On his Fox News show Wednesday night, Tucker Carlson invited on pro-choice advocate Monica Klein to discuss the much-critiqued comments by “moderate” Virgnia Democratic Gov. Ralph Northam, who defended a bill allowing abortion up until a baby’s birth. But the conversation between Carlson and Klein instantly went south, with both saying they think “less” of each other after the exchange.

On Wednesday, Gov. Northam defended the idea of killing a baby in the third-trimester, which a Democrat-proposed Virgnia bill would have allowed. “When we talk about third-trimester abortions, these are done with the consent of the mother, with the consent of physicians, more than one physician by the way, and it’s done in cases where there may be severe deformities, there may be a fetus which is non-viable,” Gov. Northam said in an interview with WTOP’s “Ask The Governor.” “So in this particular example, if the mother is in labor, I can tell you exactly what would happen, the infant would be delivered, the infant would be kept comfortable, the infant would be resuscitated if this is what the mother and the family desired, and then a discussion would ensue between the physician and the mother.”

The comments caused a national stir, so Carlson invited on Klein, a pro-choice advocate and founding partner of Seneca Strategies, to discuss the issue. It didn’t go in the productive direction Carlson clearly hoped.

“I wonder what you think of what Dr. Northam, the governor of Virginia, just said: That when a child — he described the child as an infant — is born, there’s a point where the mother and the physician can decide whether to kill the infant or not,” Carlson said (video below). “What do you think of that?”

Klein responded by immediately accusing Carlson of wanting “to go back to a time where Roe v. Wade was illegal, where women were having back-alley abortions and they were using coat hangers to have abortions, which is actually what’s barbaric.”

“Don’t give me that,” said Carlson, disappointed. “I’m giving you time to make a real argument. I’m not arguing for the repeal of Roe v. Wade — and please don’t be tiresome. The governor of Virginia, who is a rising star of Democratic Party, just said this. There’s pending legislation that mirrors it, and I’m asking you what you think of it. That’s it.”

“I think that right now, reproductive healthcare is under attack by the Republican Party,” Klein charged. “Seventy-two percent of Americans support right to choose.”

She then got specific about who is supposedly waging this war on “reproductive healthcare”: “We have Trump and sexual predator Kavanaugh trying to repeal Roe v. Wade and trying to take away control over our bodies,” she said, repeating unfounded accusations against Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh — accusations the Senate Judiciary Committee did not find “any evidence to substantiate or corroborate” after an extensive investigation.

“This isn’t about babies,” Klein alleged. “This is about you attempting to control women’s bodies.”

“Please don’t be a robot, Monica,” said Carlson. “You’re smarter than that.”

When he asked if it “bothers” her to simply ask her a reasonable question about the extreme bill, she again attacked him with the cliched Democrat talking point that ignores the existence of another life in the women: “It bothers me that you are trying to control women’s bodies,” she said.

“I wonder if you think you’re convincing anybody, or if your unwillingness to address what just happened today on tape, that we just played, is a sign that you can’t defend this,” said Carlson. After giving her another chance, she again turned the discussion to “trying to repeal Roe v. Wade.”

“This is about a woman’s right to choose, and you as a man should not have a single say in that,” she said.

“Wow. Do you think that you’re making a case that most people agree with — that it’s okay to abort a child in the third trimester?” said Carlson. Carlson eventually told her, “I think less of you” for her response, a sentiment she reciprocated.

The failed bill Northam was defending would have allowed women to abort their babies through the end of the third trimester, in other words, until birth, if it was deemed by a single doctor that it could harm the woman’s health, including “mental health.”

Video below via Fox News:

With all the municipal governments banning the use of plastic straws, somebody has to be the guy that enforces it. In our nation’s capital, that man is Zach Rybarczyk, an inspector for the D.C. Department of Energy and Environment, who goes from restaurant to restaurant issuing notices to any violators, reports the Anchorage Daily News.

Rybarczyk described his recent patrol of D.C.’s Union Station food court, where one violator, the Chinese restaurant Lotus Express, was issued a warning: Should the restaurant fail to eliminate their stash of plastic straws, they would be fined up to $800.

“At Lotus Express, the inspector, one of three dispatched by the city to check cafeterias, bars and restaurants, scribbled the restaurant’s name on the paper sleeve of the plastic straw and tucked it into his back pocket, along with two others from scofflaw restaurants,” reports the Anchorage Daily News. “He planned to later check whether they floated in water, another telltale sign of prohibited plastic.”

Julie Lawson, director of D.C. Mayor Muriel E. Bowser’s Office of the Clean City, told the Anchorage Daily News that plastic straws will soon become as socially unacceptable as tobacco.

“It’s pretty absurd the amount of resources we put into creating plastic materials that we are using for five minutes to an hour, and then never again,” said Lawson. “Single-use plastics are taking the same cultural place as tobacco, where it’s socially unacceptable.”

City officials claim that plastic straws pose a problem to the local Anacostia and Potomac rivers because they are too small for common recycling machinery. The city allegedly cleaned 10,000 plastic straws out last April during the 30th annual Potomac River Watershed Cleanup.

Laura Cattell Noll of the Alice Ferguson Foundation, a local environmental group, told the D.C. Council that plastic straws in the street end up in the water system during the rain seasons.

“Plastic pollution that ends up on the street is carried by rain water into storm drains and eventually into streams and rivers,” said Cattell Noll. “In many cases, this stormwater is untreated, leaving local waterways choked with plastic bags, Styrofoam, plastic bottles and plastic straws.”

Keith Christman, managing director of plastics markets for the American Chemistry Council, told the Anchorage Daily News that a complete ban on plastic straws goes too far, noting that one material will just be substituted for another.

“We don’t think the ban is the right approach because it ends up substituting one material for another,” said Keith Christman. “What we need to do here is reduce waste and not take a straw when you don’t need one.”

While some restaurants in D.C. have complied with the ban by switching out plastic straws for compostable material, the city’s straw cop Rybarczyk says that other establishments are completely dumbfounded about the new law when he confronts them.

“Obviously there will be some holdouts until July, when we start issuing fines. But it’s most fair to give businesses a heads up,” said Rybarczyk.

Rybarczyk uses only metal straws when he goes out and keeps one for personal use in his backpack.

On Friday, Young Americans For Freedom reported that administrators at Grand Canyon University, which has been referred to as the largest Christian university in the United States, are blocking Daily Wire Editor-in-Chief Ben Shapiro from speaking on their campus.

YAF stated that the administrators said the university, which is located in Phoenix, Arizona, would not “provide a venue” for Shapiro, whose speech is part of YAF’s Fred Allen Lecture Series.

As Spencer Brown, spokesman for YAF, noted, “If this pathetic response sounds familiar, it should—that’s exactly what UC Berkeley administrators initially told students when Cal administrators tried to prevent Shapiro from speaking.”

As The Daily Wire reported in July 2017, one month before Shapiro’s scheduled speech at UC Berkeley:

On Wednesday, Young America’s Foundation and the Berkeley College Republicans were told by the University of California, Berkeley administration that Berkeley would not facilitate an event by Daily Wire Editor-In-Chief Ben Shapiro on September 14 on campus. Instead, administrators have informed YAF and BCR that they are “unable to identify an available campus venue.” They have not provided a list of other events taking place on campus on that time and date that would prevent Shapiro from speaking.

Brown wrote that the university administrators met with students on Thursday and listed three reasons for denying Shapiro access: permitting Shapiro on GCU’s campus would not be good for the school long-term; Shapiro’s approach triggers a divisive atmosphere, and GCU wants to maintain its culture of unity, love, respect and having all student voices on campus heard.

Brown said that at that meeting, administrators termed Shapiro’s style too “cutthroat” and that merely by him being present at the university, divisiveness would be precipitated. The GCU YAF chapter said administrators specifically cited DACA students and what possible remarks Shapiro might make about immigration. They also said that GCU’s president Brian Mueller agreed with the decision to deny Shapiro a venue. Mueller has stated that that GCU has a “significant number” of undocumented students who benefit from DACA, and that the university is “about immigration reform.” He also said, “We really believe that we’re so divided as a country right now, extreme positions on the left and extreme positions on the right aren’t helping.”

Brown continued, “Seemingly unaware of the reaction to schools that block Ben Shapiro, administrators reasoned that in refusing to give Shapiro a venue, GCU would avoid negative media attention. They fear, according to the students in the meeting, that the outside world is watching GCU and waiting to jump on the school for making a mistake.”

Brown notes that Grand Canyon University’s mission statement states that the university offers “opportunities in which the public can engage in events that involve critical thinking around the community and academic discourse” including “lecture series, competitions, and town halls” to encourage “asking questions and pursuing knowledge to avoid delusion and blind acceptance of ideas.”

Brown commented, “By caving to an unseen mob and ignoring the popularity of Shapiro among its student body, Grand Canyon University just played itself and deserves whatever negative response this brings. GCU has abandoned the sentiment of its own proclaimed values, deluded itself into acting like the liberal campuses it claims to differ from, and blindly accepted the Left’s ludicrous argument that Shapiro’s presence somehow damages students, campuses, or debate.”

GCU YAF echoed, “It is deeply disappointing that Grand Canyon University has disallowed Ben Shapiro from appearing on our campus—We cannot understand why our school would refuse to host someone who is a tireless advocate for traditional Judeo-Christian values.”

The U.S. Department of Justice has charged nineteen people for running a “birth tourism” scheme out of California, where pregnant women from China would visit the country under false pretenses so that their children could be born on United States soil in order to obtain birthright citizenship.

According to Reuters, the charges are among the first to be brought “against operators and customers of birth tourism businesses,” signaling the Trump administration’s tough crackdown on those seeking to exploit our birthright citizenship laws.

“Three defendants were arrested on Thursday morning, while the 16 others named in the indictments unsealed on Thursday are ‘fugitive defendants,’ the prosecutors said,” reports Reuters. “The defendants are accused of links to three ‘birth houses’ operating in Southern California that catered to wealthy women from China and were dismantled by federal agents in March 2015.”

“Federal agents raided three apartment complexes and several other sites being used as maternity houses or hotels across Southern California in March in 2015, saying they catered to wealthy women from China who paid $15,000 to $80,000, depending on services offered,” the report continued. “The sweep was believed to mark the first such enforcement action against maternity tourism.”

Chinese customers of this birth tourism scheme were “coached on how to pass U.S. Consulate interviews in China by falsely stating they would stay in the United States for only two weeks and to trick U.S. Customs at entry ports by wearing loose clothing to conceal their pregnancies.”

U.S. Attorney Nick Hanna said in a statement that those charged were guilty of criminal schemes designed to defeat American immigration laws.

“These cases allege a wide array of criminal schemes that sought to defeat our immigration laws – laws that welcome foreign visitors so long as they are truthful about their intentions when entering the country,” Hanna said. “Some of the wealthy clients of these businesses also showed blatant contempt for the U.S. by ignoring court orders directing them to stay in the country to assist with the investigation and by skipping out on their unpaid hospital bills.”

President Trump and various conservatives have spoken out against U.S. birthright citizenship laws, which grants citizenship to any child born on U.S. soil without any stipulation about the immigration status of the child’s parents.

In October of last year, the president floated the idea of ending U.S. birthright citizenship with an executive order.

“We’re the only country in the world where a person comes in and has a baby, and the baby is essentially a citizen of the United States … with all of those benefits. It’s ridiculous. It’s ridiculous. And it has to end,” the president said.

The 14th Amendment reads: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”

Opponents of birthright citizenship claim that the phrase, “subject to jurisdiction thereof,” implies a full political allegiance that the children of illegal alien parents necessarily do not possess.

A poll later conducted by CSPAN showed that Americans overwhelmingly support the president in ending birthright citizenship by a margin of 72%-28%.