Politics
Pete Buttigieg Gets Dragged for Response on Abortion Rights
Was he avoiding the subject or just saying the government should stay out of private health care decisions?
May 17 2019 9:46 PM EST
May 18 2019 6:15 AM EST
trudestress
By continuing to use our site, you agree to our Private Policy and Terms of Use.
Was he avoiding the subject or just saying the government should stay out of private health care decisions?
Pete Buttigieg is getting criticized for what some see as tepid support for abortion rights, even though he's stated his pro-choice position on other occasions.
Buttigieg, the mayor of South Bend, Ind., and the only openly gay candidate among more than 20 Democratic presidential hopefuls, discussed the issue in a Thursday appearance at the City Club of Chicago.
In a video clip tweeted by The Hill, he said, "This is not an easy choice for anybody to face, and I would be loath to tell anybody facing that situation what the right thing to do is, but that's exactly the point. I'm a government official. I don't view myself as belonging in that conversation."
\u201cPete Buttigieg: "This is not an easy choice for anybody to face and I would be loath to tell anybody facing that situation what the right thing to do is but that's exactly the point. I'm a government official. I don't view myself as belonging in that conversation."\u201d— The Hill (@The Hill) 1558071060
Some who responded to the tweet thought Buttigieg was trying to avoid taking a position.
\u201c@thehill In a perfect world, maybe. But Does he know the Republicans he\u2019s going to have to face and work with if he becomes a President. He\u2019s sort of gonna not only have that \u201cconversation,\u201d but fight like hell.\u201d— The Hill (@The Hill) 1558071060
\u201c@thehill @PeteButtigieg , if you want me to continue to listen, I need to know your position on women, equality AND on choice. For now, I am no longer listening and I find your non-committal position reckless for women\u2019s lives.\u201d— The Hill (@The Hill) 1558071060
\u201c@thehill @PeteButtigieg we have no time for waffling or word salads on this one. Here's the only answer---->\nhttps://t.co/EnyY2rm7MF\u201d— The Hill (@The Hill) 1558071060
But others thought he was saying simply that the government shouldn't be involved in the decision whether or not to end a pregnancy.
\u201c@thehill This is exactly right. Government has no place in a woman's conversation with her doctor.\u201d— The Hill (@The Hill) 1558071060
A longer clip, posted on C-SPAN (see here), shows Buttigieg prefacing the remark by saying, "I don't think that you are free in this country if your reproductive health can be criminalized by the government." He also condemned the law enacted by Alabama this week that bans almost all abortions and provides for a prison sentence of up to 99 years for doctors who perform them. The idea that a doctor providing an abortion could get a longer jail term than a rapist who impregnated someone suggests "the discussion on freedom in this country has gone off the rails."
On the issues page of his campaign website, Buttigieg states support for abortion rights and repeal of the Hyde Amendment, which prevents Medicaid or other federal funds from being used to pay for the procedure. He also sent a tweet Wednesday endorsing the right to safe and legal abortion and denouncing the Alabama law.
\u201cThe Alabama legislature is ignoring science, criminalizing abortion, and punishing women. \n\nInstead, the government's role should be to make sure all women have access to comprehensive affordable care, and that includes safe and legal abortion.\n\nhttps://t.co/pU0rKy0fED\u201d— Pete Buttigieg (@Pete Buttigieg) 1557930878
He has been a bit more equivocal on the issue than some Democratic candidates. Sens. Elizabeth Warren, Kirsten Gillibrand, and Cory Booker have said they'd propose a law that would codify Roe v. Wade, the 1973 Supreme Court decision that legalized abortion nationwide, so that states could not adopt laws like Alabama's.
During his Chicago appearance, Buttigieg said he'd consider the idea but stopped short of endorsing it.
"I think that's something that deserves to be taken seriously," he said, according to The Hill. "I haven't seen the full range of ideas on how to do that. ... Some people think it has to be in the Constitution itself as a right to privacy, for example. Obviously, that could be achieved legislatively, but with those rights under assault, I think the full range of responses needs to be contemplated because we can't just keep having this play out one Supreme Court [appointment] at a time."