No debate can get to every topic that matters to every voter. But now that we have had five Democratic primary debates—which are now being held on weeknights, imagine that—it’s worth noting that we have yet to hear Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders seriously discuss two core liberal issues on the same stage. One involves access to abortions and other reproductive health care, which remain under threat by law and gun. The other? Access to the ballot box.

But, you may ask, don’t the candidates agree 100 percent on these issues? Pretty much, yes. Clinton and Sanders both want to protect abortion access and expand funding for Planned Parenthood; he recently seconded her call to repeal the draconian Hyde Amendment, which prevents federal funding for abortion procedures with certain exceptions. As for voting rights, they concur that Congress should restore the crippled Voting Rights Act to full health. They both want a national standard for early voting and universal, automatic registration. Last August, during the 50th anniversary of the Voting Rights Act, discussing the issue was all the rage and both campaigns were vocal; the former secretary of state released a lengthy ad focusing on the legacy of activists who fought for those rights. Both Clinton and Sanders have platforms on their websites, and the differences between the two are minimal. So why debate them at all?

Not speaking the “a-word” too often is a Democratic tradition that needs to be broken. It cedes the public conversation about abortion and reproductive rights to conservatives and Republicans, who love to harp about “life” but never mention the terrorist attack at a Planned Parenthood clinic last November. (Clinton, to her credit, has mentioned the health care provider during the debates.) We can argue all we wish that America is moving left, but no one told the legions of patients living primarily in red states—especially those poorer women of color who are particularly disenfranchised—who are effectively barred from abortions by puritanical, often unconstitutional legislative measures. Given that the new Zika virus is forcing conversations about anti-abortion laws and disability rights both here and abroad, this was a prime opportunity to make attacks on reproductive rights even more prominent in the public consciousness. No such luck on that New Hampshire stage, at least.

The conversation about voting rights is no less dire. Hours before his network staged Thursday’s debate, MSNBC reporter Zachary Roth detailed how the new director of the Election Assistance Commission—the federal agency that helps states run their elections—just sided with three GOP-governed states that are trying to put up roadblocks to voter registration. Director Brian Newby’s sudden shift in EAC policy means that new instructions requiring proof of citizenship to vote will now be a part of the federal registration form in Kansas, Georgia, and Alabama. Roth called it “a sudden, unilateral surrender” by the EAC that could also have implications for Arizona voters, which also has a proof-of-citizenship law.

Granted, none of those states are named “Iowa” or “New Hampshire,” which may be why it hasn’t yet come up on the campaign trail. And yes, both candidates have spoken to the issue in cable-news town hall settings and televised interviews as recently as the night before the debate, when Clinton responded to a question about “litmus tests” by mentioning the Supreme Court and her vote for the reauthorization of the Voting Rights Act during her time as a senator. Sanders, forceful on the topic during a November town hall, briefly mentioned at Thursday’s debate the Republican predilection to game the voting system in their favor.