'Leftist' Makes Insane Argument That Government Should Pay Women to Have Babies if Abortion Is Banned

(AP Photo/Seth Wenig)

The illogical “logic” of the left is a sight to behold. From efforts to ban Second Amendment rights of law-abiding gun owners because evil people commit evil acts with guns; to preaching tolerance and inclusion to the rest of us, while leftists themselves are among the most intolerant group of people on the planet; to the Democrat Party’s claim to be the party of children, while fervently supporting on-demand abortion until birth.


In the aftermath of the Supreme Court’s June announcement of its decision to overturn Roe v. Wade, self-proclaimed “Leftist” Ren Brabenec made headlines for suggesting that “preventing unwanted pregnancies” could be achieved with legislation mandating vasectomies for all males once they reach puberty. Prior to such vasectomies, the left-wing gadfly said, “young men can donate to sperm banks, preserving their seed for future child-rearing.” (Somewhere, George Orwell continues to say “I told you so.”)

Turns out Brabenec was just getting started. As reported by The Blaze, Brabenec argues in another op-ed that if abortions are prohibited, women should be paid by the government to bear children.

Before we continue, let’s remember that despite the left’s histrionics, the overturn of Roe did not prohibit abortion; rather, it returned authority to the residents of the states and their elected representatives to decide each state’s abortion-related issues.

In an opinion piece titled A government that forces birth must pay women for their labor, Brabenec writes, “Human capital is the economy’s most valuable asset,” adding: “If the government forces women to produce it, it must pay them.”

If the government now intends to force women to produce human capital, shifting motherhood from a voluntary act to a compulsory one, the government must pay women for this service. And they must pay mothers well beyond the going welfare rate. Women forced to produce the economy’s most valuable asset deserve at least the salary of the average American worker.


The U.S. has long acknowledged that compelling human beings to perform labor requires compensation (at least when it’s men doing the labor). During the draft, the government recognized that forcing men to put their bodies in the line of fire required a fair salary. And in all but eight states, even the inmates are paid for their labor.


Crazy? It gets worse, as Brabenec laughingly attempts to build a constitutional case for U.S. taxpayers paying women to have babies.

Perhaps most importantly, our country’s Constitution has a thing or two to say about forced labor and controlled property. The 13th Amendment protects Americans against involuntary servitude, and the Fifth Amendment protects against private property being seized for public use.

Per our Constitution, women cannot be compelled to perform labor (carry a pregnancy to term), and they cannot have their property (uterus) seized by the state to produce human capital. But if this is to be the new normal, thanks to the U.S. Supreme Court’s blindered reading of American history, the government must step up and compensate women.

Prohibiting on-demand abortion until birth, if a state’s elected lawmakers decide to do so, is not compelling a woman to perform (uncompensated), or controlling property; it is protecting from murder the most vulnerable among us who cannot protect themselves. The notion that a woman’s uterus is “property seized by the state to produce human capital” tops the Planet Looney Tunes chart as truly bizarre.

Au contraire, argues Brabenec:

Roe v. Wade pulled countless women up the economic ladder. The ability to delay motherhood by legal access to abortion meant women could finish college, spend more time in the labor force and work in higher-paying occupations before becoming mothers. With Roe gone, if the government intends to forcibly rescind the human right to an abortion and invite the personal economic disadvantages that will follow, it must pay up.


Brabenec “forgets” the part about no one forcing a woman to get pregnant.

Pregnancy is a choice a woman makes, either willingly or unwillingly by failing to responsibly practice birth control — including decisions made by her partner. To be clear, I am not including in my argument cases rape or incest, or cases where the would-be mother’s health is in danger, as most states — even those with the strictest abortion laws in the country — also take into consideration.

In closing, Brabenec writes:

If America’s vocal minority intends to move our society away from a democracy founded on human rights, and if this minority intends to flirt with a brand of evangelical authoritarianism that would force births and strip the bodily autonomy of 51% of the population, the least the government can do is compensate mothers.

The bottom line:

Prior to writing this article, I had never heard of Ren Brabenec. I assume that is also the case for most readers. So my usual disclaimer is called for: Brabenec might be irrelevant but his opinions are not — in the larger sense of leftist groupthink. As is often the case with the mindset of the left, if you (third person) screw up, solely through actions or inactions of your own making, it is somehow the responsibility of the federal government — hardworking U.S. taxpayers — to pay for your mistakes.

This is total nonsense, of course. We are individually responsible for our own actions.

While, as Americans, we have a responsibility to take care of those who cannot take care of themselves, we should not be burdened with the responsibility of those who will not take care of themselves.


No amount of leftist groupthink will ever change that moral reality.


Join the conversation as a VIP Member

Trending on RedState Videos