It’s no secret that the liberal ladies of ABC’s The View love abortion and despise pro-lifers. Earlier this year, they brought on far-left extremist Jane Fonda who told them that her final solution to pro-lifers was to “murder” them, which they did not push back on. Well, on Friday, co-host and pro-choice radical Sara Haines suggested that pro-lifers should stop receiving life-saving medical treatments because it was “God’s will” that they die, and that they were hypocrites for doing so.
Haines’s hate-filled attacks against pro-lifers came in response to the recent abortion court ruling in Texas. “Yeah, and this example should be one of the easy ones, because this actually also risked her future fertility and she wants to grow her family more and, of course, the baby is going to pass, all those things,” she said.
“[I]t’s also not a universal truth when life begins,” she falsely proclaimed.
Despite being a mother herself, and her claims that she wanted to be a minister at one point in her life, Haines whined about people describing pregnancy as “a miracle” and “God’s will.”
Her swipes at pro-lifers grew more disturbing and dangerous as she declared that pro-lifers were hypocrites for receiving life-saving treatments for cancer and other ailments instead of just dying as part of “God’s will”:
[I]f it’s God’s will on the way in, it should be God’s will on the way out too. That brings into question are you taking heart attack medication? Are you treating your cancer? Are you dying when you said you should? Because if we’re going to argue about life in, then let’s be honest about life out. Don’t go to the hospital if you’re hurting because it is God’s will. Like, I don’t like the inconsistencies and the hypocrisy when people weaponize religion on this issue.
Receiving cancer treatment to extend one’s life is not going against God’s will. Butchering an unborn baby out of convenience was. If one received treatment and still passed away, that’s God’s will. Haines’s comments also betrayed her profound ignorance of the pro-life approach to end-of-life care and being opposed to medically assisted suicide, which is a closer analogy to abortion.
Our friends at LifeNews responded to Haines’s comments about when life began in a post on X:
Biological Principles and Modern Practice of Obstetrics, 1974, pages 17, 23, J.P. Greenhill and E.A. Freidman: “The term conception refers to the union of the male and female pronuclear elements of procreation from which a new living being develops. It is synonymous with the terms fecundation, impregnation, and fertilization … The zygote thus formed represents the beginning of a new life.”
And despite there being two purported “conservatives” on the panel, neither of them pushed back on Haines’s disgusting demand for pro-lifers to die.
Faux conservative Alyssa Farah Griffin used the worn-out trope that pro-lifers were “the dog that was chasing the car” and finally caught it with the overturning of Roe v. Wade. “[Republicans] wanted to take back abortion rights because I think it was this sort of, you know, ethereal – like it’s a bunch of women who are getting elective abortions casually as a second form of birth control,” she huffed.
The other fake conservative, Ana Navarro suggested that pro-life policies were not about being pro-life but rather being “pro-cruelty and pro-inhumanity.”
The transcript is below. Click “expand” to read:
ABC’s The View
December 8, 2023
11:05:24 a.m. Eastern(…)
ANA NAVARRO: It is absolutely outrageous, offensive, ridiculous, unacceptable that a woman has to be going through the grief of losing her child. This woman wants this pregnancy. This woman’s baby—
[Crosstalk]
NAVARRO: — has a chromosomal disorder that the child will die. Then, in the midst of having to make the decision, she’s got to go to a court to argue for the right to have an abortion is, I mean, we’re in 2023. This is not Gilead. This is America. And people in Texas – and it’s not just Texas. There’s 14 other states where there are bans.
Look, it reminded me of the case in Florida where a woman was forced to have a child to term that had no kidneys. She held it in her arms for 90 minutes while it gasped for air. This is not pro-life. It’s pro-cruelty and pro-inhumanity.
[Applause]
SARA HAINES: Yeah, and this example should be one of the easy ones, because this actually also risked her future fertility and she wants to grow her family more and, of course, the baby is going to pass, all those things.
But it’s also not a universal truth when life begins. One example is, there is Jewish women suing in Kentucky because according to Jewish law a fetus is regarded as part of a mother’s body until it begins to leave the womb.
People aren’t doing this lightly. Like, this is not something where they’re sitting around engaging in this. Only one percent of abortions occurs after 20 week, 93 percent occur in the first trimester.
And I tend to think when people say, “Well, it’s God’s will, it’s a miracle, its life,” if it’s God’s will on the way in, it should be God’s will on the way out too. That brings into question are you taking heart attack medication? Are you treating your cancer? Are you dying when you said you should? Because if we’re going to argue about life in, then let’s be honest about life out. Don’t go to the hospital if you’re hurting because it was it is God’s will.
Like, I don’t like the inconsistencies and the hypocrisy when people weaponize religion on this issue.
SUNNY HOSTIN: And that’s why we should be in a theocracy. Right?
JOY BEHAR: Go ahead, Alyssa.
HOSTIN: Don’t you think that the Republican Party, in many respects, is sort of leaning on the evangelicals for this argument? I myself am catholic. I have mentioned many times I am pro-life. I’ve receive hate mail on it. That’s my personal opinion but there has to be a separation between a government and religion.
ALYSSA FARAH GRIFFIN: Well, I want to briefly separate – I want to first talk about the humanity and then the politics of it. The humanity, I’ve had two friends very recently in virtually similar positions to this. They were in states that did allow abortion when your doctor recommends it for the life of the mother, and also because they were going to lose the baby.
This, for me, it is incomprehensible to say that you are pro-life if you’re willing to risk the life of the mother, know you’re going to lose the child, and actually risk your future fertility. That’s a direct conflict with what we have stood for for many, many years.
Now, I see for Republicans – we’re basically the dog that was chasing the car with Roe. It was we wanted to take back abortion rights because I think it was this sort of, you know, ethereal – like it’s a bunch of women who are getting elective abortions casually as a second form of birth control. The reality is, it’s much more nuanced, much more complicated than that.
Which is why a year and half ago, when Dobbs came down, I said on this show the country should be able to come together around something like 15 to 20 weeks, which covers the vast majority of when women know that they’re pregnant, have time to make a decision on what’s best for the family, know the risks that carrying their child may, in fact, have.
But I do give this bit of hope, real quick. There’s a tectonic shift in the position of GOP voters on this. In Kansas and Ohio voters rejected restrictive abortion policies and when you even hear the most pro-life warriors, someone like a Mike Pence saying 15 weeks, that shows how much the position has shifted post-Dobbs on this issue.
(…)