On Friday’s episode of Hags Who Can’t Shut Up, also known as The View, firebrand Tomi Lahren baffled conservatives everywhere with her explanation for being pro-abortion; or, as her Planned Parenthood talking point had her frame it: “pro-choice.”
“I’m pro choice, and here’s why,” said the 24-year-old. “I am a constitutional, y’know, someone that loves the Constitution.”
[Note: What in the hell is a “constitutional”?]
“I’m someone that’s for limited government. So I can’t sit here and be a hypocrite and say I’m for limited government but I think the government should decide what women do with their bodies,” Lahren spouted. “I can sit here and say that, as a Republican and I can say, you know what, I’m for limited government, so stay out of my guns, and you can stay out of my body as well.”
The always-angry star also noted that she gets “attacks” from many conservative women.
The View audience harpies predictably cheered their faces off.
WATCH:
Um, what? Lahren’s explanation for being pro-abortion could have been taken straight from any blog written by an overweight pink-haired feminist at Salon.com; conservative “hypocrite” bashing included.
Firstly, you can be a “constitutional” and pro-life, since there is absolutely zero mentioned in the Constitution about the “right” to kill babies. There is, however, a mention to the right to life in the 14th Amendment:
No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Secondly, one can be for limited government and against the murder of unborn children. There is absolutely nothing hypocritical about that. In fact, the government’s only role is to protect our right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Life. LIFE!
Thirdly, if Tomi’s anti-science understanding of abortion is that an unborn baby with its own DNA and possibly different blood type and sex from the mother’s is merely an extension of a woman’s body, wouldn’t she, as a self-confessed “conservative,” at least explain the discrepancy between her take and a pro-life conservative’s take?
Apparently not.
If Lahren had expressed the conservative view accurately and stated why she disagreed, without moronically bashing pro-life conservatives as hypocrites, I doubt this would be a big deal.
But, hey, at least the Tomster created a new word out of the fiasco: