Fox News host Tucker Carlson engaged in a heated debate about abortion on Wednesday night with pro-choice advocate Monica Klein.

Carlson began by asking about late-term abortion comments made by Virginia Gov. Ralph Northam (D), but Klein, the co-founder of the political consulting firm Seneca Strategies, put him on notice right out of the gate.

“I understand that you want 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,” she said.

“Don’t give me that,” Carlson said. “C’mon.”

Carlson told Klein not to be “tiresome” and said, “Please don’t be a robot.” He also asked her to pause “as a woman” to think about the issue.

Klein replied:

“Have you asked yourself why you spend so much time talking about this rather than thinking about why your party is trying to repeal Roe v. Wade and control women’s bodies. Right now, there are seven states where there’s only one abortion clinic. There are four states with trigger bans where if Roe v. Wade is repealed, women cannot get reproductive healthcare. This is about a woman’s right to choose and you as a man should not have a single say in that.”

“Wow,” Carlson replied.

He tried to steer the conversation back to late-term abortions, but Klein turned it around on him again.

“Your party is the one tearing families apart at the border and allowing children to die in federal custody,” Klein fired back. “Whose party is harming children?”

“Wow,” Carlson replied again.

“This is obviously a pointless conversation and I think less of you after it, I have to say,” Carlson said near the end of the debate.

“I already think less of you, so don’t worry,” Klein replied.

Check it out above.

Also on HuffPost

Iowa Bill Allows The "Justifiable Use Of Deadly Force" To Protect The Unborn

Bill Premise: Two bills have been combined into one to essentially define an unborn fetus as a person. In protecting that person, the Iowa legislature wants to allow the use of deadly force against abortion doctors or family-planning practitioners. The far-reaching consequence is that if this bill passes, persons that harm or kill abortion providers would be protected under state law from persecution. From the Iowa Independent: Also included in the proposal is a new section to the Iowa Code that would provide automatic criminal and civil immunity to a person who uses deadly force, unless a police investigation proves that the person was not acting "reasonably." Also key to the immunity clause is the fact that law enforcement would likely be barred from arresting a person at the scene of an incident "unless the law enforcement agency determines there is probable cause that the force was unlawful under this chapter." If law enforcement does make an arrest, and if that person is later found to have used reasonable force by a court of law, taxpayers could be on the hook for the reimbursement of the person's attorney fees, court costs, compensation from loss of income and other expenses. [...] "Does this provide someone who is a person with an anti-abortion stance at least an opportunity that is more likely to get to a jury? I think the answer is yes," [associate professor of law at the University of Kansas Melanie D.] Wilson said. Bill Status: Currently under debate.

Nebraska's Bill Revives "Justifiable Homicide"

Story continues

Bill's Premise: In an effort to expand a bill that started in South Dakota, Nebraska's bill uses justifiable homicide as a means to curb abortions. In the event that a woman wants to protect her unborn fetus, the bill expands to third parties in addition to the pregnant woman, her husband, parents, and children to protect under the law the use of force against abortion doctors or others that endanger the fetus. Per Mother Jones: The legislation, LB 232, was introduced by state Sen. Mark Christensen, a devout Christian and die-hard abortion foe who is opposed to the prodedure even in the case of rape. Unlike its South Dakota counterpart, which would have allowed only a pregnant woman, her husband, her parents, or her children to commit "justifiable homicide" in defense of her fetus, the Nebraska bill would apply to any third party. "In short, this bill authorizes and protects vigilantes, and that's something that's unprecedented in our society," Melissa Grant of Planned Parenthood of the Heartland told the Nebraska legislature's judiciary committee on Wednesday. Specifically, she warned, it could be used to target Planned Parenthood's patients and personnel. Also testifying in oppostion to the bill was David Baker, the deputy chief executive officer of the Omaha police department, who said, "We share the same fears...that this could be used to incite violence against abortion providers." Bill's Status: Currently in the state legislature open for debate.

Georgia Moves To Criminalize Miscarriages

Bill's Premise: A Georgia lawmaker wants to make abortion illegal in the state, but doesn't simply stop there. The way the bill is worded effectively criminalizes miscarriages, and the death penalty looms as a punishment. Mother Jones' Jen Phillips calls this measure "the apex...of woman-hating craziness." The bill...shows an astonishing lack of concern for women's health and well-being. Under Rep. Franklin's bill, HB 1, women who miscarry could become felons if they cannot prove that there was "no human involvement whatsoever in the causation" of their miscarriage. There is no clarification of what "human involvement" means, and this is hugely problematic as medical doctors do not know exactly what causes miscarriages. Miscarriages are estimated to terminate up to a quarter of all pregnancies and the Mayo Clinic says that "the actual number is probably much higher because many miscarriages occur so early in pregnancy that a woman doesn't even know she's pregnant. Most miscarriages occur because the fetus isn't developing normally." Bill's Status: Open for debate in the legislature

South Dakota's Pioneering Foray Into "Justifiable Homicide"

Bill's Premise: South Dakota has the bill that Nebraska emulated regarding this issue. It altered "the state's legal definition of justifiable homicide by adding language stating that a homicide is permissible if committed by a person "while resisting an attempt to harm" that person's unborn child or the unborn child of that person's spouse, partner, parent, or child." That meant that is theoretically would have allowed "a woman's father, mother, son, daughter, or husband to kill anyone who tried to provide that woman an abortion--even if she wanted one." Kate Sheppard reports: "The bill in South Dakota is an invitation to murder abortion providers," says Vicki Saporta, the president of the National Abortion Federation, the professional association of abortion providers. Since 1993, eight doctors have been assassinated at the hands of anti-abortion extremists, and another 17 have been the victims of murder attempts. Some of the perpetrators of those crimes have tried to use the justifiable homicide defense at their trials. "This is not an abstract bill," Saporta says. The measure could have major implications if a "misguided extremist invokes this 'self-defense' statute to justify the murder of a doctor, nurse or volunteer," the South Dakota Campaign for Healthy Families warned in a message to supporters last week. Bill's Status: Shelved.

Pennsylvania Wants to Regulate Clinics

Bill's Premise: A bill showed up in the Pennsylvania state house that would change the classification of abortion clinics. The bill's sponsors want "the state to apply the same regulatory standards to abortion clinics that are applied to other freestanding surgical facilities." This, in turn, would lead to the shuttering of many facilities that perform legal abortions. Restricting the ability of women to have these procedures is the intent of the bill; no one is sincerely concerned about enhancing the safety of these patients. Bill's Status: On the docket.

Kansas Considering Two Laws Limiting Abortions

Bill's Premise: Two bills recently passed the state house. One is an enhanced parental consent bill, that would "require doctors to obtain parents' consent before performing abortions on minors.to limit abortions in the state." The second is a fetal personhood bill that would place "strict limits" on abortions after the 22nd week of gestation, "based on disputed research that fetuses can feel pain at that point of development." Bill's Status: Passed the state house, on senate floor.

Virginia Cracks Down on Clinics

Bill's Premise: The Virginia Senate approved a measure similar to Pennsylvania's proposed bill, to reclassify abortion clinics. They want them to "meet the same regulatory and architectural requirements as outpatient surgical centers." As with Pennsylvania, the intent here isn't to enhance or improve patient comfort -- it's to shut down clinics. The implications for Virginians is that this law could close "17 of the state's 21 outpatient clinics." As one of the bills supporters said: "This is about protecting women's health, and you can look at me like that if you want." The reason anyone was looking at him "like that," is that people have a way of looking at people who are disingenuous liars. Bill's Status: Passed.

House Passes Planned Parenthood Defund

Bill Premise: House Republicans proposed an amendment to H.R. 1, a complete de-funding of Planned Parenthood. The point was to prevent taxpayer money from going to Planned Parenthood that would have been used to fund abortions. Elise Foley reported: The vote, which passed, 240 to 185, came after an emotional, late-night speech by Rep. Jackie Speier (D-Calif.), who revealed on the House floor that she had had an abortion. Speier criticized Republicans for vilifying Planned Parenthood and abortion-rights supporters. "There is a vendetta against Planned Parenthood, and it was played out in this room tonight," she said on the House floor. "Planned Parenthood has a right to operate. Planned Parenthood has a right to provide family planning services. Planned parenthood has a right to perform abortions. Last time you checked, abortions were legal in this country." Bill's Status: Passed the House, likely to be a non-starter in the Senate.

GOP Tries to Redefine Rape

Bill's Premise: H.R. 3, also known as the "No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act," was an attempt to...well, prevent taxpayer money from going to fund abortions. This is something already enforced by the Hyde Amendment, but anti-abortion forces in Congress prefer to pretend this isn't the case, so that the specter of abortions being funded by Federal dollars can be raised time and again (see also: The Stupak Amendment). What made the language of this bill particularly mental was the way it redefined rape, making abortions only allowable in the case of "forcible rape." That meant that if you were coerced, drugged or otherwise incapacitated by a rapist, too bad for you. Bizarrely, it also excluded statutory rape, and incest, unless the incest survivor was a minor. Per Nick Baumann: For example: If a 13-year-old girl is impregnated by a 24-year-old adult, she would no longer qualify to have Medicaid pay for an abortion. (Smith's spokesman did not respond to a call and an email requesting comment.) Given that the bill also would forbid the use of tax benefits to pay for abortions, that 13-year-old's parents wouldn't be allowed to use money from a tax-exempt health savings account (HSA) to pay for the procedure. They also wouldn't be able to deduct the cost of the abortion or the cost of any insurance that paid for it as a medical expense. And what is "forcible rape?" As it turns out, "The term 'forcible rape' actually has no set meaning; legal definitions of "force" vary widely. And every survivor who finds herself in need of abortion funding will have to submit her rape for government approval." Bill's status: After an intense outcry, lawmakers backed off of redefining rape.

South Dakota Tries Again

Bill's Premise: After their "justifiable homicide" bill got shelved, South Dakota lawmakers set their sights a little lower and are debating House Bill 1217, which would force women into a veritable obstacle course in order to obtain a legal abortion. Per Jillian Rayfield on TPM, the measure would require women to first meet with a doctor, then consult with a "pregnancy help center" (where she'd be pressured to not have an abortion), then wait 72 hours after this second consultation before having the procedure. The bill is designed to make it as onerous as possible on women seeking these procedures; it falls especially heavy on the poor, who would have to take additional time off work, and make extra long-distance trips in a state where 98% of the counties have no abortion provider at all. Bill's Status: In debate.

Love HuffPost? Become a founding member of HuffPost Plus today.

This article originally appeared on HuffPost.