Abortion

For 2020 Dems, Your Right to an Abortion Doesn't Exist If You Have To Pay for It

And don't even try to pin Elizabeth Warren down on whether the procedure should be legal in the third trimester.

|

The first presidential primary debate dispelled all doubt about the extremity of abortion positions represented in today's Democratic Party. A range of opinions that really ought to strike people of a libertarian bent as troubling—whether or not they think of themselves as pro-life—were on display tonight.

The moderators gave a significant chunk of time to the discussion, especially considering that all 10 debaters are on roughly the same side of this issue. Three candidates' remarks were particularly telling.

First, during a more general conversation about health care policy, Washington Gov. Jay Inslee volunteered that "it should not be an option in the United States of America for any insurance company to deny women coverage for their exercise of their right of choice."

Next, former Housing and Urban Development Secretary Julián Castro was asked whether his Medicare for All plan would cover abortion. "Yes," he said, "it would. I don't believe only in reproductive freedom. I believe in reproductive justice. And what that means is just because a woman, or let's also not forget someone in the trans community…is poor doesn't mean they shouldn't have the right to exercise that right to choose. And so I absolutely would cover the right to have an abortion."

Finally, Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren was asked whether she would put any limits at all on abortion. She responded, "I would make certain that every woman has access to the full range of reproductive health care services, and that includes birth control, that includes abortion, it includes everything for a woman."

These answers convey a couple of realities we should all be crystal clear about. Most importantly, they demonstrate that for the 2020 Democratic hopefuls, it's not enough for abortion to be legal. To meet the criterion of "justice," the procedure must be paid for by someone other than the woman seeking it. For Inslee, that means insurance providers, and no one—not even, say, an order of Catholic nuns—should be permitted by law to choose a plan that doesn't offer abortion coverage. For Castro (and, let's be honest, probably for a number of the others as well) it means the federal government should pick up the tab. Which, of course, is another way of saying that taxpayers, including the half who identify as pro-life, should be on the hook.

The answers also betray a total unwillingness on the part of the Democratic field to admit to any conditions under which they think abortion should be restricted at any point in a pregnancy. That's a shame, especially in a year during which the governor of Virginia found himself in hot water for accidentally implying he might be OK with ending the life of an unwanted child after birth. In fact, as I argued at the time, he almost certainly only thinks abortion should be legal up until the moment a woman goes into labor. But even that is a radical position—and I'm not just speaking for myself. Fewer than a third of Americans think abortion should be legal under every circumstance, according to Gallup. As Slate's William Saletan once put it, polling shows that "even the most pro-choice people aren't sold on abortion rights beyond the first trimester."

Does Warren agree with the vast majority of voters that late-term abortion is a morally different beast? Do any of the Democratic candidates? It's impossible to say for sure—these guys are adept at avoiding a question they would rather not answer, even when the question is put to them directly—but it sure doesn't sound like it to me.

NEXT: Elizabeth Warren's Polished Progressivism Dominated the First Democratic Debate

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. “Tranny abortions will be fully funded through taxes!”
    – Julian “creepy cold stare, but so short” Castro

    1. That was the worst part of the night. Another awful part was when NBC essentially called Gabbard a bigot, and Cory “The Potato” Booker piled on.

    2. Party of Science, y’all.

  2. “it should not be an option in the United States of America for any insurance company to deny women coverage for their exercise of their right of choice.”

    How did he not notice the irony in this statement?

    1. Her choice trumps their options.

  3. You know, five-ish years ago polite society mocked Rush Limbaugh for saying this day would come. He literally predicted that the issue was becoming one of not access, but payment. Just saying.

  4. As a pro-lifer who opposes legal abortion, I *loathe* how libertarians tried to pander to the left by emphasizing their positions on social issues. It’s obvious now that supporting abortion would never be enough. Democrats want to exalt and fund it for all nine months. The same goes for gay marriage. It’s not enough to support it; you have to support coercive cake baking and taxpayer-funded sex changes, too.

    Of course, it’s obvious that the LP hasn’t learned a single thing. And with Sarwark in charge, they’ll continue moving in that direction.

    1. Libertarians have fallen victim to marxist infiltration and deception. The few left who are not managed opposition helping the Democrats perpetually win are like Chamberlain the appeaser, feeding the crocodiles hoping they eat him last.

      1. I don’t think the LP is that coherent or organized. But I don’t really keep up with them.
        Maybe it’s happening, but it seems to me that trying to infiltrate the LP would be a huge waste of time. What would there be to gain by influencing a mostly irrelevant political party?

        1. I don’t think they’ve been infiltrated necessarily, but Sarwark is a tool and a lefty to boot. Just earlier this week he was suggesting that Ron Paul’s 2008 campaign was some kind of Russian plot.

          1. Seriously? WTF has gone sooo wrong with all the main libertarian institutions in recent years.

    2. Well, it’s worth a try, I guess. Not that you should change your positions if you disagree on abortion or other social issues.
      Libertarians will never get through to the true believers, but there are people who are sort of “left by default” who can be swayed. I was once one of them. And I try to say what I think without regard for strategic positioning or who happens to agree with me.

    3. They never wanted abortion. They wanted to force opponents to bow the knee and do what they demand and pay for it.

    4. There may be Libertarians who pander to the left. But every genuine Libertarian position is based on principle: The Non-Aggression Principle (NAP) and the right to honestly acquired property, the most fundamental piece of property being oneself. A person who is capable of carrying an embryo/fetus can not be forced to continue to carry it for any reason. My hope is that few pregnancies will be terminated arbitrarily, but there should be no law against that.

      Could you find us a Libertarian, much less any libertarian literature that favors “coercive cake baking” or “taxpayer-funded sex changes?” Both of those would violate the NAP. Most Libertarian positions on social issues would be seen as lefty to most people. Most economic positions would be seen as righty. But more importantly, all positions would need to be based on the two principles I named above.

      1. For the NAP to be applicable to abortion, the child must have transgressed upon the mother. It has not, therefore it is not applicable.

        The problem with Libertarians on abortion is they keep trying to apply retarded academic principles to real issues that are messy and don’t have a nice answer. Either you let people murder kids for convenience or you don’t. It’s that simple.

        1. False dilemma.

          You use the word “kids,” but there is a genuine and unresolved argument over when a “clump of cells” becomes a human being.

          No one can yet objectively prove when the moment life begins is. Some pro-lifers yell their opinion that it begins at conception as if it were fact, but there is no way to actually measure this and prove it. It’s just circular logic, i.e. “Life begins at conception because it must begin at conception.”

          Maybe fifty years from now someone will invent a device that can objectively measure the instant life begins. Until then, it’s just one side’s opinion versus another side’s opinion.

          1. No one can yet objectively prove when the moment life begins is. Some pro-lifers yell their opinion that it begins at conception as if it were fact, but there is no way to actually measure this and prove it. It’s just circular logic, i.e. “Life begins at conception because it must begin at conception.”

            Well, for one, sperm cells and egg cells are alive before conception, so the question of ‘when life begins’ is not so simple as you put it. But if you mean human life, then, yes, nobody can pinpoint when it begins. IMO, because of that, a society predicated on the preservation of human rights, of which one of the most basic is the right to life, should place that point at the earliest moment when a fundamental change can be detected that all humans pass in the same way. By contrast, heartbeats, pain sensitivity, higher brain functions, etc. all begin at different points in development for each individual, and short of continually hooking women up to an array or sensors, you won’t know exactly when each individual passes each such threshold to be given the lofty status of Human Life by some bureaucratic flunky.

            This doesn’t mean I think all abortions should be illegal, it means, like the death penalty, it should be an available options, just one used in rare circumstances. The right of the unborn to live should be a consideration from the government’s perspective.

          2. Really dude? That’s a bullshit way to dodge the reality of the situation. I’m actually fine with abortion, but don’t fool yourself that you’re not killing babies.

            The bottom line is that once that egg gets fertilized, if nothing else goes wrong, there will be a person popping out in 9 months. Any BS arguments about pinpointing when “life” begins are garbage. If no other action is taken, there will be a person. It’s that simple. So you are killing a person that would be born.

            As I said, I don’t even have a problem with abortion being legal, but I accept it for what it is: Murdering babies because them being born would be inconvenient. Just accept reality for what it is.

      2. Except the “leave well enough alone” mentality of the NAP ends up having the government take over everything.

        You will be made to care. Libertarians promised us that gay marriage would have ZERO impact on straight people. That humoring trannies in re bathrooms would have ZERO impact on the non-insane portion of the population. These assumptions have been disproven harshly.

      3. “A person who is capable of carrying an embryo/fetus can not be forced to continue to carry it for any reason.”

        So child abandonment laws should also be invalid?

      4. I’m tempted to not reply, as your comment delineates clearly (at least in my eyes) that it is intended for big L Libertarians, not small l libertarians like myself.

        To me, the guiding principle is not based on the NAP. It is based merely on the question as to whether any given product/service is better provided by Government or by non-government actors. In general, with only a few exceptions (Justice and Defense being the big two), the private sector is a better choice. [Now perhaps that paradigm may ultimately be derivative of the NAP — IDK/IDC. But that’s the question: Government or Private?]

        Hence, when it comes to certain issues (such as that-ever thorny issue of abortion), it is my personal sense of morality which governs, not my sense of libertarianism.

        1. This is an important nugget here.

          You’re essentially saying that you’re a POLITICAL libertarian. Not a MORAL libertarian. Lots of people are political libertarians, but don’t feel the need to apply every theoretical outcome dictated by the NAP in their personal moral code. It’s not an unreasonable proposition.

          I’m not even a full on political libertarian, because the NAP leads to horrible outcomes on a few issues. Namely open borders, and to a lesser degree enforcing reasonable social standards most people agree on… Like not letting naked 65 year old men who think they’re women showing in locker rooms with 7 year old naked girls. Stuff like that.

    5. Wait til you see what they do with the next batch of dreamers

  5. I can’t wait for the taxpayers to fund my 1st and 2nd Amendment rights

    1. Patiently waiting for my inevitable firearm subsidy…. and for the punitive regulations on ammo costs, and waiting periods, and carry permits to be repealed which are denying me access to my right to keep and bear arms.

      1. Yang 2020 right!? $1000 a month firearm and firearm accessories subsidy.

        1. I’m sure they’ll ban the use of UBI on firearms. And a bunch of other things that the Democrats don’t like. They might even make receiving your UBI contingent on turning in your firearms.

      2. Took the words right out of my mouth

      3. Yeah, well, I want a subscription to everything, and my own printing press. Oh, yeah, and my church needs money, too

        1. Don’t forget peaceable assembly. And what’s more peaceful than Tahiti, Hawaii, Bali, or Ibiza? Book a flight now for you and 10000 of your closest friends — Uncle Sam is footing the bill!

  6. There really is no difference between social issues and economic issues. Social liberalism eventually demands economic progressivism.

    1. That does seem to be what happens.

      But it depends on what you mean by “social liberalism”. Does it mean a Euro-style welfare state, or does it mean leave people alone? I wish it was the latter, but no one seems to want that.

    2. IMO a society that doesn’t have laws governing actions still needs to strictly enforce social standards through shaming, etc. In the USA in 1850 you could do opium and bang hookers every night LEGALLY in most places. BUT if you did that, you would be a total social outcast.

      In short, society is only functional if standards of decency are strictly enforced on most people, because it falls apart if everybody becomes too degenerate… But if you want to have legal freedom to do those things, you still need everybody to chastise those that actually do them… Which in a weird way almost means that many/most of those types of freedoms are essentially bad things in the first place… Which is why so many people just want them made illegal.

      It’s a twisted mess really.

  7. ” In fact, as I argued at the time, he almost certainly only thinks abortion should be legal up until the moment a woman goes into labor. ”
    Where has there been a case of a women having an abortion just before going into labor. This is BS and its time we call it out. Just a talking point that has little to do with fact. But then facts have never been the strong point of the anti-abortion movement.

    1. I got two words for you: “Induction abortion” . Maybe you should google that.

      1. Exactly. It’s only a talking point until it isn’t only a talking point.

      2. I did the International Encyclopedia of Public Health defines it as a surgical termination of pregnancy before the fetus is viable. So we are not talking about a procedure preformed just before a women would deliver at 9 months. My point stands, women do not go into the doctors office a few days before delivering at full term and get an abortion.

    2. Excellent, you’ve shown that since these very late-term abortions don’t happen, then you can reassure the benighted masses by banning such abortions. After all, you won’t be sacrificing any important principle, since you’ll simply be banning something which doesn’t exist!

      Can I sign you up for a law saying that personhood begins no later than the 9th month of pregnancy?

    3. How do you think late-term abortions are done?

      And how do you think babies SURVIVE abortions, which does happen?

  8. It’s of a part with the socialists’ idea of positive rights – how can I be free to do as I please if I lack the resources to do so? I am not free to drive a Rolls Royce or free to vacation in Bali or free to attend Harvard if I can’t afford these things. Somebody needs to stop denying me my rights and send me a big fat check!

    1. That is so stupid it hurts. Part of the reason a Rolls costs so much is that it is handmade and there are very few of them produced compared to say, Fords.

      If the government funded the purchase of a Rolls for everyone who’d like one, the waiting list to take delivery would probably be 80 years. Either that, or Rolls would meet the demand by changing the way they make them and churn them out like any other mass produced production car. In a few years’ time, the Rolls would just be a Ford with a very square-looking grille.

      1. In effect, much of the same applies to Harvard and Bali, too. What makes a Harvard education (arguably) better than one from a community college? A big part of it is that they only accept a select group and that group is a tiny fraction of all college kids—with many made up of either the children of elites or kids who seriously excelled at academics. If everyone and their brother went to Harvard, its cachet would quickly become the same as that of East Whatever State College.

        As for Bali, it’s already overrun with tourists. Add a couple hundred million more, who got there thanks to a welfare program, and some relatively empty Florida beach will soon be the way more desirable destination.

      2. I think it being stupid was the point.

        1. Let’s start a gofund me to buy Inigo Montoya a working sarcometer.

  9. “The answers also betray a total unwillingness on the part of the Democratic field to admit to any conditions under which they think abortion should be restricted at any point in a pregnancy.”

    Good. Every serious libertarian must support unrestricted access to abortion care throughout all 3 trimesters.

    What’s not good, though, is Reason allowing this anti-choice extremist to write here. You cannot be a libertarian if you literally want to turn this country into The Handmaid’s Tale. I mean, what’s next? Is Reason going to hire a writer who opposes open borders?

    #LibertariansForThirdTrimesterAbortion
    #LibertariansForPubliclyFundedAbortion

    1. D. Transparent.

    2. Why stop at 3 trimesters, you Nazi. Get comfortable while we have a discussion…

  10. Those that want freedom of choice do not want to give those that would never make that choice any option. They want to force others to support and pay for it.
    That is no supporter of choice.

    1. It was never about freedom–it was always about power.

  11. Would it be less costly if we just had all males be forced to get a vasectomy at 14 and then they could get it reversed after 25? I am against it, but would it be less costly under medicare for all?

  12. […] For 2020 Dems, Your Right to an Abortion Doesn’t Exist If You Have To Pay for It […]

  13. Like immigration, abortion is a fight the left has to keep going or they cannot use their favorite weapon, the race card. Democrats do not want solutions to these issues or to actual find a compromise because both would strip the issue from them to use for political gain. Both issues have simple solutions which is why you know it is nothing but politics.

  14. “The answers also betray a total unwillingness on the part of the Democratic field to admit to any conditions under which they think abortion should be restricted at any point in a pregnancy.”

    I’m actually not sure how you concluded this. Sure, there were lots of calls for government to pay for abortions for people, but I didn’t hear anything about when abortions could or couldn’t be performed. Am I missing something?

    1. “Finally, Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren was asked whether she would put any limits at all on abortion. She responded, “I would make certain that every woman has access to the full range of reproductive health care services, and that includes birth control, that includes abortion, it includes everything for a woman.””

  15. Abortions will continue to become more restrictive as medicine enables premature babies to be viable. 25% of 20 week babies are viable. If you abort after 20 weeks for an illegitimate reason, off to jail with you. There can’t be any compromise. I’ll respect your honesty if you can admit that the reason you advocate these killings is to reduce or eliminate problematic populations, but then you’ve just ushered in RWDS. Good job!

    1. ” I’ll respect your honesty if you can admit that the reason you advocate these killings is to reduce or eliminate problematic populations, but then you’ve just ushered in RWDS.”

      Democrats have gotten away with it for 60 years without admitting that, why start now?

    2. Honestly, that IS a big part of why I support abortion.

      Way I see it there are 2 types that have abortions: Those who might want them, but feel they really can’t take care of a kid. These people are mostly broke blow it cases.

      The other is people who could take care of a kid, but don’t want to have one because “ZOMG I wouldn’t be able to drink wine with the girls every weekend anymore!”

      In both cases, you’re avoiding a situation where a kid probably shouldn’t exist. Blow it cases who can’t even take care of themselves shouldn’t have kids, and stats show poor people disproportionately have abortions. With somebody who would feel resentment about having a kid… Being unwanted is probably worse than being poor. So either way, it’s a good thing IMO, although I wish there were fewer of category 2 people.

  16. If I have to pay for it, does that mean that women no longer want the government out of their vaginas?

    1. We’re talking about women here. Much like marriage, they get access to your money but you have no access to her vagina.

      A friendly reminder that 55 percent of women between ages 18 and 54 prefer socialism to capitalism.

      1. What are the chances of getting a blowie? Is this an eggs benedict situation – something else I’ll never get from government?

      2. Women talk all this shit about wanting to be independent… But they’re literally incapable of existing at any real level of prosperity without men. They’re too weak, too lazy, and not intelligent or driven enough. Women, as a whole, exist on the backs of men. Always have, and always will.

    2. damikesc
      June.27.2019 at 4:27 pm
      “If I have to pay for it, does that mean that women no longer want the government out of their vaginas?”

      Where’s daddy to cover the cost?
      Want me to cover it? Do I get a poke?

  17. AND, “Your right to keep and bear arms does not exist if you have to pay for them”! A right actually in the constitution, not just invented into it!

  18. “For 2020 Dems, Your Right to an Abortion Doesn’t Exist If You Have To Pay for It”

    “If the government isn’t paying you to write that stuff, you do not have freedom of speech!”
    The D party.

  19. I’m all for women’s rights, but it is an elective action and shouldn’t be covered by insurance unless they pay for an add on to cover such contingencies. Again, fuck the Republican agenda to take away women’s rights and reproductive freedom. Fuck them with a barbed wire covered bat.

  20. These same Democrat assholes love putting fees on gun owners and claim that it doesn’t violate the right to keep and bear arms and 2nd Amendment.
    Such logical inconsistency and hypocrisy. If it’s a violation of rights for gov’t to not pay for something, then it is a double violation of rights to not only not pay for something but to put extra fees on top.

  21. Did she really say “latinx”? How is that even pronounced?
    https://www.moschinooutlets.com/bags/backpacks.html

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.