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. Co-host Sunny Hostin insisted pro-lifers should be supportive of the liberal law.
But first, co-host Joy Behar suggested the Supreme Court was at fault for not yet striking down the 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.”
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. And now we might apply those tactics to other divisive issues like gun rights? This is a recipe for disaster."
Hostin condemned Carpenter for saying she was pro-life but disagreeing with Newsom’s anti-gun law. She lectured her on what being pro-life actually means, and unsurprisingly, it all came down to supporting liberal ideas:
It seems to me that if you're pro-life then you would be pro-life across the board in terms of protecting the sanctity 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 death penalty, you would be against the manufacture of weapons of mass destruction, you would be against the manufacture of instrumentalities of death like guns. So I think what Gavin Newsom is doing is perfectly appropriate in line with what the Supreme Court has held that private citizens may be able to sue anyone anywhere anytime from any state. 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.
“I really applaud Governor Newsom, because it may not hold water, I mean 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 applauded.
Behar was more nasty: “It sort of shows you how the Supreme Court is political and full of it. That exposes them to the country. I think it's an important piece of legislation even if it’s not going to work,” she suggested. But Hostin, a lawyer, was excited about the law, even though constitutional law experts have squashed the proposed law as unconstitutional. “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. “I too, am pro-life, no one who has had an abortion went willingly or happily, they went because they had to go. 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 also pointed out, safe haven laws eliminate the justification of not having the means to take care of a child.
Still, Hostin backed up Whoopi’s claims to praise Newsom once again. “But the proponents of this law say that the goal is to safeguard life. The goal of Gavin Newsom's proposed law is to safeguard life,” she insisted.
L’Oreal sponsors The View, you can contact them at the Conservatives Fight Back page linked.
Read the transcript below:
The View
12/13/21
WHOOPI GOLDBERG: But California governor Gavin Newsom is applying Texas logic to a new measure that allows residents to sue assault weapons manufacturers and distributors [applause] -- so now two constitutional rights could be challenged by private citizens. Will this sway the court, will it mean anything to anyone? I pose the question to you.
JOY BEHAR: I have a question, 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, it seems to me, if they keep making this type of decision, am I right about that?
SUNNY HOSTIN: You are, you are.
AMANDA CARPENTER: The point is, we need a ruling and some kind of consensus. I'm pro-life. I believe when you look at an ultrasound and you see a heartbeat, that's life. This Texas law doesn't foster a culture of life, it foster a culture of divisiveness, 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. I'm very fearful that going into 2022 when the court does rule I think they'll gut Roe in some way. We won't have a nationwide debate about abortion, we'll have a 50 state debate about abortion. And now we might apply those tactics to other divisive issues like gun rights? This is a recipe for disaster.
SUNNY HOSTIN: It seems to me that if you're pro-life then you would be pro-life across the board in terms of protecting the sanctity 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 death penalty, you would be against the manufacture of weapons of mass destruction, you would be against the manufacture of instrumentalities of death like guns. So I think what Gavin Newsom is doing is perfectly appropriate in line with what the Supreme Court has held that private citizens may be able to sue anyone anywhere anytime from any state. What’s good for the goose is good for the gander, right?
CARPENTER: I get the hypocrisy angle but this is legal tactics that pits citizens against citizens.
[Cross-talk]
SARA HAINES: …I really applaud Governor Newsom, because it may not hold water, I mean 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: It sort of shows you how the supreme court is political and full of it. That exposes them to the country. I think it's an important piece of legislation even if it’s not going to work.
SUNNY HOSTIN: How do we know it's not going to work?
BEHAR: Well it might work in the 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 to use the courts to give them 10,000 bounty incentive to do it? This tactic is destructive–
GOLDBERG: They shouldn't have introduced it. They shouldn’t have introduced it in the first place.
CARPENTER: I agree.
GOLDBERG: They've opened up the door to it. You watch and you see how many folks come running through, because the bottom line is, has always been, I too, am pro-life, no one who has had an abortion went willingly or happily, they went because they had to go. Because they didn’t have a choice.
Now I don’t want anyone to have one who doesn’t want it. That's the beauty of the law. You don't have to have it. There's no mandate that says you must 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're the child, if you're someone who has had to deal with incest --
BEHAR: Or rape.
GOLDBERG: If you’ve been raped it doesn’t matter.
CARPENTER: Which is why we need to have a debate where we can ctually talk about when abortion is used and how and maybe what limits we can have that. Rather than deputizing people to hunt down doctors and women!
GOLDBERG: This is all about vigilantism. It has been for many many years. It doesn't change the fact that you could put a million laws on the books, but if a woman who's determined that this is what she needs to do she's going to do it.
HOSTIN: But the proponents of this law say that the goal is to safeguard life. The goal of Gavin Newsom's proposed law is to safeguard life.
