Harry Browne on Abortion
2000 Libertarian Nominee for President
I also believe that turning to government to settle moral arguments is wrong-very wrong. And I believe that letting the federal government intrude where it has no constitutional authority is even worse.
Since the federal government has no constitutional authority to deal with abortion, I must oppose any federal activity in this area. I am certain that we abandon all hope of freedom if we abandon the Constitution’s limits on federal government. So as President I would have vetoed the “Woman’s Right to Choose” bill, the partial-birth abortion bill, and any other proposal from either side of the debate.
No matter what my personal feelings about abortion, it would be my responsibility to veto such proposals because the President takes an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution.
The judges I appoint will recognize that the Roe v. Wade decision was a judicial fraud-that five of the nine justices found it in their wishes, not in the Constitution. I expect the Supreme Court to overturn that ruling someday, so that the federal government no longer will set the rules for every state.
Instead, I expect to see a checkerboard of state [laws]. Some states may choose to outlaw abortion, and others might have few, if any, restrictions.
Do I believe the states should outlaw abortion? I do not, but why should my opinion matter? I’m only running for President, not Dictator.
A: I oppose abortion - strongly. So the last thing in the world I want is for government to start a War on Abortion. Given the record of its War on Poverty (which has escalated poverty) and its War on Drugs (which has expanded drug use and crime), a War on Abortion would probably result within five years in men having abortions.
|Other candidates on Abortion:||Harry Browne on other issues:|
2016 Presidential Candidates:
2016 Withdrawn Democratic Candidates:
2016 Withdrawn GOP Candidates:
About Harry Browne: