[ The following column appeared in Liberty News, the monthly publication of the Libertarian Party of Boulder County, in the July 1995 issue.]

Libertarians and Abortion

Abortion. Is it murder or merely the exercise of reproductive self-determination? Since our outreach meeting speaker for this month is from Colorado NARAL, an abortion rights group, I thought I would devote my space this month to a discussion of this issue, and why it remains a difficult and divisive one for Libertarians.

A Libertarian analysis of any moral question hinges on a concern for the rights of the individual, and determining exactly who is initiating force to violate those rights. Clearly, each of us owns at least one piece of fundamental property: our own bodies. Since a woman's body is her own unalienable property, it is reasonable to assert that she should have the right to exercise control over its reproductive functions. Any attempt to prevent her from doing so can be seen as an initiation of force against her right to control her own property. On the other hand, if you concede that the fetus is a human being in its own right, with the same rights to life, liberty, and property enjoyed by its mother, then her act to terminate her pregnancy can equally be seen as an initiation of force on her part against the unborn child.

So we see that it is possible for Libertarians of good conscience to come down on either side of this question, depending on whether or not they accept, for whatever personal reasons, religious or secular, the proposition that an unborn fetus is indeed an actual human being. Given that Libertarians vary across the spectrum from fundamentalist Christians to flaming atheists, it may seem difficult to ascertain what the party's position on abortion might be. Yet the LP is very solidly pro-choice.

Why is this? Why is it that every time the LP's national convention holds a platform debate, and pro-life Libertarians invariably propose deletion of the pro-choice platform plank, the measure invariably fails by a huge margin? I'd like to think that it isn't mere political expediency, which recognizes that anti-abortion candidates are almost always destroyed at the polls. (In fact, our Congressman David Skaggs arguably owes his position to the fact that the last two Republican candidates who ran against him were both strongly anti-abortion.) I believe that it's something more: a distrust of the ability of government to combat "immoral" activities, and perhaps an even deeper doubt that it should make the attempt in the first place.

After all, if we're going to outlaw abortion on the grounds that it constitutes murder, then surely we must intend to enforce such laws. And the implications of that are grimly clear: all females of childbearing age would have to be regarded as possible murder suspects at all times. Their fertility and sexual activities would need to be monitored, and they would be forced to submit to random tests for pregnancy. Should they become pregnant, they would be required to carry to term and deliver. Miscarriages would be investigated as potential homicides. Abortion-inducing drugs and substances, everything from RU-486 to common celery, would have to be strictly prohibited. The medical equipment needed to perform abortions -- and the knowledge of how to use it -- would have to be similarly eradicated. Medical practitioners would also have to submit to controls and monitoring, with censorship of medical texts and suppression of abortion techniques in medical education. Strict border controls would have to be instituted to guarantee that pregnant women who left the country returned, indeed, still pregnant. Women who committed murder, and the doctors who abetted them, would have to serve lengthy, no doubt mandatory prison terms.

I could go on, but I believe the point has been made. The fact is that if abortion were outlawed, we might as well take roughly a third of our population (or whatever percentage is represented by women of childbearing age) and brand them with the scarlet letter "A" -- which in this case would stand for "abortionist." The measures alluded to in the preceding paragraph represent grave violations of rights guaranteed in the First, Fourth, Fifth, Eighth, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendments, not to mention the complete destruction of individual sovereignty, for men as well as women. Ultimately women, their mates, and their offspring would be reduced to nothing more than the property of the state, by the inevitable process through which control eventually evolves into ownership.

All of this assumes, of course, that such measures if undertaken would be successful. I think it highly likely that the war against abortion would meet with the same dismal results as the war against drugs or the war against smut or the war against poverty. But as in each of these other cases, the resulting erosion of our liberties would entail a far higher price than we can afford.

It is possible to be a Libertarian and have a moral horror of abortion. Although not one myself, I know such Libertarians and their viewpoint has my respect. But I seriously question whether it is possible to be anti-abortion, to be serious about enacting and enforcing laws against it, and still claim to be an advocate of freedom or an ally of the Bill of Rights. This is not something government should be involved in. To the extent that it gets involved it will only make a mess, as usual. I believe it is this perception that is manifested in the LP Platform's strident pro-choice position.