Asa Hutchinson’s RINO Candidacy Goes Down in a Tucker Interview


In 2021, Asa Hutchinson vetoed a bill to prevent the mutilation of children through surgical and chemical means.

Conservatives were lit up over it because he surrendered to the extreme leftists in the transgender movement. He tried to say it was conservative to let parents decide to surgically or chemically transition their children when most see it as child abuse.

Gender-affirming care exploits mental illness to disfigure children permanently.

Thanks to Tucker’s probing, we discover that Asa Hutchinson sees transitioning as “treatment.”

Tucker had a hard time getting a straight answer out of him, and his decision to support gender-affirming care in 2021 is a deal killer for many Republicans. Hutchinson wanted to talk about something else, but Tucker pressed on.

At the end of the clip, we have this exchange:

Tucker: “You described delaying a child’s natural progression from childhood to adulthood through adolescence. You’ve described that as quote treatment, and so that raises the, I mean clearly you answer the question, you believe it’s treatment. You believe, I suppose, that people can change their sex because if you don’t believe that, you wouldn’t call it treatment, would you?”

Relatively long pause.

Hutchinson: “Well, God created two genders, and that’s what I have stated. And whenever you look at the decisions on that, no, I don’t support that. I wouldn’t make that decision in my family about trans and changing genders, and I don’t believe that taxpayers’ funds should be used for transgender surgery or treatment through Medicaid or Medicare or in our military.

“I don’t believe that that should happen because traditionally, whether it’s the Hyde Amendment that you prohibit funding of abortion with taxpayers’ dollars because it violates the religious commitment of many people, the same principle should apply here. I’m saying one simple fundamental thing that we have to have a debate as to what is the limited role of government.

“Let’s encourage parents to make decisions. Obviously, they can go too far, and you draw a line and legislatures have to do this, but that is the reason. Ours was one of the first states that had to address this, and we handled it. The law has been suspended because it was unconstitutional.

“Other states have done a better job in it, have redrafted the laws. I haven’t read them all, but they have very different, differing degrees of changes in it, such as having grandfather clauses where you don’t force a parent to take the child out of state whenever they’re undergoing treatment.”


The problem here is that conservatives probably won’t see limited government applying here. Puberty blockers, for one, cause permanent harm in children; for many, it’s seen as child abuse. He considers it treatment, despite trying to wiggle out of it.


0 0 votes
Article Rating
Notify of
Oldest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments