Om Monday, Glenn Beck called out Tomi Lahren, a popular host of TheBlaze, the company he founded. Lahren, who is reportedly planning to leave TheBlaze soon, caused a stir in conservative circles last week when she attempted to make an argument for the pro-choice position based on the principles of limited government, essentially labeling pro-life conservatives hypocrites in the process.

On The View Friday, Lahren, 24, announced to cheers from the largely liberal audience that she's pro-choice because she's pro-Constitution.

"I'm pro choice, and here's why, I am a constitutional, y'know, someone that loves the Constitution," she said. "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. 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."

Needless to say, the comments didn't go over well with those who believe the lives of the most defenseless among us must be protected as well as the scientific fact that an unborn baby is distinct from a woman's body.

On Twitter on Monday, Beck, who is staunchly pro-life, got into it briefly with Lahren on Twitter after she tweeted, "I have moderate, conservative, and libertarian views. I'm human. I will never apologize, to anyone, for being an independent thinker."

Beck replied, "Wait, libertarian views? Help me out on Trumpcare, stimulus, and executive orders. Trump is anything but libertarian. #intellectualhonesty."

Beck also dedicated part of his radio show Monday to Lahren, opening the show by discussing the issue and inviting on fellow TheBlaze host Dana Loesch, a pro-life conservative for her reaction to Lahren's comments. In his opening remarks on Lahren (partial transcript below), Beck underscored that he did not believe her comments should be a rationale for firing her, but made clear that he sharply disagreed on the idea that conservative principles supported a pro-choice stance.

"You have to start with, 'Is it life?'" said Beck. "And the Founders knew the moment it stirs, then it was a child... It’s really crazy how anti-science we’ve become....Once you decide it’s a child, there is no right for anyone to take its life."

"You simply cannot pursue happiness if you don’t have the right to life," said Loesch, adding later, "Choice comes before conception…afterward it’s infanticide." While conservatism is a big tent, said Loesch, being pro-life is a must because "conserving the individual is the basis of conservatism."

When pressed by Beck on whether she is against abortion even when the mother has ben raped, Loesch did not answer directly, saying instead that pro-abortion advocates use that as a "disingenuous argument," citing Planned Parenthood's numbers admitting that only about 1 percent of their clients report rape as a reason for the abortion.

UPDATE: TheBlaze has suspended Lahren. Read the full story here.

Transcript of Beck's opening statement on Lahren (via, formatting adjusted):

GLENN: Hello, America, there are two things to discuss on this Tomi Lahren dustup on The View and one of them is her employment at the blaze. The other is the constitutionality or the constitutional argument for conservatives on pro-life, and let’s start there.

First of all, we have a whole bunch of different kinds of people that work here. We started The Blaze with a show called the real news, real news was absolutely fantastic. And it was hosted by Amy Holmes who was openly pro-choice. So if you’re pro-choice, you can have a job at The Blaze. I don’t hire people who are sycophants or don’t have my opinion. I try to hire people who have a different opinion because I believe in being intellectually rigorous. I don’t want strawmen. I want people to have a real argument on the other side, so we can learn from each other, and we can grow.

So let’s learn from each other and grow, shall we? What is the constitutional argument for conservatives on life? A lot of people will think that this is a new argument. That founders never — they never discussed this, you know? Abortion is a new idea. And if it’s not abortion, women’s rights is a new idea. Well, I want you to put women’s rights into context here. Women’s rights are important, however, they’re not the only thing to consider when another person’s life is at stake. We have to — we have to consider the other person’s life when it is at stake. The founders were really, really clear. The preamble of the constitution clearly states to secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity. Well, who are our posterity, if not our unborn children and grandchildren and great grandchildren. Our descendants and future generation, that’s who the constitution is securing the blessings of liberty for. Not just us.

The founders wrote endlessly about things that they wanted to change about British common law. Comparatively, they didn’t talk about abortion often, but they did talk about it. And that’s because abortion was already illegal under British common law. The context of the comments made in the era shows this really clearly. James Wilson, one of the only six people who signed both the decoration and the constitution, he was also an original judge on the Supreme Court. He said, and I quote, “Human life from its commencement to its close is protected by common law. Life begins when the infant is first able to stir in the womb.” In other words, as soon as people knew they were pregnant, you couldn’t do anything. As soon as you knew. When it stirred in the womb.

PAT: And that’s when they knew back then.

GLENN: And that’s when they knew. We know almost instantly now. Signer of the decoration of independence, John Witherspoon said quote some nations have given parents the power of life and death over their children. But here in America, we have denied the power of life and death to parents, end quote.

State law Virginia at the time of Jefferson and Madison laid it out pretty well. “But if a woman be a child and gives her a possession to destroy the child within her, this is murder. For it was not given to her to cure a disease but unlawfully to destroy the child within her.”

So I would disagree that you’re a hypocrite if you want limited government and yet you want the government to protect life of the unborn. It’s very, very clear. But it takes intellectual honesty, and it takes a willingness to actually think these things through and to do more than just read Twitter or Facebook to get your news and your political opinions. You actually have to study things — these things out in your mind. Especially at a time period like today. Bomb throwing is — bomb throwing in today’s world is dangerous. Freedom of speech, it’s not free. Speech isn’t free. It comes with a very high price tag. First, being intellectually honest and intellectually curious. Speech is not free. It comes with another cost and usually to the other people at the other end of your argument. The pen is mightier than the sword, and it can destroy people if your aim is clicks, views, and ratings.

For Tomi, this seems to be a relatively recent change. There was a clip done bait Reagan brigade, listen to this. This is [from December?] of last year.

>> LEHRAN: That’s how straight up baby killers by acknowledging abortion is not a positive thing and a difficult choice. Then we have Lena freaking Dunham out there wishing she could have murdered a fetus, wishing for the option to kill your child doesn’t actually say much about the cause, her character, or the pro-choice movement.

>> LEHRAN: No, I’m pro-choice, and here’s why. Someone that loves the constitution, I am someone that’s for limited government, so I can’t sit here and be a hypocrite and say I’m for limited government but say what women’s can’t do with their bodies. I’m for limited government so stay out of my guns, and you can stay out of my body as well.

Read the complete transcript at