Roe Vs. Wade and my dilemna as a female Libertarian

[Athena]

Having been raised by liberal parents in a liberal city, it only recently occured to me to consider the validity of the Supreme Court's decision regarding abortion. I am pro-choice and, although I never intend to use it, I value my right to reproductive freedom. I can be pro-choice, however, and not support RvW.

As a Libertarian, I greatly value the concept of states' rights. America is far too broad and diverse for a one-size-fits-all brand of government. In fact, the founding fathers sought quite specifically to avoid such a fate. Strong states' rights allows for accurate legislation that gives this country an element of flexibility that will enable society to continue enjoying the freedom that has made this country exceptional. Better yet, I believe that a renewed push toward states' rights will empower the citizen who currently feels his hands are bound. After all, why vote to determine the standing of social issues on the state level (drug legalisation, euthanasia, age of consent laws, etc.) when the resulting decision can be so easily overruled at the federal level?

That being said, I do know that some things must be mandated at the federal level. Generally speaking, these things are found within the Constitution and its amendments. Basic rights like the freedom of expression or religion need to be guaranteed by the federal government. My dilemna lies in the fact that reproductive freedom is certainly not specifically guaranteed by the Constitution. Worse yet, the grounds upon which the decision was made by the Supreme Court is not absolute.

When I approach the subject logically, I realise that my values do not allow me to view abortion as anything other than a social issue, one that should be decided by the states, without making an exception. Realistically and perhaps, selfishly, though, I feel as though reproductive freedom should be preserved federally. Because, while the legality does not solidly establish it as a basic freedom in the same vein as religion or expression, it should.

Ultimately, supporting RvW contradicts the logic behind my values but opposing it makes me personally uncomfortable.

Where do you stand?

[gprime]

This is why I'm not a big fan of Libertarians. States rights are important, if for no other reason that because of pragmatic management concerns. But to suggest that they have the legitimate ability to run ruffshod over rights that the federal government does not strikes me as insane.

[Athena]

I'm hoping this is just because I'm sick, but...I don't get it.

I'm not trying to suggest that the states should be able to disregard rights. I'm saying that social issues should be determined at the state level. My quandary lies in whether or not reproductive freedom is a right or a social issue by legal standards. Is it more closely related to things named in the Constitution or more closely related to issues states should be allowed to rule on independently, like drug legalisation or euthanasia.

[CPL CHUD]

I think the right for the female to be able to make the choice about abortion should be federaly protected. The biggest issues I see against it are raised because of religious not scientific or medical concerns, therefore it's an religious issue, and liken it opinions, just like the procedure, should be protected by the federal government. I just think of it as one and the same as the right to not practice religion, which is a federal right.

[Zsu Zsu's Petals]

I dislike RvW, not because of the state's rights issue but rather because it's ambiguous language leaves us with the quandry of when life becomes viable-- and that changes with each advance in neonatal technology.

As to whether this is a social issue or not, a woman's right to control her reproductive rights should not be based on what state she resides in. Would a state being able to decide who can vote be similar? As a citizen of the United States, shouldn't the same rights and protections afforded in California be available in Missouri or the other state of your choice?

Frankly, states who have wanted to have found effective ways to gut RvW, without having to have it overturned. If you live in Utah, and want to have an abortion, apparently you'll have to travel out of state: http://www.abortion.com/abortion_cli...ate=Utah&city=

Just out of pure nosiness, what is your view on interpreting the Constitution? A strict constructionist or a somewhat modified stance?

[Tourbot]

I think you have to be aware that the Constitution of the United States guarantees it's citizens their minimum rights. In addition to those rights each state has it's own constitution which confers additional rights to it's citizenry. Therefore if Delaware were to ammend it's constitution, for example, to allow it's citizenry to possess marijuana, cocaine, and heroin the federal government could not press criminal charges against someone for possessing those drugs in that state. However a state cannot pass a law or ammend their constitution to deny a citizen rights guaranteed by the Constitution of the United. For example Alabama could not ammend it's constitution to deny blacks the vote since the Constitution of the United States guarantees them the right to vote. Unfortunately our legislators are more concerned with eroding our freedoms under the guise of protecting us from ourselves than amending our constitutions to guarantee our rights. As far as RvW is concerned I feel that the Supreme Court is correct in protecting a woman's reproductive rights as the legislature on both the state and federal would act only to deny those rights. I belive the courts have a duty to restore freedoms unjustly denied as much or more so than to enforce legislation which protects our property. Of course they also have a duty to enforce just laws which protect our freedoms, safety, and property.

[gprime]

I'm hoping this is just because I'm sick, but...I don't get it.

I'm not trying to suggest that the states should be able to disregard rights. I'm saying that social issues should be determined at the state level. My quandary lies in whether or not reproductive freedom is a right or a social issue by legal standards. Is it more closely related to things named in the Constitution or more closely related to issues states should be allowed to rule on independently, like drug legalisation or euthanasia.

What I'm saying is that I don't believe that state can do that. They have a limited role, and the chief concerns should be the basic federal policies and individual liberties. To me, states' rights means state run prison systems, sentencing guidelines, maybe infrastructure, and so forth. It does not mean imposing on individual liberty, which to me is the issue at hand when discussing a person's control over their own body.

[Athena]

What I'm saying is that I don't believe that state can do that. They have a limited role, and the chief concerns should be the basic federal policies and individual liberties. To me, states' rights means state run prison systems, sentencing guidelines, maybe infrastructure, and so forth. It does not mean imposing on individual liberty, which to me is the issue at hand when discussing a person's control over their own body.

I agree with this. However, this is simply not a reality. If it were, euthanasia, drug decriminalisation and prostitution would all be non-issues. They would be activities protected under the umbrella of personal freedom, which ought to be protected at the federal level, but often, is not.

My issue is that the federal government often acts to limit freedoms, these days. RvW is an exception. I'm interested in a return to the more autonomous state because legalisation (medical marijuana, for example) some places but not others is preferred over a blanket federal ban.

[Athena]

I dislike RvW, not because of the state's rights issue but rather because it's ambiguous language leaves us with the quandry of when life becomes viable-- and that changes with each advance in neonatal technology.

As to whether this is a social issue or not, a woman's right to control her reproductive rights should not be based on what state she resides in. Would a state being able to decide who can vote be similar? As a citizen of the United States, shouldn't the same rights and protections afforded in California be available in Missouri or the other state of your choice?

Frankly, states who have wanted to have found effective ways to gut RvW, without having to have it overturned. If you live in Utah, and want to have an abortion, apparently you'll have to travel out of state: http://www.abortion.com/abortion_cli...ate=Utah&city=

Just out of pure nosiness, what is your view on interpreting the Constitution? A strict constructionist or a somewhat modified stance?

My stance is somewhat modified. Said modification is very limited, however.

While Utah is by no means crawling with abortion clinics, they do exist, according to PP's site.

I agree with you regarding the issue of viability. The Court states that the unborn have never been recognised in a whole sense, but continue on to claim the government's interest in protecting viable life. Well? Which is it?


Either way, I thank you folks for your input. It makes me much more comfortable with supporting RvW on logical terms.