Will Congress Stop Forcing Pro-Life Americans to Subsidize Abortion?

undefined
Last month marked 44 years since the Supreme Court’s Roe v. Wade decision declaring a constitutional right to abortion. Roe remains one of the Supreme Court’s most controversial decisions. Even some progressive legal theorists who favor legalized abortion have criticized Roe for judicial overreach and faulty reasoning.
Throughout my medical and political careers, I have opposed abortion. I believe abortion is the killing of an innocent human life and, thus, violates the non-aggression principle that is the basis of libertarianism.
Unfortunately many libertarians, including some of my close allies, support legalized abortion. These pro-abortion libertarians make a serious philosophical error that undermines the libertarian cause. If the least accountable branch of government can unilaterally deny protection of the right to life to an entire class of persons, then none of our rights are safe.
While I oppose abortion, I also oppose federal laws imposing a nationwide ban on abortion. The federal government has no authority to legalize, outlaw, regulate, or fund abortion. Instead of further nationalizing abortion, pro-life Americas should advocate legislation ending federal involvement in abortion by restoring authority over abortion to the states.Congress should also end all taxpayer funding of abortion and repeal Obamacare’s abortion mandates, along with the rest of Obamacare. Forcing pro-life Americans to subsidize what they believe to be murder is, to paraphrase Thomas Jefferson, “sinful and tyrannical.”
That is why I was glad that one of the first actions of the new House of Representatives was to pass legislation ending all taxpayer support for abortion. Hopefully the bill will soon pass in the Senate and be signed into law by President Trump. Congress should follow this action by passing legislation allowing antiwar taxpayers to opt out of funding the military-industrial complex as well.
The House-passed bill also repeals Obamacare’s mandates forcing private businesses to cover abortion and birth control under their health insurance plans. Of course I oppose these mandates. But, unlike many other opponents of the mandates, I oppose them because they violate the rights of property and contract, not because they violate religious liberty.

Opposing the mandates because they violate the religious liberty of a few, instead of the property rights of all, means implicitly accepting the legitimacy of government mandates as long as special exemptions are granted for certain groups of people from certain groups of mandates.

President Trump has already protected pro-life taxpayers (and unborn children) by reinstating President Reagan’s Mexico City policy. The Mexico City policy forbids US taxpayer money from being used to support any international organization that performs abortions or promotes abortions. Using taxpayer money to perform and promote abortions overseas is not only unconstitutional and immoral, it also increases resentment of the US government. Unfortunately, as shown by the recent Yemen drone strikes, President Trump is unlikely to substantially change our militaristic foreign policy, which is responsible for the deaths of many innocent men, women, and children.

Ending taxpayer support for abortion is an important step toward restoring limited, constitutional government that respects the rights of all. However, those who oppose abortion must recognize that the pro-life cause’s path to victory will not come through politics. Instead, pro-lifers must focus on building a culture of life through continued education and, among other things, support for crisis pregnancy centers. These centers, along with scientific advances like ultrasound, are doing more to end abortion than any politician. Anti-abortion activists must also embrace a consistent ethic of life by opposing foreign policy militarism and the death penalty.

 

Subscribe
Notify of
guest
6 Comments
Anonymous
Anonymous
February 13, 2017 12:24 pm

Since it is claimed abortion is a Constitutional right that cannot be interfered with and therefore needs taxpayer financing to guarantee a woman’s access to it if she can’t afford it – Could we force taxpayer financing to provide firearms and ammo to those who can’t afford them it since it a Constitutional right, and a more specifically declared right than is abortion (which is not a stated right, it is a created one by interpretation of others)?

Call your Congressman and let’s see if we can get some action on this, I’d like to feel equal instead of second class for a change.

KaD
KaD
February 13, 2017 12:45 pm

I know people don’t like hearing this, but paying for an abortion is FAR cheaper than paying for 18 years of welfare and the incarceration following that. Another million fatherless welfare babies is not going to MAGA.

Anonymous
Anonymous
  KaD
February 13, 2017 12:49 pm

Solving the welfare deadbeat problem by killing the children is different than solving that problem by rounding them up and killing them in death camps how?

Anonymous
Anonymous
  KaD
February 14, 2017 12:48 am

Making women afraid to get pregnant just because they are horny because they can’t afford it and thus desiring to avoid letting any low IQ jackass stick his dick in her again is part of Making America Great Again.

Chubby Bubbles
Chubby Bubbles
  KaD
February 15, 2017 5:09 am

I was just going to say… They can stop paying for abortions the minute I can stop paying for all the fundie/ignoramus rug rats’ disposable diapers, HFCS dranks, and “skooling”.

Hershel
Hershel
February 14, 2017 6:09 am

Well said anon.