The View has refused to have conservative activist Isabel Brown on the show after they smeared her earlier in the week for encouraging women to get married and have kids, but they still had her name in their mouths. On Wednesday’s episode of their Behind the Table podcast, Sara Haines said Brown, through "willful or ignorance," "misconstrued" The View's attacks on her. She went on to falsely claim Brown had no empathy for women who couldn't get pregnant or find a husband even if they really wanted to. Haines and executive producer Brian Teta jumped right into the controversy they stirred up at the top of the podcast by conceding a little ground to Brown on the fact that no parent was ever truly ready to have a child: HAINES: The main gist of her message was, you know, if you have - if you know people or you know, women your life or kids, you know, tell them to have babies, even - TETA: If they're not ready. HAINES: Even before they can afford them and even when they're not ready for them. I actually kind of understood what she was trying to say with the not ready for them. I don't think you're ever really ready for them. TETA: Correct. “But my issue was with the greater message,” Haines followed up. “I love babies. I love being married. I love all those things. But there is so much pressure in this world on women to define themselves by if they're married, and two, if they have babies.”   The View has refused to have @theisabelb on the show after they smeared her, but they still have her name in their mouths. On their Behind the Table podcast, Sara Haines says Isabel Brown through "willful or ignorance" "misconstrued" The View's attack on her. She went on to… pic.twitter.com/YvZMaOZOb4 — Nicholas Fondacaro (@NickFondacaro) April 3, 2026   Haines then proceeded to get a little ageist by knocking Brown for being Gen Z and then suggesting she had more empathy: “She's young. So I don't know. Mine comes from a place of empathy. My take comes from a place of empathy and life lived. I am older than her.” At one point, Haines echoed her argument on the show proper that had a tinge of eugenics in it: We ask women all the time about marriage and kids and that is seems to be all their worth. We're living on a planet that has over 8 billion people. There was a time where we needed people to procreate and make tons of babies. We have plenty of babies. Haines was apparently aware of Brown’s X posts reacting to The View’s attacks on her. But instead of inviting her on to have a two-sided discussion, they preferred Haines make a strawman out of Brown’s rebuttals. She proceeded to falsely suggest Brown’s position was that even if a woman tried to get married/have kids and couldn’t, they were a lesser being for it: HAINES: She was talking about it happening during Holy Week and how anti-Christian. And one, I won't do that to someone because if you're really faithful and spiritual, you know that that's not my place to judge her on that. So, I was surprised that she would. But, I definitely think she misconstrued in whether that was willful or ignorance. TETA: Right. HAINES: She's missing my whole point, which is I know too many women that, for whatever reason, aren't married, don't have kids, and they matter. And they should be involved in government and policies and not everything revolves around whether a woman has a partner and whether a woman has a child.   I’d like to thank the women of @TheView for showing their truest, darkest colors today: they’re literally shrieking like demons at the thought of encouraging young women to have children. PS - "stupidest" isn't a real word. pic.twitter.com/H7s3baQl95 — Isabel Brown (@theisabelb) March 30, 2026   “Sometimes it's a full blown choice and sometimes it's just the way life turned out. And I would never want to dim someone's light and life by saying they matter less because of that,” Haines declared before they hypocritically pivoted to talking about co-host Alyssa Farah Griffin’s new baby boy. The View refused to host Brown because they openly refuse to have a strong committed conservative woman on the program, especially after Meghan McCain left. On a previous episode of their podcast, they admitted they didn’t want to have anyone on the show who could generate viral clips embarrassing their cast. Further, their refusal to speak to Brown was hypocritical because, on yet another podcast episode, they defended their pickiness with inviting conservatives by saying they only wanted to talk to the people they discussed on the show.     In one of her recent podcast episodes reviewing the fall out of The View’s smears, Brown said she reached out to go on the show, but their producers said they were booked up for weeks. They lied to her. According to 1Iota, the website to formally request tickets to see The View, as of the publication of this piece, there were no guests booked for April 27 and four different days with only one guest booked (they have had upwards of 3-4 during a single show). When NewsBusters pointed this out to Teta on X, he untagged himself from the post.   Hey @Brianteta, you guys have no guests slated for April 27. How about you guys have Isabel on to defend herself? You said on your podcast you guys only want to talk with the conservative figures the cast talk about during the Hot Topics segment. Why not now? https://t.co/h5bXkiTEty pic.twitter.com/K5iDmMEiXM — Nicholas Fondacaro (@NickFondacaro) April 3, 2026   The transcript is below. Click "expand" to read: ABC’s Behind the Table April 1, 2026 00:18 BRIAN TETA: All right, let's dive right in with some hot topics. It's been an interesting week, I think. And on Monday, we had a conversation about something that happened at CPAC with a conservative influencer Isabel Brown. Not someone I was familiar with until seeing this video, but she had some kind of interesting things to say about motherhood in America in 2026. Tell me what you remember about this. SARA HAINES: The main gist of her message was, you know, if you have - if you know people or you know, women your life or kids, you know, tell them to have babies, even - TETA: If they're not ready. HAINES: Even before they can afford them and even when they're not ready for them. I actually kind of understood what she was trying to say with the not ready for them. I don't think you're ever really ready for them. TETA: Correct. HAINES: And I think she was also saying a lot of people say, I don't know if I can afford it. She was kind of making a catchy phrase, but my issue was with the greater message. I love babies. I love being married. I love all those things. But there is so much pressure in this world on women to define themselves by if they're married, and two, if they have babies. That is - and I would encourage - She's young. So I don't know. Mine comes from a place of empathy. My take comes from a place of empathy and life lived. I am older than her. TETA: Um hm. HAINES: Knowing so many women, having been single, like dating for years and not knowing if I was going to find my person to get married, they make it sound like this easy choice. Get married, have kids. There are so many amazing women I know that aren't meeting people. It's really hard to that you could get into the reasons why that's the case, but they're open to finding people and they're not. Having babies. Whole different can of worms. So many people I know, almost every person I know actually has struggled for some reason having babies, whether it was fertility. I'm friends with a lot of gay couples that have had to fight nontraditional, surrogates, all these things. We ask women all the time about marriage and kids and that is seems to be all their worth. We're living on a planet that has over 8 billion people. There was a time where we needed people to procreate and make tons of babies. We have plenty of babies. And if the point of feminism and women being equal was women having the choice, whether it was working in the home, or staying at home, or - And I don't even want to say staying at home because it's working in the home, working in the home, working out of the home, being married, not being married, having kids, not having kids. The beauty of progress and time is that we don't have to put that on people's shoulders. And yet I wouldn't change anything I've done. And what I'm saying is not to buck the trend, don't do it. It's more, you do what you can and what you want because you have a life beyond that. TETA: Well, it's not a surprising thing because this often happens, but conservative influencers like Isabel and others have kind of misconstrued what you guys were saying on the show. HAINES: Oh, yeah, yeah, yeah. TETA: What the point of it is. HAINES: I don't - I refuse to read it because right when I saw some of the headlines, I thought here we go again. You know. TETA: Yeah. HAINES: She was talking about it happening during Holy Week and how anti-Christian. And one, I won't do that to someone because if you're really faithful and spiritual, you know that that's not my place to judge her on that. So, I was surprised that she would. But, I definitely think she misconstrued in whether that was willful or ignorance. TETA: Right. HAINES: She's missing my whole point, which is I know too many women that, for whatever reason, aren't married, don't have kids, and they matter. And they should be involved in government and policies and not everything revolves around whether a woman has a partner and whether a woman has a child. And it's because I see those people and sometimes that's a painful place to be. Sometimes it's a full blown choice and sometimes it's just the way life turned out. And I would never want to dim someone's light and life by saying they matter less because of that. (…)

Early Thursday morning the Senate once again passed a bill by voice vote, that would fund most of DHS with the exception of ICE and much of Border Patrol, and they sent it to the House which will likely pass it, because reportedly, Republicans plan to use reconciliation to get all funding they want later, by bypassing Democrats. Even so, you would expect the left wing media to spin this as a win for their side, but that was not the case Thursday morning on CNN's The Situation Room. Co-Host Pamela Brown stepped out of character and played rough with her guest, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY): BROWN: This plan that just passed in the Senate does not include the reforms to immigration enforcement operations that Democrats had not only demanded, but even used as reasons to withhold their votes for DHS funding when all of this began more than a month ago. What did your party actually accomplish with this shutdown? Schumer then spewed the patented left wing talking points on the issue. SCHUMER: Well, first, let me say that the Republicans are hardly unified. (House Speaker) Johnson, for the second time, rejected a proposal made this morning by John Thune with unanimous consent support of all the Republicans to fund the DHS agencies like the Coast Guard, like FEMA, like CISA, which we need.  This is now clearly the Johnson shutdown. It's a Republican shutdown....So this shutdown is on their back. Their failure to want to reform DHS, sorry, to reform ICE, and Border Patrol.... Don't mask, cooperate with local authorities. American people want that. Everyone wants that, but a group of right wing Republicans who just like DHS, like ICE and CPB as it is, as much as we all abhor it and it's on them. Brown then not only corrected Schumer, but pressed him for not answering her question.  BROWN: Well, you have heard the new DHS secretary say that there will be reforms, particularly to warrants and in other areas. But just to follow up on my original question, look, ICE and CBP, they are funded, I mean, with billions of dollars from last year's budget bill for the next few years. So what did Democrats actually accomplish with this shutdown, where you saw many government employees really struggle? SCHUMER: Well, as, again, we were ready to fund the rest of DHS. It was the Republicans who blocked it over and over again. So that's on them. But, second, the bottom line is, what we have shown the American people is, we want obvious commonsense reforms to DHS to ICE and CBP, and the Republicans don't.  And Brown continued to surprise, going after another one of Schumer's claims.    BROWN: The bottom line is, Democrats are in the minority. You mentioned what the American people want. Overall, the American people are not happy with the Democratic Party. CNN's recent polling shows that a broad 74 percent of the public says Democrats in Congress have the wrong priorities. How do you respond to that as the Democratic leader in the Senate? SCHUMER: Look at just about all the elections, whether they were the elections in New Jersey and in Virginia, throughout the country. The American people are choosing Democrats over Republicans. And why? Because they know that the Republicans are the party of costs, high costs, people's costs are going way up, of chaos, not only chaos in the cities, but chaos in Iran.... So the American people are on our side on the major issues.  Once again, Brown was not happy that Schumer did not answer her question.  BROWN: And that is true in the recent elections. And it is true that the Iran war is unpopular broadly among the American people. And President Trump is unpopular broadly. But, overall, when you look at the polling about priorities, the American people are unhappy with what Democrats have been doing. And they indicate, these polls, that you have historically low performance ratings. What specifically can you be doing to bring these numbers up and reestablish trust within both your own party and with your constituents? Schumer insisted his party was strong and united. It was a good job by Brown, and the second time in a little over a week that Schumer has received a tough time, even if one could argue she's arguing from the AOC perspective, that he's not pleasing the leftist fringe.  Joe Scarborough also temporarily acted like a journalist on MS NOW's  Morning Joe on March 23rd, and Mika Brzezinski decided to toss Schumer a lifeline.

PBS anchor Christiane Amanpour kicked off her Thursday show by suggesting remarks President Trump made in his Wednesday address on Iran have made ordinary Iranians angry at him. However, Amanpour provided no evidence for that, and it is likely she was just parroting various regime hacks she saw on X, which is otherwise banned for ordinary Iranians. Amanpour began by playing a clip of Trump, “American and Israeli bombs will continue pounding Iran. Here's President Trump as he sought to reassure Americans that he does, in fact, have a plan.” In the clip, Trump declared, “We are going to finish the job, and we’re going to finish it very fast. We are getting close… Everybody is talking about it, and tonight I'm pleased to say that these core strategic objectives are nearing completion…We are going to hit them extremely hard over the next two to three weeks. We're going to bring them back to the Stone Ages, where they belong.”   PBS anchor Christiane Amanpour seems to take regime hacks on X as the voice of normal Iranians "So, there's no definition of finish the job and those Stone Age comments are blowing up in Trump's face. Iranians are about the verbal assault on their 2,500-year-old civilization." pic.twitter.com/PuxedbGXps — Alex Christy (@alexchristy17) April 3, 2026   Amanpour was not a fan, “So, there's no definition of 'finish the job,' and those Stone Age comments are blowing up in Trump's face. Iranians are about the verbal assault on their 2,500-year-old civilization. The diaspora, shifting its support for the war, not to mention Trump’s first national address shared absolutely no light on how this war ends. Oil traders are clearly hoping for a plan for reopening the Strait of Hormuz; they didn't get one.” Unless Amanpour managed to somehow fly to Iran and back while also finding time to interview everyday Iranians in the span of one day while making time to host a TV show, there is no evidence that Trump has caused regime critics to rally to their clerical overlords. The Iranian embassy in South Africa, IRGC General Seyed Majid Moosavi, and former Foreign Minister/media darling Javad Zarif, however, all tweeted something similar to what Amanpour said. The regime’s embrace of Iran’s wider, pre-revolution civilizational history is also opportunistic because the Islamic Republic usually goes out of its way to distance itself from that history by trying to erase it. As a member of the diaspora herself, Amanpour should know this. However, the 47-year old regime can count on members of the American media—even members of the diaspora—to help parrot its talking points if it means they can dunk on Trump. Here is a transcript for the April 2 show: PBS Amanpour and Company 4/2/2026 CHRISTIANE AMANPOUR: Welcome to the program. I'm Christiane Amanpour in New York. American and Israeli bombs will continue pounding Iran. Here's President Trump as he sought to reassure Americans that he does, in fact, have a plan. DONALD TRUMP: We are going to finish the job, and we’re going to finish it very fast. We are getting close. [Jump Cut] Everybody is talking about it, and tonight I'm pleased to say that these core strategic objectives are nearing completion. [Jump Cut] We are going to hit them extremely hard over the next two to three weeks. We're going to bring them back to the Stone Ages, where they belong. AMANPOUR: So, there's no definition of “finish the job,” and those Stone Age comments are blowing up in Trump's face. Iranians are about the verbal assault on their 2,500-year-old civilization. The diaspora, shifting its support for the war, not to mention Trump’s first national address shared absolutely no light on how this war ends. Oil traders are clearly hoping for a plan for reopening the Strait of Hormuz, they didn't get one.

There are plenty of things an NBA player can do and still keep his job. League history is littered with examples: players involved in off-court scandals, arrests, and even allegations of serious violence. Time and again, teams and the league have found ways to look past behavior that, in most professions, would be career-ending. But there appears to be one line that cannot be crossed — especially during Holy Week. That line, it seems, is expressing a traditional religious belief. Enter Jaden Ivey. The former Purdue standout was the fifth overall pick in the 2022 NBA draft, a rising young guard who averaged 16 points and five assists as a rookie with the Detroit Pistons. By his third season, he was approaching 18 points per game before an injury derailed his momentum. Eventually, he landed with the Chicago Bulls. By all accounts, Ivey was a productive player still on the rise. Then came an Instagram video. In it, Ivey — now a newly converted Christian — criticized the NBA’s celebration of Pride Month. His comments reflected a conventional religious viewpoint: that pride, as celebrated in this context, conflicts with Christian teachings on sin. “They proclaim Pride Month,” Ivey said. “They say, ‘Come join us ... to celebrate unrighteousness.’” That was enough. The Bulls waived him, citing “conduct detrimental to the team.” The phrase raises an obvious question: What exactly was the conduct? Ivey did not skip practice. He did not clash with teammates. He did not violate the law. By his own account — and by the absence of any evidence to the contrary — he remained a good teammate and a committed player. His offense was speech. On Instagram Live, Ivey pushed back on the decision. “How is it conduct detrimental to the team? What did I do to the team?” he asked. It’s a fair question — and one the Bulls have not clearly answered.       Even head coach Billy Donovan offered only a muted response, emphasizing “certain standards” while declining to directly address Ivey’s comments. There was no forceful condemnation, no claim of locker room disruption — just a vague appeal to team values. Contrast that with other professional sports leagues. UFC president Dana White has repeatedly defended fighters’ rights to speak freely, even when he strongly disagrees with them. The principle is simple: Disagreement does not justify punishment. The NBA appears to be operating under a different standard. If Ivey had expressed support for Pride Month — or made a personal announcement aligning with it — it’s difficult to imagine a similar outcome. More than likely, he would have been celebrated. Instead, he was dismissed. This is what makes the situation so striking. The league has tolerated, and at times quietly managed, far more serious controversies. There was even a prolonged debate over whether to host an event tied to a strip club in Atlanta - an issue that required league intervention after weeks of public scrutiny. Yet a religious objection to Pride Month draws an immediate and decisive response. That disparity is hard to ignore. It also raises broader questions about the NBA’s relationship with its audience. Millions of fans — many of them religious — hold views similar to those Ivey expressed. They may not agree with the league’s messaging, but they have continued to watch, support and engage with the sport. Decisions like this risk sending a different message: that certain beliefs are not merely unpopular but unacceptable. For a league that seeks to expand its reach, that’s a curious strategy. Timing only adds to the tension. The incident unfolded during Holy Week, one of the most sacred periods on the Christian calendar — a moment when questions of faith and conviction are especially prominent. None of this requires agreement with Ivey’s views. Reasonable people can and do disagree on these issues. But there is a difference between disagreement and exclusion. If the standard for remaining in the NBA now includes alignment with specific cultural or ideological positions, then the league is entering new territory— one where speech, not conduct, becomes the deciding factor in a player’s career. Ivey may yet find another team willing to give him a second chance. But the larger issue will remain: In today’s NBA, it’s not just how you play the game that matters -- it’s what you’re allowed to say off the court. Ben Shapiro is a graduate of UCLA and Harvard Law School, host of “The Ben Shapiro Show,” and co-founder of Daily Wire+. He is a three-time New York Times bestselling author.

On Tuesday afternoon, in the aftermath of the U.S. Supreme Court striking down a Colorado law that bans conversion therapy for minors over their sexual orientation, MS NOW host Chris Jansing put on a negative spin, calling it "a major blow to LGBTQ rights." She could just as easily have called it a victory for free speech. At 12:22 p.m., she informed viewers: We've got some breaking news, a major blow to LGBTQ rights, and it's coming on Trans Visibility Day. In an 8 to 1 decision, the Supreme Court voted to essentially allow conversion therapy for kids, siding with a Christian therapist in Colorado. But their ruling could impact 20 other states with similar laws. Senior legal reporter Lisa Rubin then recounted that the majority ruling found that the law discriminated against the views of conversion therapists: The decision said, Chris, by a vote of 8 to 1, that when Colorado banned conversion therapy, they didn't just incidentally infringe on a particular therapist's right to offer talk therapy to her patients -- that essentially the Colorado law was not viewpoint-neutral -- that it told her that she could not, for example, offer conversion therapy or anything designed to affirm that a change in sexual orientation or in gender identity would be positive for someone, but allowed her, conversely, to sympathize with or support a patient undergoing a transition in either gender identity or sexual orientation, the court said. The two went on to discuss the dissenting opinion of liberal Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson. Colorado wanted to restrict speech for harm reduction: "What the state of Colorado is trying to do is prevent harms, including suicidality, among people who are undergoing transitions either in their gender identity or in their sexual orientation." Earlier in the day, while Ana Cabrera was anchoring, legal affairs reporter Fallon Gallagher put a similar spin on the development. After spending much of the segment citing the free speech arguments of the majority, when it came to inserting her own opinion, she concluded: "This has national implications. More than 20 states have laws just like Colorado's on the books. And so this is a major blow to LGBTQ population across the nation." She also made sure to label supporters of conversion therapy as "conservative" but did not label opponents as liberal. Transcripts follow: MS NOW's Ana Cabrera Reports March 31, 2026 11:16 a.m. Eastern ANA CABRERA: We're continuing to follow breaking news out of the Supreme Court this morning -- an 8 to 1 decision and the court backing a challenge to Colorado's ban on LGBT conversion therapy, saying the law raises free speech concerns. MSNOW's Fallon Gallagher is back with us from outside the court. Fallon, an 8 to 1 decision. What did the justice(s) reveal about their thinking? FALLON GALLAGHER, MS NOW LEGAL AFFAIRS REPORTER: Yeah, this is one of those big cases that we have been waiting for a decision in. And the Supreme Court finding in an 8-1 decision that Colorado's law, which bans gender conversion talk therapy, violates the First Amendment on free speech grounds. Of course, siding with that conservative therapist who brought this challenge against the Colorado law. Like we said, this was an 8-1 decision with Gorsuch writing for the majority. And I want to read you just a portion of what he said because there's some really strong language about the First Amendment. He writes, "The First Amendment stands as a shield against any effort to enforce orthodoxy in thought or speech in this country. It reflects instead a judgment that every American possesses an inalienable right to think and speak freely, and a faith in the free marketplace of ideas and the best means for discovering truth." Now, Justice Kagan and Justice Sotomayor signed on for a concurring opinion, agreeing with the majority, but having a little bit of a nuance in their thought. And Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, of course, the lone dissenter here saying that this is more states have the authority to regulate conduct. And I want to read to you something that she wrote. She says, "The court's opinion misreads our precedents, is unprincipled and unworkable, and will eventually prove untenable for those who rely upon the long recognized responsibility of states to regulate the medical profession for the protection of public health." Of course, making that conduct regulation argument there. But Ana, this is a really big case. This has national implications. More than 20 states have laws just like Colorado's on the books. And so this is a major blow to LGBTQ population across the nation. Ana? (...) MS NOW's Chris Jansing Reports March 31, 2026 12:22 p.m. Eastern CHRIS JANSING: We've got some breaking news, a major blow to LGBTQ rights, and it's coming on Trans Visibility Day. In an 8 to 1 decision, the Supreme Court voted to essentially allow conversion therapy for kids, siding with a Christian therapist in Colorado. But their ruling could impact 20 other states with similar laws. MS NOW's Lisa Rubin is following this for us. Give us the inside. What exactly did this decision say? LISA RUBIN, SENIOR LEGAL REPORTER: The decision said, Chris, by a vote of 8 to 1, that when Colorado banned conversion therapy, they didn't just incidentally infringe on a particular therapist's right to offer talk therapy to her patients -- that essentially the Colorado law was not viewpoint neutral -- that it told her that she could not, for example, offer conversion therapy or anything designed to affirm that a change in sexual orientation or in gender identity would be positive for someone, but allowed her, conversely, to sympathize with or support a patient undergoing a transition in either gender identity or sexual orientation, the court said. That's not viewpoint neutral. That has nothing to do with the content or the subject matter of the speech writ large. But is telling her she cannot express a particular viewpoint and that just because the overall bill was aimed at conversion therapy and medical treatment doesn't mean that the speech part of it was merely incidental, that talk therapy, to the extent that it was prohibited by this bill, has to be allowed. JANSING: So the lone dissent came from Ketanji Brown Jackson. And I want to read part of what she wrote in her dissent.: "The court's opinion misreads our precedence, is unprincipled and unworkable, and will eventually prove untenable for those who rely upon the long recognized responsibility of states to regulate the medical profession for the protection of public health." Explain exactly what she is arguing when it comes to the impact this decision will have. RUBIN: Yeah, I mean, Ketanji Brown Jackson is fundamentally disagreeing with her eight colleagues, saying that where you have a collision between prohibited medical treatments or the setting of a standard of care, medically and free speech, that you have to understand the speech restrictions in the context that is offered here, she says. What the state of Colorado is trying to do is prevent harms, including suicidality, among people who are undergoing transitions either in their gender identity or in their sexual orientation. In that context, she says, the speech infringement here has to be understood as part of Colorado's right to set licensing and professional guidelines for people providing medical care, and therefore speech is not what's dominant here. Their right to set medical standards is. JANSING: Lisa Rubin, thank you for that.