With the leak of a draft decision by the Supreme Court, the topic of Roe v. Wade and abortion has once again become one of the top social/ cultural issues in the headlines.

The leaking of the draft decision is a story itself.  It is hard to say what, if any, political effects it will have, especially with regard to the November elections.

The issue of abortion is one that divides libertarians.  I, myself, have a nuanced view of the subject.  There are moral and legal aspects to consider.  There is also the aspect of unintended consequences when involving the state.

Many people, especially on the left, are saying that abortion will be illegal if Roe v. Wade does in fact get overturned by the Supreme Court.  This is incorrect.  Roe v. Wade is a previous decision from 1973.  It is not a law.

If Roe v. Wade is struck down, then abortion won’t be made illegal or legal by the federal government.  The issue will be left up to the states to decide.  Most likely, not more than a few states would actually ban abortion without exceptions.  And some states, like California, would have it fully legalized, probably up until the birth of the baby.

My guess is that most states would be somewhere in between.  It would probably be legal for the first few months with more restrictions as the term of the pregnancy goes on.

The Moral Issue

Generally speaking, those who oppose abortion (pro life) do so because they believe that a fetus is a viable human being and that aborting it is the equivalent of murder.

The other side believes it is a woman’s right to choose (pro choice).  It is funny that most people who call themselves pro choice did not feel the same way when vaccine mandates were being pushed in 2021 (and still today).  It is “my body my choice”, unless there is a virus and we tell you it’s necessary to take the government-sponsored vaccine.

While both sides of the political aisle demagogue the issue and often use it for fundraising purposes, there are genuine arguments to be made on both sides depending on how you view the issue.  It really depends on whether you think a fetus should count as a human being.

My personal thought is that I have no idea.  It obviously seems more morally wrong to abort a fetus that is 8 months old and could easily survive outside the womb than to have an abortion two weeks after getting pregnant.

I have no idea if it is the equivalent of committing murder to have an abortion at 4 weeks.  This is why I tend to err on the side of safety and oppose abortion.

But just because I am against abortion, it doesn’t automatically settle the other questions.

Government Unintended Consequences

It is a crime to commit murder.  It is widely accepted as wrong.  It is widely accepted that murdering someone, other than in self defense, should be illegal.

With abortion, it is not widely accepted that it is murder.  Therefore, it is not widely accepted that it should be illegal.  It is largely split.  Perhaps a slight majority believes that abortion should not be illegal.

So if you make it illegal, there will be unintended consequences.  A government war on abortion could end up turning out to be like the government war on drugs.  You might be seeing shootouts in back alleys over abortions.

If abortion is illegal, what will the punishment be?  Will the doctor go to jail?  Will the would-be mother go to jail?  Will the jail term be as long as if you killed someone else?  How will this be enforced?

You can start to see some of the problems here.  But if it were widely accepted as morally wrong and a crime, then a lot of those problems would go away.

As Harry Browne said, if the government declares a war on abortion, within 5 years men will be having abortions.  (This was a comment before transgenderism really took off.)  In other words, the opposite would happen of the intended effect.

When the government declares war on poverty, we get more poverty.  If the government were to declare a war on abortion, we might end up with more abortions.

Federalism

From a constitutional standpoint, Roe v. Wade should be overturned.  It was a bad decision from day one.  There is nothing in the Constitution granting this authority to the federal government.  Just like the crime of murder should (and generally is) left up to the states, so it goes for abortion.

It is outside of the jurisdiction of the federal government to determine whether abortion should or shouldn’t be illegal.  The Supreme Court and the federal government in general has no more business telling a state like Florida what its abortion laws should be any more than it does telling China what to do.

From a decentralist perspective, Roe v. Wade should be overturned.  We don’t want 9 judges dictating the policy for 330 million Americans.

It’s funny that some on the left are saying that 5 judges shouldn’t be able to tell a woman what to do with her body.  But those judges should never have had a say in the first place.  It was never up to them to decide in the first place.  By overturning Roe v. Wade, they are effectively saying that it is none of their business.

If you are a libertarian and you don’t pay homage to the Constitution, you should still favor the decentralization of this issue.  It is removing power from the centralized government and dividing up to 50 smaller states.  That should be preferable.

Our system of federalism is supposed to work this way.  As discussed above, there are a lot of nuances with this issue.  We shouldn’t have a one-size-fits-all policy for the entire United States.

Each state is supposed to be like a little laboratory.  Maybe Alabama will completely ban abortion.  Maybe California will make it fully legal up until birth.  We will see what the results are.  We will see if there are more or less abortions in each state.

Maybe some states will determine a cutoff when a fetus is viable outside of the womb and make it illegal after that date.  Maybe some states will have stricter punishments than others.

Until it happens, we don’t fully know the consequences.  Federalism – i.e., letting states decide – will at least let us discover what is working and what is not.  It will also bring about far more harmony, as those on different sides of the political aisle don’t have to constantly go to battle.  If they do battle, it will be within the states.

It will make presidential elections a little less consequential, which is really what we should want.

Now we just have to do the same for things like education, healthcare, drugs, and retirement systems.  That would really decrease the stakes for presidential elections.

It would really be great to get to a point where presidential elections don’t mean much because most powers reside with the states or the people, as stated by the 10^th Amendment.