It’s actually based on a core tenet, a base assumption of leftist ideology.
If a person does not have the means to exercise a “right”, then that “right” is effectively being denied to him. And based on another core assumption/tenet, the government as the guarantor of rights is then responsible for making the means available to him to exercise that right.
Understanding the liberal ideology doesn’t make me sympathize with it in the least, but it keeps the keyboard prints off my forehead.
..If you look at the victories and failures of the civil rights movement and its litigation strategy in the court. I think where it succeeded was to invest formal rights in previously dispossessed people, so that now I would have the right to vote. I would now be able to sit at the lunch counter and order as long as I could pay for it I’d be o.k. But, the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth, and of more basic issues such as political and economic justice in society. ..