The Quotable Harry Browne: on Abortion

"There is nothing in the Constitution authorizing the federal government to deal with abortion in any way. The federal government shouldn't subsidize it, encourage it discourage it, or prohibit it. And it shouldn't try to overrule whatever the people in any given state decide to do about it."

"Government doesn't work. It doesn't protect adults on the streets. It doesn't protect children in the schools. Why should we think it's capable of protecting unborn children?"

"Given the government's record with the War on Poverty and the War on Drugs, we can assume that a War on Abortion would lead within five years to men having abortions."

The Most Contentious Issue Of Our Time

Abortion is one of the most contentious issues of our time. Both sides have understandable positions -- whether a revulsion at government's continuing intrusion into personal decisions or a concern for the children yet to be born.

Until science can demonstrate otherwise, I must assume that life begins at conception. Thus I believe abortion is wrong -- very wrong.

But I also believe that the federal government should never overstep the bounds of its constitutional authority. The Constitution grants the federal government no authority to legislate against common crimes -- murder, theft, and so on. In fact, only three crimes are mentioned in the Constitution: treason, piracy, and counterfeiting. And so I must oppose the idea of having a federal law against abortion.

Needless to say, I also oppose federal funding of abortions. Not only is it wrong, as Thomas Jefferson said, to compel someone to pay for a cause he finds immoral, it is also an unconstitutional use of your tax money.

As President I would have vetoed both the "Woman's Right to Choose" bill and the partial-birth abortion bill -- no matter what my personal feelings about either of them. It would be my responsibility to do so because the President takes an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution. Unlike all recent occupants of the White House, I would take that oath seriously. And the Constitution gives the federal government no authority to be involved in abortion in any way.

Litmus tests for judges

A great deal of noise is made every four years about the issue of abortion, especially as it relates to the appointment of Supreme Court Justices. A presidential candidate is asked whether he will have a litmus test when choosing judges.

As president, I will have a litmus test. The only judges I will appoint are those who prove to me that they believe very firmly that the Constitution delegates very few powers to the federal government. These judges will recognize that the federal government has no authority to be involved in any way in education, health care, law enforcement, welfare, or any of the dozens of other areas in which federal politicians have meddled.

The judges I will appoint will recognize the 9th and 10th amendments for what they are -- the essence of the Constitution, limiting the power of the federal government and protecting every one of the rights that weren't specifically turned over to the government in the Constitution.

I assume the judges I appoint will recognize that the Roe v. Wade decision was an example of judicial activism at its worst. I expect the Supreme Court to overturn that ruling someday, so that the federal government no longer will set all the rules. Instead, I expect to see what one writer called, "a checkerboard of states -- competing with each other to attract the best citizens." Some states may choose to outlaw abortion, and others might have few, if any, restrictions.

Taking Effective Action

Do I believe the states should outlaw abortion?

I do not, but that's a personal decision of no consequence because the President has no authority in this regard. My position on abortion is far less important than my understanding that government is not the answer to social problems.

The government has waged a War on Poverty -- but thirty years and $5 trillion dollars later, poverty is worse. The government has waged a War on Drugs, but 30 years and billions of dollars later, the drug and crime problems are worse than they were before the war began. So I must assume that any War on Abortion will be just as disastrous.

Every day we spend trying to get the government to do something to stop abortions is a day wasted -- a day that could have been spent doing something truly effective about abortion, such as . . .

• Working for less restrictive adoption laws,

• Encouraging private educational efforts to show young women the alternatives to abortion, and

• Repealing the income tax so that parents can spend more time with their children, teaching them values that will minimize teenage pregnancies.

As with any other problem, only a program of education and persuasion -- undertaken voluntarily by individuals, not government -- can work. I applaud the dedication and efforts of those who work so hard to dissuade young women from rushing into abortions, who arrange adoptions for pregnant women, and who spend their own money on advertising that celebrates the lives of children who weren't aborted. Abortion may be a problem, but government is not the solution.

Beware Those Who Want to Use Government

Those politicians -- Democratic or Republican -- who want government to stop abortions demonstrate that they see government force as an effective tool. So don't be surprised when they disappoint you in other areas by reaching for a government solution to practically any social problem that arises.

If you actually want to see the number of abortions dramatically reduced, please help us solve the real social problem of our time -- government destruction of our families and values. The most important first step is to dramatically reduce the great burden of federal taxation that forces both parents to work, and that denies parents the financial means to choose an education that represents their values.