Thigh-High Politics is an op-ed column by Teen Vogue writer Lauren Duca that breaks down the news, provides resources for the resistance, and just generally refuses to accept toxic nonsense.

On Monday, Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee chairman Ben Ray Luján said the party would not withhold financial support from House candidates who oppose abortion rights — a signal that the Democratic establishment is willing to stomach the economic and social inequality of half the population, if it means scooping up a few more seats in 2018.

“There is not a litmus test for Democratic candidates,” he told The Hill. “As we look at candidates across the country, you need to make sure you have candidates that fit the district, that can win in these districts across America.”

Luján’s position marks a betrayal of every woman who has ever supported the Democratic Party, and a rejection of the progressive values that supposedly define it. Being pro-choice is not a “requirement” of being a Democrat, but valuing equality ought to be, and true equality is impossible without abortion access. A win for a Democrat who opposes abortion rights is a loss for human rights. Honestly, if that’s the plan, maybe we should just scrap the two-party system and do a Democrat–Republican combo ticket. Tentative title: The White Supremacist Patriarchy.

The party’s women problem is nothing new. Democrats gained control of the House in 2006 with the help of a few pro-lifers from socially conservative districts in Indiana and North Carolina, perhaps bolstering the idea that winning requires this unacceptable compromise. There was a more recent example back in April, when the supposed poster boy of economic equality, Senator Bernie Sanders, inexplicably quibbled over whether Georgia congressional candidate Jon Ossoff was truly a progressive before rallying behind Omaha mayoral hopeful Heath Mello, who has sponsored a variety of anti-choice measures. That juxtaposition and Luján’s support for anti-choice candidates add up to a condemning irreconcilability of the Democratic Party, which purports to aim for grand social equality but apparently considers women’s rights to be debatable.

The abortion issue has been so profoundly stigmatized, we often forget that it is entirely possible to be personally pro-life and politically pro-choice. With regard to Democratic Party funding, it all comes down to policy. Consider vice presidential candidate Tim Kaine, who personally opposes abortion while publicly opposing government restriction. Here’s an analogy for Sanders, Luján, and all of the men in my mentions, who are apparently still struggling with this concept: It’s cool if you refuse to drink bubble tea, but that doesn’t mean you need to prevent others from having the option of drinking bubble tea. The problem is not rejecting bubble tea, but in dictating others’ ability to drink bubble tea just because you personally consider bubble tea to be vile ball milk.

According to its official website, the Democratic Party's mission statement asserts that “this country succeeds when everyone gets a fair shot” — but maybe they just mean men. Prominent liberals have framed reproductive rights as a niche issue of “identity politics,” supposedly less pressing than the Sanders-led fight against financial injustice. I’m not sure if the problem here is one of willful ignorance, blinding male privilege, or some mind-numbing combination of the two, but not only is abortion access a human rights issue, it’s also an economic issue that is essential to progressivism. Or, to put it more simply: Having a baby costs money.

Diapers cost money — and food, and clothing, and shelter cost money. So does the long-term effort of raising a child, which requires time and energy that could be directed toward a career (which is — fun fact — another way that people earn money). Women cannot be equal when they are denied the option to opt out of that decades-long financial burden, and proposing a platform of economic equality that dismisses this reality is no less than patriarchal arrogance masquerading as “strategy.”