On June 13, the US Supreme Court rejected a challenge to the Food and Drug Administration’s approval (in 2000) of mifepristone, aka RU-486, aka “the abortion pill.”

The court ruled unanimously, but on an issue of standing rather than on the facts. The case was brought by a group of doctors who oppose abortion and do not themselves prescribe mifepristone for that use . “[A] plaintiff ’s desire to make a drug less available for others does not establish standing to sue,” Associate Justice Brett Kavanaugh noted in the court’s opinion.

The facts, however, are also important.

“If we had a war on abortion in this country,” Libertarian presidential candidate Harry Browne told CNN two months before FDA approved mifepristone,  “within five years, men would be having abortions.”

Taking Harry’s “slippery slope” argument at face value for its time — he died in 2006 and is thus unavailable for comment on current kerfuffles over gender identity — it’s a fair riff on the title of his 1996 campaign book: Why Government Doesn’t Work. The war on drugs hasn’t “worked.” The war on poverty hasn’t “worked.”

Men? Maybe not … but women who choose to abort a pregnancy have enjoyed ways of doing so since time immemorial, government edicts to the contrary notwithstanding.

I don’t have to like that choice. You don’t have to like that choice. Women have that choice whether we like it or not, even if we go to courts or politicians to try to take it from them.

Harry didn’t like that choice — he was “pro-life” and morally opposed to abortion — but wisely opposed government involvement in it. In fact, he opposed the very existence of the FDA (as do I), preferring to leave drug development, testing, and sales to the private sector.

It’s unlikely that banning mifepristone would prevent so much as a single abortion. It would just push women toward other methods — methods more likely to result in their own deaths in addition to the deaths of the fetuses involved. Fortunately, mifepristone would still be available on the black market, but that would become just another game of roulette — is it the real thing or just a fake pill?

Banning mifepristone would also make it less available to for management of symptoms related to early miscarriage, as well as for patients with Cushing’s syndrome, uterine fibroids, endometriosis, and psychotic depression, all of which it’s used to treat.

I’m well aware of the moral arguments against abortion. I don’t make a habit of sharing my moral position on that issue.

I will, however, share my moral position on how to handle the issue in the moment. That moral position is to support women making difficult decisions, and to limit any argument over those decisions to gentle, understanding persuasion.

Legislation has never ended, and never will end, abortion. Even totalitarian regimes like that of Romania’s Nicolae Ceauaescu have historically proven incapable of eliminating it. And trying to do it that way leads us toward such totalitarian outcomes.

Whatever their reasons, SCOTUS got this one right.

Thomas L. Knapp (Twitter:@thomaslknapp) is director and senior news analyst at the William Lloyd Garrison Center for Libertarian Advocacy Journalism (thegarrisoncenter.org). He lives and works in north central Florida.

PUBLICATION/CITATION HISTORY

Among descriptions of political libertarianism, “socially liberal, fiscally conservative” probably takes the prize for both simplicity and frequency of use.

It’s especially useful in an election year. The Libertarian Party’s presidential candidate generally faces high media access barriers and limited opportunities to reach “low-information voters” with the elevator pitch for smaller, cheaper, less intrusive, and less warlike government.

It’s pithy. It’s easily, if not necessarily accurately, understood. It associates itself with the two of the most mainstream/popular American political tendencies.  What’s not to like?

I don’t use the slogan much, though. I don’t really consider it very accurate. I know many “socially conservative” (often, though not always, due to their personal religious beliefs) and “fiscally liberal” (often, though not always, due to their historical analysis of phenomena like corporations and taxation) libertarians. And an op-ed gives me a little bit more room to elaborate than a politician’s elevator pitch. So hang in there with me, please.

What differentiates libertarianism from other political ideologies isn’t just a utilitarian or consequentialist claim as to “what works best.”

What differentiates libertarianism from other political ideologies is a moral claim: The claim that it is wrong to initiate force.

That’s a moral claim you probably grew up with as an individual.

The people who shaped your worldview as a child — parents, teachers, etc. — almost certainly taught you libertarianism as a matter of basic individual morality. In the words of libertarian author Matt Kibbe: “Don’t Hurt People and Don’t Take Their Stuff.” Words to live by.

Libertarians extend that moral claim to everyone and to all organizations, including government.

Just as it’s wrong for me to steal $50 from your wallet, it’s wrong for government to steal $50 from your paycheck.

Just as it’s wrong for me to burn down your house or shoot you other than in self-defense, it’s wrong for government to conduct itself violently against the non-violent.

To the extent that a “social contract” can really be said to exist, that’s the whole of it — don’t hurt people and don’t take their stuff, in return for which we need not tolerate others hurting  us and taking our stuff.

You’re free to believe whatever you want to believe, as long as you don’t forcibly inflict those beliefs on others.

Libertarianism is a “deontological” (morality-based) rather than “consequentialist” (outcome-based) position.

Happily, however, it’s not a fiat iustitia ruat caelum — “let justice be done though the heavens fall” — position, because its application won’t bring the heavens down. It really DOES produce better outcomes than state edict backed by force.

Unhappily, it doesn’t easily translate to the electoral politics “elevator pitch”/”low-information voter” environment.

But if you’ve read this far, you’re an off-the-elevator “high-information voter” now. Remember, come November.

Thomas L. Knapp (Twitter:@thomaslknapp) is director and senior news analyst at the William Lloyd Garrison Center for Libertarian Advocacy Journalism (thegarrisoncenter.org). He lives and works in north central Florida.

PUBLICATION/CITATION HISTORY

“Will you accept the jury’s outcome,” ABC’s  David Muir asked US president Joe Biden concerning his son Hunter’s trial on federal gun charges, “their verdict, no matter what it is?”

Biden: “Yes.”

Muir: “And have your ruled out a pardon for your son?”

Biden: “Yes.”

The younger Biden faces up to 25 years in prison for allegedly making false statements (to the effect that he wasn’t a drug user)  while filling out a form to purchase a gun, and possessing the gun while being a drug user.

Biden SHOULD pardon his son — not out of fatherly love, but because the charges are both inherently evil and clearly and unambiguously unconstitutional.

Last things first:

The US Constitution declares itself “the supreme law of the land,” and according to its Second Amendment, “The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” See that period at the end there? There are no added exceptions for drug users, or for anyone else. And as Chief Justice John Marshall pointed out in Marbury v. Madison, “an act of the legislature, repugnant to the constitution, is void.”

As a matter of law, prosecutors should never have brought these particular charges against Hunter Biden. As a matter of law, the judge in the trial should have dismissed them the instant they were brought. And as a matter of practical deterrence, the judge should have sanctioned the prosecutors, up to and including seeking their disbarment, for bringing them. Hunter Biden may well be guilty of real crimes, but these aren’t real crimes whether the charges accurately describe his actions or not.

On the moral side:

Whether Hunter Biden used drugs and whether Hunter Biden owned a gun were never any of the US government’s business.

The right to smoke, snort, inject, or otherwise ingest any substance one pleases is a natural human right that exists independently of, and supersedes, government edict.

The right to acquire and possess arms — of any kind — is likewise a natural human right that exists independently of, and supersedes, government edict.

All people had those rights before the Constitution was ratified, and all people will still have those rights after the Constitution and the government claiming that Constitution as the basis for its power, have disappeared.

Those rights belong to you. They belong to me. They belong to Hunter Biden. And they belong to the hundreds of thousands of Americans currently incarcerated for exercising those rights.

If you commit a real crime while under the influence of drugs, you’re responsible for that crime.

If you commit a real crime using a firearm, you’re responsible for that crime.

But neither using drugs, nor possessing a firearm, the two in combination, are real crimes. They’re fake “crimes” manufactured by politicians. Ditto the “crime” of lying to those politicians by way of exercising your rights without their permission.

Biden should break out his pardon pen for his son — and for all the other prisoners of the US governments wars on drugs and guns.

Thomas L. Knapp (Twitter:@thomaslknapp) is director and senior news analyst at the William Lloyd Garrison Center for Libertarian Advocacy Journalism (thegarrisoncenter.org). He lives and works in north central Florida.

PUBLICATION/CITATION HISTORY