After pleading with California governor Gavin Newsom to run for president, his fans at ABC’s The View were already acting like they worked for his campaign, Monday.
The liberal hosts were excited by Newsom’s newest attack on the Second Amendment, a gun control law that would allow private citizens to sue gun manufacturers and sellers in response to Texas’s abortion law. Sunny Hostin was the cohost and insists that all pro-lifers should support the liberal law.
Joy Behar was first to suggest that it was the fault of the Supreme Court for failing to strike down Texas’ law.
“I mean, if they keep throwing all these things to the states, I mean they could overturn Brown versus the Board of Education and bring back segregated schools if they want in some states, then why do we need the Supreme Court? They’re on a path to oblivion,” she argued.
Guest host, CNN Republican Amanda Carpenter seemed to agree the Supreme Court was at fault, but she bashed Newsom’s law as “a recipe for disaster.”
She worried that every divisive issue would come down to the states: “We won’t have a nationwide debate about abortion, we’ll have a 50 state debate about abortion. These tactics might be applied to other divisive issues, such as gun rights. This would be a recipe to disaster.
But Sunny Hostin condemned Carpenter for saying she was pro-life, but disagreeing with Newsom’s anti-gun law. Then, she lectured Carpenter about what it meant to be pro-life. It all came down, unsurprisingly, to support liberal ideas.
My impression is that pro-life would mean you are pro-life in all aspects of protecting life’s sanctity. Right? So Pro-lifers should be supportive of Gavin Newsom’s law.
So pro-life would mean you’re in support of, or against rather the debt penalty, you would be against the manufacture of weapons of mass destruction, you would be against the manufacture of instrumentalities of death like guns. Gavin Newsom’s action is in accordance with Supreme Court decisions that private citizens can sue any person, from any country at any time. What’s good for the goose is good for the gander, right?
Sara Haines and Behar agreed the law probably wasn’t going to work but praised Newsom for sticking it to the Supreme Court.
“Because it might not hold water I applaud Governor Newsom. I don’t mean that this is a Second Amendment. It’s not going to be something that’s pushed through. But I commend him for saying that’s not a good model, we’ll show you how this pendulum swings two ways,” Haines was applauded.
Behar was more nasty: “This shows how political the Supreme Court can be.They are exposed to the rest of the country. I think it’s an important piece of legislation even if it’s not going to work,” she suggested. Hostin was a lawyer and was enthusiastic about the law. However, constitutional law experts rejected the proposal law.
“How do we know it’s not going to work?” She asked.
Later on, Whoopi claimed she was pro-life but women didn’t get abortions unless they absolutely needed to.
“You too are pro-life. I was also pro-life. Because they didn’t have a choice,” she claimed. But her statement doesn’t align with the facts. The majority of pro-life laws, including Texas’s allow exceptions for the life of the mother being endangered. Justice Barrett stated that safe-haven laws are not a reason to deny the right of the mother having the resources necessary for her child’s care.
Still, Hostin backed up Whoopi’s claims to praise Newsom once again. “However, the law’s proponents claim that it is intended to protect life. The goal of Gavin Newsom’s proposed law is to safeguard life,” But she insisted.
L’Oreal sponsors The View, you can contact them at the Conservatives Fight Back page linked.
You can read the transcript here:
The View
12/13/21
WHOOPI Goldberg: However, the California governor Gavin Newsom has applied Texas logic to a measure that permits residents to sue manufacturers and distributors of assault weapons. [applause]This means that two Constitutional rights can be challenged by citizens. This could influence the court. Will it be of any use to anybody? Let me ask the question.
JOHN BEHAR: My question is, they are putting all this stuff to the states. I mean, they could easily overturn Brown versus The Board of Education, and even bring back segregated schools in some states. So why does the Supreme Court need to be there? If they continue to make these types of decisions, I believe that they are on the road to infamy.
SUNNY HOSTIN – You’re, you’re.
AMANDA CARPENTER : What is the point? We need a decision and some form of consensus. I’m pro-life. When you examine an ultrasound you will see a heartbeat. Texas’ law isn’t fostering a culture for life. Instead, it encourages divisiveness and vigilantism. The fact that Gavin Newsom says, oh what a great idea, let’s do that to enforce my pet issue’ That is a disaster. You don’t answer bad laws with more bad laws. It is very likely that Roe will be rewritten in 2022 by the court. There won’t be a national debate on abortion. Instead, there will be a debate in 50 states about abortion. These tactics might be applied to other issues, such as gun rights. This would be a recipe to disaster.
SUNNY HOSTIN – It appears to me that pro-life would also be prolife for all other reasons, including protecting the sacredness of life. Right? So Pro-lifers should be supportive of Gavin Newsom’s law.
So pro-life would mean you’re in support of, or against rather the debt penalty, you would be against the manufacture of weapons of mass destruction, you would be against the manufacture of instrumentalities of death like guns. Gavin Newsom’s action is in accordance with Supreme Court decisions that private citizens can sue any person, from any country at any time. What’s good for the goose is good for the gander, right?
CARPENTER : While I understand the hypocrisy, this legal tactic pits citizens against each other.
[Cross-talk]
SARA HAINES: …Because it might not hold water I applaud Governor Newsom. I don’t mean that this is a second Amendment. It’s not going to be something that’s pushed through. But I commend him for saying that’s not a good model, we’ll show you how this pendulum swings two ways.
BEHAR:You can see how politically charged the Supreme Court is.They are exposed to the rest of the country. I think it’s an important piece of legislation even if it’s not going to work.
HOW DO WE KNOW IT’S NOT WORKING?
BEHAR: It might be a good idea in court of public opinion.
CARPENTER: What’s to say you shouldn’t use this law to say I want schools to teach my kind of curriculum.
GOLDBERG: That’s what’s happening.
CARPENTER. Are we going use the courts for them to receive 10,000 bounty incentives? This tactic is destructive–
GOLDBERG : It shouldn’t be introduced. They shouldn’t have introduced it in the first place.
CARPENTER I agree.
GOLDBERG : The door has been opened. It’s amazing to see the number of people who come through. The bottom line is that no one has ever had an abortion happily or willingly. They went because they needed to. Because they didn’t have a choice.
Now I don’t want anyone to have one who doesn’t want it. It’s all part of the charm and beauty that is law. It doesn’t mean you have to. It is not a requirement that you have an abortion. The mandate, though, says you can’t have one if you need it and it’s not even I’m going to allow you to speak to your doctor, if your life is on the line I don’t care. If you are the child or someone who has experienced incest.
OR BEHAR.
GOLDBERG: If you’ve been raped it doesn’t matter.
CARPENTER It is better to delegate the task of finding doctors and women than having them do it!
GOLDBERG: It’s all about vigilantism. It has been for many many years. You could make a million laws, but women who are determined to accomplish this task will follow their lead.
HOSTIN. But, the law’s proponents claim that it is designed to protect life. Gavin Newsom’s law proposal aims to preserve life.
About Post Author
