Title: Ben Shapiro Responds to Whoopi Goldberg’s Controversial Comments on Race, Abortion, and American Politics

Television personality and political commentator Whoopi Goldberg is no stranger to controversy. As one of the most outspoken hosts of The View, Goldberg often dives headfirst into America’s most polarizing issues—race, abortion, gender, and politics—with unwavering certainty. But not everyone agrees with her takes.

Conservative commentator Ben Shapiro has frequently taken aim at Goldberg, accusing her of spreading misinformation, pushing contradictory arguments, and fostering political narratives disconnected from fact. Most recently, Goldberg’s comments regarding the Holocaust and abortion rights reignited a wave of criticism, with Shapiro delivering one of his most cutting rebuttals yet.

 The Holocaust Controversy: “It’s Not About Race”

In one of the most widely circulated clips from The View, Goldberg stated that the Holocaust “wasn’t about race,” but rather about “man’s inhumanity to man.” The statement drew immediate backlash from historians, Jewish organizations, and commentators across the political spectrum. Ben Shapiro was quick to respond, labeling the remark not only “stupid,” but also “despicable.”

“The Holocaust was entirely about race,” Shapiro stated in a follow-up video. “Nazis defined Jews as a separate, inferior race. This wasn’t about mere ideology—it was about racial extermination.”

Goldberg later apologized, but the incident added to a growing list of remarks critics argue demonstrate a lack of historical and ideological clarity.

Abortion and Gender Contradictions

Goldberg has long advocated for reproductive rights, passionately asserting that men should not weigh in on abortion decisions.

“Do any of you men have eggs or the possibility of carrying a fetus?” she asked during a heated episode. “How dare you talk about what a fetus wants—you have no idea.”

Shapiro responded by pointing out what he sees as a contradiction in leftist discourse. “If men can get pregnant,” he argued, referring to progressive views on gender identity, “then why can’t men have opinions on abortion?”

He also noted that Goldberg herself, being past childbearing age, wouldn’t meet her own criteria for having a valid voice on the issue—calling her logic “internally incoherent.”

 Vaccine Mandates and Bodily Autonomy

Another point of tension for Shapiro is Goldberg’s stance on bodily autonomy. He contends that Goldberg supports government-imposed vaccine mandates but rejects government restrictions on abortion, despite both issues involving bodily decisions.

“She wants the government out of her doctor’s office when it comes to abortion,” Shapiro said, “but not when it comes to vaccination. That’s not principle—that’s politics.”

 Race, Language, and Alleged Double Standards

Goldberg has previously questioned the use of certain phrases in the English language—like “black sheep” and “blackmail”—suggesting they may have racially problematic origins. Shapiro dismissed these concerns as linguistic overreach and a distraction from more pressing issues.

He also criticized Goldberg’s framing of voter ID laws and school curriculum debates, accusing her of calling racism too freely and misrepresenting conservative policies.

“Whoopi claims conservatives are erasing Black history,” said Shapiro. “But what most conservatives oppose is radicalized curricula—not historical education.”

Trump, Election Denial, and Political Memory

Shapiro took particular issue with Goldberg’s suggestion that Democrats “sucked it up” after Trump’s 2016 victory, asserting that liberals did anything but accept the results.

“There were protests, marches, and constant challenges to Trump’s legitimacy,” he noted. “To say Democrats accepted Trump is pure revisionism.”

 Final Take: Debate or Performance?

For Shapiro, Goldberg represents what he sees as a broader trend in media—emotion-driven commentary unmoored from consistent reasoning. He argues that if people like Goldberg are never held accountable for factual accuracy or ideological consistency, public discourse will only deteriorate further.

“The View isn’t a talk show,” he quipped. “It’s a masterclass in how not to think.”

He’s also stated repeatedly that he would be willing to appear on The View, but doubts it will ever happen. “They know I’d dismantle their arguments in seconds,” he said.

Conclusion: Personality or Principle?

Goldberg’s critics argue she’s built a platform on selective outrage and political inconsistency. Her defenders claim she’s a bold voice for marginalized communities, unafraid to speak her truth. What’s clear is that her statements continue to provoke strong reactions—and that voices like Shapiro’s will be right there, ready to challenge them.

What do you think? Are Goldberg’s comments the result of honest misinterpretation, or a reflection of deeper ideological bias? And would The View benefit from inviting more dissenting voices into the conversation?