By Scott Tibbs, March 15, 2005
Some people argue that libertarian-leaning pro-lifers are inconsistent for supporting a constitutional amendment and/or a federal law to ban abortion.
I believe in states' rights. I believe states should be able to run their own affairs without interference from the federal government. The feds have no business telling states that they cannot allow medical marijuana, nor should the feds be telling the states that they must lower the "legal limit" for drunk driving, as they did a few years ago moving the standard from .10 to .08
There are limits, however. If a state legislature passed a law making it legal to randomly kill black people, then the federal government would step in and forbid that law form taking effect. Even the most ardent libertarian would support such a federal action to protect human rights.
Abortion falls into the same category. Over 1.2 million babies are killed in America's abortion mills annually; that averages out to over 3,200 deaths each and every day. If the states will not prohibit the slaughter of unborn children, the federal government must step in and do it.
Claims that there are no "federal laws" against murder are just plain silly. There are plenty of federal laws against murder, covering things such as the murder of federal agents. A Constitutional amendment banning abortion would not be unprecedented. The 13th Amendment provides another precedent for banning abortion at the federal level; slavery was settled at the federal level because some states were unwilling to ban it themselves.
It is ironic that someone who is "pro-choice" would complain about "states rights", when the federal government has taken the abortion issue to the other extreme. The federal courts have repeatedly struck down state bans on abortion, even ban on the horrific "partial birth abortion" procedure. It looks to me like concern about "states rights" is a desperate gasp from a movement that is losing the battle for hearts and minds.