Abortion Policy, Libertarianism, and Federalism
Libertarians should agree on leaving abortion policy to the states.
Libertarians are divided on abortion policy.
Many, including me, favor legal abortion, at least through the first trimester. As a rule of thumb, government’s power to interfere should end where an individual’s “skin begins.”
Laws that criminalize abortion also have undesired consequences. As with other prohibitions, bans create underground markets, which means increased violence and corruption, plus reduced quality control (back-alley abortions). The relatively wealthy, who can travel to other states or countries, and the relatively dishonest, who supply and purchase underground abortions, benefit relative to those who obey the law.
Some libertarians, however, oppose legal abortion. They regard an unborn fetus as a person, implying abortion is murder. Since governments always ban murder, this perspective implies banning abortion.
The point on which libertarians should agree is that abortion policy is best left to the states, with no federal actions that either ban or legalize. This is a natural compromise for two main reasons:
Abortion policy is most naturally a component of the laws that outlaw murder, and states—not the federal government—have always defined and enforced what constitutes murder.
Leaving abortion policy to the states is consistent with a broader libertarian perspective—federalism—that opposes most government interference at any level but holds that state interventions are far less bad.
The federalism approach to abortion policy will leave many on both sides unhappy. That is a feature, not a bug. Given the strongly held convictions on the issue, in seemingly incompatible directions, a one-size-fits-all approach will inevitably polarize.
Hi Adam. Thanks for your comment.
I do not take a strong stand on the constitutional question of whether the 14th and 9th amendments protect a right to abortion. That is not my area of expertise, and my non-expert reading of the issues suggests to me that one can make at least plausible arguments in either direction.
My post instead focuses on the public policy question: constitutional issues aside, what level of government should set abortion policy?
If consequential arguments are blatantly inconsistent with the existing constitution, then something needs to give. That might mean choosing a less than idea policy, or instead amending the constitution.
But I see my role as thinking about what the least bad policy might be, if that were permissible constitutionally.
Make sense? jeff
Wouldn’t abortion fall under the Ninth Amendment & thus be protected nationwide (as argued by Root, Eland, etc.)?