From Ace of Spades:
Hutchinson tried to argue with Tucker over the contents of the bill, saying that if the bill only addressed chemical castration (puberty blockers), "I would have signed the bill.” He went on to expand that definition, saying that if the bill were only about "procedures… sex reassignment surgery, I would have signed that bill.” But what else of any significance is left in the bill aside from those procedures? He kept describing the bill as being "overly broad” and coming between a doctor and a patient. But that’s precisely the line that Democrats use when arguing against laws limiting or banning abortions. And isn’t a prohibition against surgical procedures or the prescription of drugs also "coming between a doctor and their patient?” (The things he claims he would have been fine signing off on.)
Tucker really hounded the Governor on this, returning to questions about the lack of research data on the long-term effects of these procedures on children. But as much as Hutchinson tried to claim that he "would have signed” a bill that only prohibited the surgeries or drugs, he then went on to give a textbook liberal explanation of why it’s "important” for parents and children to have these options. Honestly, my head was spinning by the time the interview was over and Tucker Carlson was obviously disgusted by the time he signed off.