The Shotgun Blog
« (Video) Remember remember the fifth of November | Main | Toronto: What is wrong with you? »
Thursday, November 06, 2008
Pro-lifers respond to Obama’s win. Is it time for the libertarian abortion compromise?
LifeSiteNews.com is reporting the response from Priests for Life to Obama’s win.
Fr. Frank Pavone of Priests for Life said:
"This is one of the biggest mistakes that the American people have made in the entire history of our nation, and the many reasons why that's true will come to light as the months go on. But the biggest reason why that's true is that here we have a president-elect who cannot tell the difference between serving the public and killing the public. If you don't know when human rights begin, then you're in no position to govern a country that was founded on the principle of human rights."
Planned Parenthood was, not surprisingly, happier with the election results:
Even though there is still work to be done, Americans can be confident that, in President-elect Barack Obama, we have a leader who respects women's rights and who will fight to protect women's health care. Both Obama and Vice President-elect Joe Biden have consistently demonstrated their commitment to women's health care, including support for affordable birth control and commonsense, science-based sex education.
In 2002, in a controversial and bold move, President Bush ended the $34 million in annual funding to the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) because the organization advocated abortion, among other things offensive to his evangelical Christian base. Instead of fighting the apparently futile battle to limit access to abortion, conservatives should follow Bush’s example and focus on removing public funding for abortion and abortion advocacy organizations like UNFPA.
Defunding abortion is an especially relevant priority in Canada where abortions are directly funded by taxpayers – and where the political climate is even less friendly toward a serious debate on abortion.
It’s only a matter of time before necessity leads pro-lifers on both sides of the border to look to the libertarian compromise on abortion – legal but not financed by taxpayers. Libertarian Party of Canada leader Dennis Young made defunding abortion a central pillar of his party’s campaign in the last federal election in order to court the pro-life vote:
“While the Libertarian Party supports safe, legal access to abortion, we also believe that the ‘freedom of conscience’ of those who oppose abortion must be respected. The Libertarian Party will defend ‘freedom of conscience’ and promote real choice by removing all federal government funding to the provinces for medically unnecessary abortions,” said Young.
This compromise was met with only moderate enthusiasm by pro-lifers. But with Obama in the Whitehouse and Harper refusing to allow debate on the issue, pro-lifers may be forced to form a coalition with libertarians to eliminate public funding for abortion and abortion advocacy groups like Planned Parenthood. This policy change would reduce the number of abortions and level the playing field in the battle of ideas.
So, are pro-lifers ready to work toward the libertarian abortion compromise? And if not, what is their strategy for success?
Posted by Matthew Johnston on November 6, 2008 in Current Affairs | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
https://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d834515b5d69e2010535dd55ed970c
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Pro-lifers respond to Obama’s win. Is it time for the libertarian abortion compromise?:
Comments
I really can't see this angle being effective in a state with socialized medicine.
In the states however...
Posted by: James | 2008-11-06 1:24:54 AM
James,
There's no reason why it can't be successful. The Supreme Court of Canada ruled that women have a right to early-term abortions, but it never said anything about funding them. Their are plenty of medically unnecessary procedures, after all, that are not funded by the government, and there is no reason that abortion shouldn't be added to this category.
Even if abortion is a Constitutionally-protected right, freedom of conscience is undoubtedly a more important right. Those of us who see abortion as an immoral act of aggression shouldn't be forced to promote and subsidize it.
Posted by: Jeremy Maddock | 2008-11-06 2:41:59 AM
I agree with abortions being available to those who feel it an absolute neccessity, however I also agree that it should not be covered by our healthcare as I think it makes the procedure to readily available to those not practicing proper preventative methods. I disagree with alot of things that are covered by our tax funded health care system like this abomination http://www.cbc.ca/canada/toronto/story/2008/05/16/sex-change.html
Does it not make sense that if tax payers were not forced to pay for things that are not necessary to keep one alive that maybe the wait for Chemotherapy Treatment may not be as long (just to cite one example) or even the wait times in Emergency rooms across the country.. to say nothing of the hospital closures in rural areas.....just a thought.
Posted by: maija | 2008-11-06 8:32:53 AM
The Libertarian alternative is one that I, as a pro-life Republican, could support in the short term as a means of at least ending some abortions. But the long term goal still has to be to end abortion. It is a moral evil which reflects poorly on any nation. We are, after all, what we stand for and defend.
Freedom of conscience is a good and necessary thing, but like many ideals it is not open ended. This is perhaps where I must part with my libertarian friends; our consciences, to be truly free, must be informed. We must understand the consequences, intended and unintended, of our actions. To be fully informed, our consciences must question themselves and their motives. They must ask themselves whether what they want is what they should want, and whether perhaps other things are at stake besides me doing what I want when I want.
The real issue here is whether the child in the womb is human or not. If it is, debate about who funds abortion becomes superfluous; abortion cannot be permitted. In light of their stand on the primacy of the individual, it is an issue on which I am perplexed that libertarians and conservatives cannot come to terms.
Posted by: Charles Martin Cosgriff | 2008-11-06 9:52:36 AM
Charles,
From a moral perspective, I totally agree with you. Abortion is an act of aggression against an innocent individual (however small and silent) which, in a perfect world, simply would not happen.
But pro-choice libertarians will argue that a woman's right to an abortion is essential to her own liberty and self-ownership. In other words, the fetus is holding her "hostage," and she has a right to escape from this situation, even if it involves aggression against her "captor."
To think of human life in such callous terms one must, of course, completely discard any sense of morality or decency. But according to the purely political tenets of libertarianism, the issue can be argued either way.
The hard reality, of course, is that both the Supreme Court of Canada and U.S. Supreme Court have accepted the callous yet effective "liberty trumps life" argument. With another pro-life president and a strategically appointed Supreme Court Justice, the U.S. might have reversed this, but with Obama's victory, that possibility has become very distant. That's something that American pro-lifers must accept.
In Canada, I think one can say with confidence that, barring some massive and unforeseen cultural revolution, abortion rights will not be overturned.
That's why libertarians and conservatives should work within the current policy context to discourage abortion as much as possible. Cutting off funding for medically unnecessary abortions would be one important step in this direction. Repelling gag laws against peaceful pro-life protesters would be another (which I addressed on my blog a few weeks ago -- http://www.jeremymaddock.com/2008/09/reasonable-limit-on-abortion-protest-is-an-affront-to-informed-choice/ ).
The important thing is to work together on the issues where we all agree.
Posted by: Jeremy Maddock | 2008-11-06 10:08:14 PM
PS... A wise quote from pro-life libertarian, Ron Paul:
"Let us remember, though, that the law can do only so much. The law isn't what allowed abortion; abortions were already being done in the 1960s against the law. The courts came along and conformed to the social and moral changes that were taking place in society. Law reflects the morality of the people. Ultimately, law or no law, it is going to be up to us as parents, as clergy, and as citizens -- in the way we raise our children, how we interact and talk with our friends and neighbors, and the good example we give -- to bring about changes to our culture toward greater respect for life."
Posted by: Jeremy Maddock | 2008-11-06 10:12:40 PM
Oh yes here comes the big coalition of Libertarians and pro-lifers.
I dont think so. The feds dont give $ directly to abortion. They supply funds for the provinces to supply medical services that include abortion procedures.
There is no law on the books federally and the only role the federal govt has at this time is to introduce a law that limits the gestaional age of abortions and to ban late term abortions.
Posted by: Merle Terlesky | 2008-11-06 10:35:27 PM
"The feds dont give $ directly to abortion. They supply funds for the provinces to supply medical services that include abortion procedures."
Okay, so maybe this issue would be better fought at the provincial level. Changing the law in even one province (are you listening Alberta?) could lead to a domino effect...
Posted by: Jeremy Maddock | 2008-11-06 10:49:34 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.