Democrats Finally Talked About Abortion on the Debate Stage, But in the Most Superficial Way Possible

Saying you’ll codify Roe is not good enough.

Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., left, and Democratic presidential candidate former Vice President Joe Biden during a commercial break in a Democratic presidential primary debate.John Bazemore/AP

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.

Last night, for the second consecutive debate, Democrats were asked about how they plan to protect the right to abortion care—and they essentially whiffed, using what could have been an opportunity to lay out developed plans of action to merely repeat their bland points from last month.

The most common “solution” Democrats have offered thus far in debates is to codify the rights established by Roe as law, which was repeated by Amy Klobuchar last night. But that answer, while arguably strong in its simplicity and ability to stick in voters’ memories, falls way short, particularly in this current moment. Codifying Roe, as Irin Carmon of New York pointed out on Twitter last night, would necessitate a Democratic majority in the Senate. Currently, Republicans hold the Senate by eight seats (not counting two independent senators who caucus with the Democrats). Should Republicans keep control of the Senate in 2020—which seems likely at this point—it would be next to impossible to pass such a law. So what then, Dems?

Only Klobuchar, Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders, and Cory Booker discussed abortion rights last night. But the questions were largely about politics, not policy. Warren was asked to specifically comment on the recent reelection of John Bel Edwards, an anti-abortion Democrat, as the governor of Louisiana, and whether there is room for his politics in the party. There was no mention of the impending Supreme Court case out of that state that could do extreme damage to abortion providers in this country; pushing a pissing match over who’s in and who’s out of the party is laughable considering the stakes of reproductive health care here. Sanders, meanwhile, was simply given 30 seconds to, I guess, broadly express his support for abortion rights, which he did. Then Booker made his opportunity to speak to voting rights—which, in fairness, is certainly relevant to how we got here—but he ultimately deflected the conversation away from the matter at hand.

And then it was over. 

In this moment, when abortion rights are under severe attack at the state level, and there are two new anti-choice justices on the Supreme Court, such platitudes about codifying Roe and pledging vaguely to protect the right to choose falls pathetically short. It feels as though the candidates are going through the motions when it comes to reproductive rights. This sort of by-the-book answer is simply not good enough amid wholesale bans on abortion passed in states like Alabama and Georgia, not to mention a Supreme Court case regarding admitting privileges that’s on the docket for next year and could decimate the few remaining abortion providers in conservative areas. Responding to questions about abortion—few, far between, and vague though they may be—with canned, obtuse statements seasoned with whatever passion fits that candidate’s brand does not a hero make.

To be clear, it would be naive to suggest that discussing abortion policy isn’t a delicate dance for the candidates. They have to pledge to protect reproductive rights while not alienating moderates for whom abortion is a fraught issue. Still, this moment calls for specificity, creativity, and strong leadership, which has not been on significant display on the debate stage, though it’s worth noting that Warren, Booker, Sanders, Kamala Harris, and Pete Buttigieg are among those with developed plans on their websites. In future debates, it would be powerful to hear the candidates talk more in-depth about the challenge of protecting reproductive rights in a Congress where Republicans are likely to have the ability to block legislation backed by Democrats, or about how they plan to structure the Department of Health and Human Services to protect women’s health care, or anything that shows they are truly invested in this fight.

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate