Keep your hands off … PERIOD.
Since the demise of Roe v. Wade, many who believe in a “constitutional right” to an abortion can be heard to say proverbially of the state, “Keep your hands off of my body.”
The Supreme Court did in Roe what no court should do. SCOTUS unabashedly legislated from the bench. The Justices did what they thought was “right,” but it was not right for them to do it. While Roe was a judicial travesty and interposed the federal government in matters where it does not belong, the absence of Roe should not be seen as a green light to individual states to act with impunity on the issue of abortion. Overreach by state legislatures will be addressed by voters.
The unequal application of such laws is as certain as the biological differences between men and women (assuming that one believes in such things). Given dramatic disparities, I would argue that strict scrutiny should apply, meaning that the mandate, dictate, prohibition, or proscription should be narrowly tailored and advance a compelling state interest.
I will also note that “legality” does not imply “morality.” Something may be legal, but it still may be morally repugnant, and vice versa. Government should never be looked to as the arbiter of morality. it is woefully ill-suited to the task.
I can empathize with the concerns and issues related to abortion — both pro and con. Not because I am a woman bearing a child, but because I believe that the powers of the state should be limited and constrained generally. As power trends toward absolute, so does the certainty for corruption, and with corruption come abuse, oppression, and tyranny.
Yes, government should keep its grubby hands off of the person of citizens. The rub in the instance of abortion is whether a fetus is the “property” of the mother and/or at what point a baby in utero is a separate “person” deserving the equal protection of the laws. However, abuses of power and oppression by government are not limited to one’s person. They also extend to one’s non corporal property.
The legitimate authority of the state to exercise coercive powers extends only to remedying affirmative harms imposed by one party against the person or property of another. In the absence of affirmative harm, government should act only upon the voluntary assent of the governed. However, it is not enough to say that a self-serving electoral majority (or controlling voting bloc) approved or ratified an act or taking (thereby making “legal” what would otherwise be an improper act).
If government action does not advance the “common good” or “general welfare” AND the target of the taking does not receive commensurate compensation or benefit, the action is illegitimate. Otherwise, government actions are indistinguishable from institutional theft and/or involuntary servitude. The assent or complicity of a self-serving and benefited electoral majority cannot make those improper acts moral or noble.
From Dr. Milton Friedman:
You can only aim at equality by giving some people the right to take things from others. What ultimately happens when you aim for equality is that A and B decide what C shall do for D; except that they take a little bit of a commission off on the way. …
There is all the difference in the world … between two kinds of assistance through government that seem superficially similar:
First, 90 percent of us agreeing to impose taxes on ourselves in order to help the bottom 10 percent, and second, 80 percent voting to impose taxes on the top 10 percent to help the bottom 10 percent — William Graham Sumner’s famous example of B and C decided what D shall do for A.
The first may be wise or unwise, an effective or ineffective way to help the disadvantaged — but it is consistent with belief in both equality of opportunity and liberty. The second seeks equality of outcome and is entirely antithetical to liberty.
The forced taking of wealth or the confiscation of the fruits of one’s labors is no less deleterious and damnable than police brutality, false imprisonment, or erroneous execution. Therefore, the state should also keep its hands out of the pockets of citizens and off of their private property. While we are at it, government should also keep its prying eyes out of the personal information and private affairs of citizens.
The only way to keep government from being abusive and oppressive is to limit the power of the state generally. It is not possible to do it piecemeal. It is not possible to only limit those powers that are to one’s detriment (and to the detriment of those with whom one identifies) but to keep those powers that provide personal benefit (to the detriment of disfavored others, including those who might be deemed “unworthy” or “excessively privileged”).
One cannot have his cake and eat it too. Without equal protection and application of laws, the hypocrisy is deafening. Without fettering the state and restraining government, tyranny is certain. In order to avoid government doing harm TO us, we must be willing to resist the urge to compel government to do things FOR us.
