A Debate… Finally!

On September 8, Sam Liccardo and Evan Low, the candidates for Representative of California’s 16th district, held their first official debate. The debate was moderated by former KQED Correspondent Angie Coiro. Some questions were raised by Coiro and others by audience participation.

Topics included the issues of homelessness, reproductive rights, taxation, universal basic income, and foreign policy. This article will follow Evan Low’s positions on the issue of reproductive rights based on what he said at the debate.

When asked about how he would work to secure reproductive rights for women while in Congress, Low immediately referenced California’s Proposition 1 (2022), saying has “not just reproductive freedoms, it’s workplace accommodations, child care tax credits. These are all the issues that I have done in my 10 years in the California legislature working with the women’s caucus.” Essentially, Low gave the first example of something he would continue to do for the rest of the debate – take credit for the work of the entire California State Assembly.

Low continued to speak about his role in expanding women’s rights, saying, “It is imperative that we continue to fight, and understanding that this is an imperative…” (First of all, I’m not sure that’s even a sentence, but I digress.) “…That’s why we’ve led on making sure that we have gender pay equity in California in my 10 years of legislature… That’s what I’ve done in Sacramento. That’s what I’ll do in Congress, making sure that we have federal protections in advancing these issues.” Again, Low noted how California has worked towards gender pay equity during his time as Assemblymember. However, he fails to note exactly how he worked with the women’s caucus, what specific solutions he contributed to, or even a single fact or figure to back up his influence in decision making.

Later, Evan continued to speak about abortion even though he was also given the option of talking about homelessness (In 2023, California had 181,399 homeless people, which accounted for 28% of the nation’s homeless population. California also had the highest rate of unsheltered people at 68%), presumably because he had not sufficiently explained the extent of his support and the gravity of his work for women’s reproductive rights.

“There was a rape case, the Stanford rape case, here. Brock Turner. Slap on the wrist. A conversation about whether the judge should be recalled or not. My bill. I authored legislation to make sure that rape is rape… It was my bill and direct response to the Brock Turner rape case.” Low’s work in this area is admirable, and there’s nothing wrong with him wanting to take credit for it. However, it struck me as slightly odd that he would bring the Stanford rape case up when he should be talking about abortion.

He continued immediately after, saying “I take no backseat to anyone on reproductive freedom. I also realize the privilege that we both have. Two men succeeding a woman who has served for 32 years of distinction.” Again, it is true that the two men succeed Anna Eshoo. I’m sure he does care about reproductive freedom and does recognize his privilege. However, to throw around out-of-context bits and pieces of his career while answering the question of how he would defend reproductive freedoms while in Congress is completely missing the point. I am glad Low supports women, but what I did not care for was the fact that he went such lengths to prove he did.

Supporting women’s rights is a given. What voters want to know is how he plans to do that. During this debate, Low could not give them an answer.