue once she was on the court as a Justice. And, again and again, stuck up quite aggressively for reproductive rights.

Jay (25:54):
Let’s talk a little bit about Martin Ginsburg, her husband, and because he had a tremendous influence on her life. And I think one, I mean, obviously the film, really gets into it, but, in general folklore, Marty’s not talked a bit about a lot. And he was an extremely successful attorney on his own.

Julie (26:16):
Absolutely. He was one of the greatest tax lawyers in the country, hugely successful and remained hugely successful. But when his wife was appointed by Jimmy Carter to become a federal judge in DC, he made at the time kind of shocking decision that like, Oh, I know all move for her job. Instead of the wife moving for the husband’s job. I’m going to move for her job. And he left his law firm and became a professor at Georgetown Law School. He had a great career, and yet a priority in his life was his wife’s career. He kind of understood what her legal mind was as far as constitutional law was concerned. And he just had a sense from very early like, Oh, she could be a Supreme Court Justice. In fact, they were incorrect on this point, but he had had the thought that, oh, she could be the first woman to be a Supreme Court Justice.

Something that was, I think, captured for posterity and their daughter Jane’s high school yearbook because it was just something that Marty used to say. And so people predicted that about Jane, as it turned out, of course, Sandra Day O’Connor was appointed by Reagan and became the first woman Supreme Court Justice, but RBG was not far behind, and Marty’s not only his support of her career, which entailed him doing 50% of the child-rearing and ultimately all of the cooking, that was key, but also him kind of pushing her forward. He was, like, she’s a quiet, she was a quiet person. He was incredibly outgoing, kind of knew everybody in Washington, and really was responsible by a lot of accounts, including hers for kind of putting her name on the list of people who could potentially become a Supreme Court Justices. Once President Clinton had an opening for that.

Speaker 7 (28:17):
So sticking with the theme of taking someone’s exact words and turning that into music. Two years ago in the Hobby Lobby decision came down, Ruth Bader Ginsburg made this amazing thing. And so we’re going to sing about it. Religious organizations exist to foster the interests of persons subscribing to the same religious fee, not so before profit corporations workers to sustain these operations commonly or not commonly.

Jay (29:03):
You know, let’s turn for a minute about the attention on Justice Ginsburg’s status as a cultural icon, which was expressed in the now-famous Notorious RBG internet meme, which shows her as a likeness of the rapper and the Notorious B.I.G. It’s an understatement to say that this is pretty rare for a Supreme Court Justice to become a cultural icon. I can’t think of any other one who has become one, but how did she become one? And how did she react to this once she knew that this was happening?

Julie (29:41):
Yeah. So in the summer of 2013, she wrote a dissent to a case called Shelby County versus Holder, which was about voting rights. It was about stripping away some of the Voting Rights Act that had been put in place in the 1960s. It’s an incredibly relevant decision and dissent today. And basically, the majority opinion was saying that it was okay to pull back some of the Voting Rights Act because the country has changed so much.

And essentially, because there’s theoretically less racism in the South, we don’t need such strong, stringent voting rights, protection. And Justice Ginsburg is descent. Most famously said “to pull back, these protections is a quote, like throwing away your umbrella in a rainstorm because you’re not getting wet.” Meaning, no, it’s because of the Voting Rights Act that there is less voting rights nightmares in some of the different states.

The Voting Rights Act as it existed before this opinion came down in 2013 would have prevented changes like the recent laws that passed in Georgia. It wouldn’t have been possible because they would have had to get Justice Department okay to make changes that could have prevented people from voting. So this decent, which was worded so strongly and cleverly just caught a lot of people’s attention, including a law student at the time at NYU named Shana Knizhnik, who started a Notorious RBG blog, and started cataloging all of this great meaningful, but also zingy lines that, that RBG was writing in her dissents.

And it just caught on with people because politically engaged liberal law students, particularly women, just started noting, Hey, this woman is like a powerhouse. And somebody, coming up with the clever name, a Notorious RBG, just really helped it grow. And then you know, how the internet is like when something catches on, it just goes crazy. And the fact that RBG was a very small, quiet, elderly Jewish grandmother just really helped that because the comparison was funny. RBG probably could have shut it down by acting like she didn’t like it. But she basically used it to go out there and educate people and talk more about constitutional law and the way that she always enjoyed. And she would go do these tours. We showed quite a bit of it in our film of her talking to particularly college students and law students, and people would ask her what she thought about being the notorious RBG.

And she says, “I don’t see why people should be so surprised that I’m being compared to Notorious B.I.G. We have a lot in common, then she paused. And said, we were both born and raised in Brooklyn, New York.” And everyone would cheer as it was like, and you could see there was like a little glimmer in her eye. The Notorious RBG thing had serious substance, but it was also a cheeky little joke. And she got the joke and she kind of played into it. And that just helped. I mean, for her doing that line again and again, and then we heard her say at talks around the country, dozens of times, it just, helped it, just became a thing.

Jay (33:13):
So I wanted to just touch on the fact that during the filming of RBG, you spent many, many hours following her and to different events and even filming her in some very rare and personal situations such as working out at the gym. Can you just talk a little bit about the personal experience of being very close to her, interacting with her and, filming her in these personal situations?

Julie (33:41):
Yeah. I mean, it was a really amazing experience. Justice Ginsburg was an incredible woman. She was, I would say, the most intimidating person I’ve ever met. She had a very unusual, conversational style as friends who’ve known her throughout her life say in our film, she was not a person who made small talk. So she really liked to talk about substance. So if you wanted to engage her in conversation, the way that two human beings normally do, when they’re together in a situation, getting ready for some filming to start or whatever, you couldn’t just say like, Oh, how are things going? How are the kids, nice weather? You really had to say, what did you think of last night’s performance in the second act of the opera? If you talk to her about substance, she would just dive right in. And she really liked to talk about it, but she didn’t really want to make any.

And if sometimes when you spoke to her, her friends would joke, she’s the kind of person that if you said, how are you, she would pause for a few seconds before and, give you a really thought out answer that would come out in paragraphs. Her intellect was noticeable. Her eyes were very piercing. So it was sort of intimidating to be with her, but also really delightful because as we spent more time with her and got to know her a bit, she was a delightful person. She did have a real sense of humor. After our film came out, she sent us a number of just really lovely touching notes about the impact that it had had on her. And, watching her, watch the film wasn’t [inaudible 00:35:12] was seeing her workout in the gym. We didn’t really know what to expect at all.

At that point her workout had gotten quite a lot of attention in the print press, but nobody had ever brought a camera in there. We were taken aback when she agreed to that request. We expected her to say no; we asked her in person. Cause we learned that that was the best way to get yeses. If something had to go through layers of people, the question probably wouldn’t even get to her. But we noted that normally when we asked her about, if we film a certain thing to her face, she would say yes. Including even in that opera, she’d let us put a little mini GoPro camera, on the seat, in the row, in front of her to be catching her face when she was filming. But when we went into the gym, we didn’t know what we would see.

We didn’t really expect that she could do long sequences of planks or 20 push-ups, as has been reported. I mean, you saw what you looked like. We just didn’t believe it. And then we went in there, and she was doing that with such a fierce determination and seeing her this small woman, who at that point was 84 putting that amount of just force of will into the physical paces of a workout, I cried during the filming of that scene. Cause I mean, I know people find it amusing, but I just thought it was incredibly moving.

Jay (36:36):
So I want to talk about Justice Ginsburg’s passing, having spent so much time with her and her family, how did she change you? And, how do you see her passing impacting the country?

Julie (36:55):
I feel like she changed me in a number of ways, but mostly just as seeing the model of her, the relentless optimism that she took to every situation, be it a personal setback or a difficult political environment for the country. She just always chose optimism in a very deliberate way that I think is a great model. Obviously, she left an incredible legacy with everything that she achieved as a lawyer, as a Justice, not only some really meaningful victories that she had when she was arguing before the court and opinions that she wrote as a Justice but even dissents that hopefully sometime in the future will be picked up as the basis for a new direction for the court, which is always what a Justice is doing when they’re writing for history. They’re writing in the hopes that maybe their ideas and arguments will be picked up later so that they will become the law of the land.

Jay (37:59):
Well, Julie, it is an amazing film, and I would just encourage anyone who hasn’t seen it to see it. It’s one of the best films I’ve seen in recent memory, and not only was she portrayed. And she was an extraordinary human being, but also the personal side of her, the fact that, she had a caring family, the fact that her granddaughter called her Bubbe, which is a Yiddish term for, grandmother and, she was a real person. And, I think, everything came together in the film, the realness of her sense of humor, but her true accomplishments, her relationship with their family, you did an amazing job with the film and really captured her. So, congratulations, and I’m sure you’ve heard it many times for many people, but it’s amazing. And I would encourage anyone to get it and to see it. It’s been such a pleasure speaking with you, and I really appreciate your time.

Julie (39:08):
Thank you.

Jay (39:09):
Thank you.

(39:15):
All Inclusive is a production of the Ruderman family foundation. Our key mission is the full inclusion of people with disabilities. In all aspects of society, you can find all-inclusive on Apple podcasts, Google Play, Spotify, and Stitcher. To view the show notes, transcripts, or to learn more, go to Ruderman foundation.org/ all-inclusive. Have an idea for a podcast? Be sure to tweet at Jay Ruderman.

Produced by PI media.