Hillary Clinton shared a list composed by Senator Tammy Duckworth wherein Duckworth enumerates what constitutes a genuine pro-life position, in her estimation. Unless ostensible pro-life advocates have ensured that the five items below are in place and provided for by the government, Duckworth asserts, the so-called pro-lifers aren’t really pro-life.
If you’re not ensuring that the healthcare, child care, family leave and education listed are available, you’re not pro-life, Duckworth says, “you’re just pro-forced birth.”
What Tammy said. https://t.co/3Iez1NWNNm— Hillary Clinton (@HillaryClinton) March 22, 2023
The five items on her list?
- Maternal healthcare
- Affordable child care
- Paid family leave
- Universal pre-K
- Expanded Child Tax Credits
According to Duckworth’s tweet, only those who provide the social safety nets she lists can accurately use the name pro-life. The Senator says that otherwise “pro-life” is a misnomer.
Clinton forwarded Duckworth’s tweet without elaboration, adding only: “What Tammy said.”
[Note: With Roe v. Wade dismantled by the Supreme Court, many red states have been on a rapid-fire mission to curtail — or virtually withdraw — the right to an abortion.]
One implication of the Duckworth-Clinton argument is the question that logically follows, as Clinton the attorney will understand: Does it follow that it would be acceptable to outlaw abortion if these programs were put in place and made available to every family? Even with all that government support, doesn’t the central debate point of a “woman’s right to choose” remain unresolved?
In other words, following the logic line of Duckworth’s tweet, could a pro-life advocate who ensured such programs were in place — thereby earning the “pro-life” name, by her standards — then reasonably demand “forced-birth” as Duckworth calls it? Since the society, not just the mother, then would be in position to care for the child through the programs?