# Letters to the Editors (Dec. 1979) **URL:** **By** Various Authors **Published:** December 1, 1979 --- “Establishment of religion fundamentally means setting up an official church.” ## Abortion and choice In response to Leslee J. Newman’s excellent article in the September _LR_, here is additional news on the anti-abortion movement. I learned recently in Dallas that certain individuals view my uterus as public property. These men and women hope to vote for a constitutional amendment that would determine whether I can own my own uterus or whether it would be owned by them and all U.S. citizens. Under the leadership of Francis A. Schaeffer, philosopher, and C. Everett Koop, M.D., the so-called ‘pro-life’ movement held a conference at Moody Coliseum at Southern Methodist University, Dallas, Texas. Approximately 1,500 people gathered together to reinforce the movement to fight our right to control our reproductive functions. They claim that, in spite of 6,000,000 abortions since 1973, child abuse has not changed. Since pro-lifers don’t have abortions and consequently must (as a group) have more children than any other segment of society, are they the child abusers? I cannot help but question the movement calling itself pro-life. For several years they have used poor women as political pawns to fight the 1973 Supreme Court decision. A poor woman cannot use her medicaid card to help cover the cost of an abortion. As a result of this injustice, a Texas woman named Rosie Jimenez, a medicaid recipient, died from an illegal abortion. I fail to understand why these individuals call themselves pro-life. Anti-life seems more appropriate. The leaders of the Schaeffer conference did not stop to talk about how we will feed everyone on the planet if we don’t curtail our reproduction. Nor did I hear them say anything about paying the medical expenses of lonely, unwed mothers or of poor pregnant women who want to have children. Nor did they take up a collection to feed the children who are loved and wanted, but starving. The anti-lifers are upset that the same society that struggles to save the whales permits the termination of pregnancy. But I’m upset that the leaders of this conference blatantly discuss my uterus and reproductive organs as if they own them. I’m upset that they maintain that their hot-line to God is more authoritative than my hot-line to God. I am upset that they are telling me to control my sexuality rather than learn about contraception. I’m upset that Dr. Mildred Jefferson smiled when she said that a woman who has an abortion will never quite become a mature woman and consequently will always be a little less than human. I’m upset that the audience applauded when she said it. I am upset to learn that under their proposed constitutional amendment my uterus could not have a D\&C if I should ever be a rape victim. They maintain that the worst results from rape are VD and physical abuse. They would allow me to have DES (the controversial morning-after pill). Instead of a safe abortion, with a current complication rate of 0.031 percent for terminations at between 6 and 8 weeks pregnancy, the Schaffer folks would give me DES so that I might never have a period again. Mr. Schaeffer and Dr. Koop apparently want less human freedom than is available to them. That’s their business. Thank goodness we still live in a society where church and state are separate and people can fight for their basic human rights. Just as I will never be in the position of telling them how to run their lives, I hope they will never be able to tell me how to live mine. LINDA L. SPRAGUE Dallas, TX I have been a hardcore libertarian and a libertarian activist for about the past ten years and agree with most of the opinions expressed in your publication. However, I am distressed by your September, ’79 article on the abortion issue. I think that it is unfair to infer that all people who have moral reservations about abortion are either bigoted religious fanatics or ultra right-wing reactionaries intent upon imposing their beliefs on others. I am particularly disturbed by libertarians and other feminists who ridicule the idea of being pro-life. It may seem strange, but my pro-life sentiments motivated me to become a political activist for peace and justice-related causes in the first place; to work for peace, by opposing all forms of killing as well as dehumanization which leads to killing. My pro-life sentiments lead me to oppose war, militarism, capital punishment, nuclear power with its inherent dangers, and political oppression. They lead me to oppose any form of dehumanization including sexism, which is why I support most feminist causes in the first place. I realize that many prominent anti-abortionists seem like such foolish hypocrites when they claim to respect life while taking anti-life stands on just about every other peace and justice-related issue besides abortion; I have already written hard-hitting letters to some of these people suggesting to them that if they are so pro-life they ought to become more concerned about human rights after people have been born, too. However, the inconsistently pro-life stands taken by some anti-abortion fanatics on other issues does not obscure the fact that human life should be respected and should not be tampered with for the sake of expediency. When pro-abortionists argue that women can murder their unborn babies for the sake of expediency their reasoning is similar to that of the corporate state interests which support potentially dangerous nuclear energy and which support interventionistic foreign policy involving crushing Third World liberation struggles and propping up oppressive, murderous dictatorships in order to curry such regimes’ political-economic-military favor. All of these treacherous schemes involve sacrificing human life for the sake of convenience and expediency. When the pro-abortionists try to rationalize that a human fetus is not really human, their reasoning is similar to that of the Nazis who decided that Jews were not really human and could thus be exterminated for the sake of expediency; such reasoning is similar to that of some early Americans who decided that Blacks or Native American Indians were not really human either and could thus be made into slaves or massacred for the sake of expediency—what if the abolitionists had decided that people had a ‘right to choose’ whether or not to own slaves since many slaveowners felt in good conscience that their slaves were not really human? A dangerous precedent is set whenever an attempt is made to rationalize that a person who is “different” is not really a human being, whether the criterion for judging a person as sub-human and not entitled to human rights is a difference in race or a difference in biological development. Perhaps abortion is a symptom of the agism prevalent in our society and culture. If children and teenagers are not considered fully entitled to their basic human rights then perhaps it is only natural that at a certain early stage in biological development human beings can be considered not entitled to any human rights at all. It would seem only natural that in 1973 the Supreme Court would make such an unfortunate decision regarding the “right” to abortion, as this is the same Nixon-appointed Supreme Court which has tried so hard in so many other ways to deprive people of their basic human rights. Obviously, such an oppressive Supreme Court would not hesitate to cater to the agism present in our society, as this same Supreme Court which showed such utter disregard for the rights of people after they had been born could hardly be expected to respect the rights of the unborn. Some pro-abortionists defend abortion on the grounds of “the right to reproductive freedom.” However, this is the same reasoning rapists use to defend their behavior. One’s legal right to sexual freedom ends when it involves committing aggression or brutalization against another person. Just as rape is an act of aggression and brutality against a woman, so abortion is an act of aggression and brutality against a baby. Many humanistic people oppose abortion precisely on these grounds; because they feel that it is not simply a private matter of “doing your own thing” or “controlling your own body” but rather an act of brutality and aggression against an innocent person. ROBERT MADDOX FERRERA Villanova, PA fetus is a non-viable non-person, so that if a woman does not wish to carry it to term no one has the right to compel her to, least of all those to whom the continuing multiplication of a clump of cells is more important and overrides the rights of pregnant women and children. Indeed, one can argue that if ‘pro-life’ is to be synonymous with “the compulsive increase in human biomass,” then it provides no reason for living whatsoever. Life is not an end in itself no matter what, as proponents of capital punishment would concur. The point is that for many women, to be compelled to bear a child is a reason for _not_ living, a cause for despair, and thus _anti-life_, in a perfectly proper sensible use of the term. So to be pro-life is to be in favor of the right to choose not to harbor and incubate an undesirable or undesired fetus within her body so long as she does not prevent other females from choosing to harbor, mandate and carry to term fetuses within their bodies. To bear or not to bear is a question that every female has the right to answer by herself and _only_ by herself if she so chooses. SIMON WEINBERGER Maspeth, NY As a member of the newly formed Libertarian Council on Religious Affairs, I think it is important to stress a distinction that was overlooked by your author Leslee J. Newman in her article, “Abortion: The Battle Over Freedom of Choice” (Sept. 1979). In one of the last paragraphs in her article, Newman maintained that anti-abortion groups were seeking “to impose their religious views on others by law, in defiance of the separation of Church and State.” Almost all libertarians (including me) believe that abortion should be legal. I must also stress that the Libertarian Council on Religious Affairs is not anti-abortion. But all libertarians—believers in God or not—support freedom of religion and should welcome religious people into the libertarian fold. It is vital, therefore, in talking about the activities of religious groups to distinguish between the governmental establishment of religion and religious influence on society and politics. Establishment of religion fundamentally means setting up an official church and has properly been extended to include direct subsidies to churches and all religious activities under official auspices. But if a group called Clergy and Laity Concerned successfully lobbies against the war in Vietnam, such lobbying is not a violation of separation of Church and State. Instead it is a positive, pro-libertarian religious influence. If a group called the Women’s Christian Temperance Union successfully lobbies for alcohol prohibition, neither is that the establishment of religion. Instead it is a negative, antilibertarian religious influence. In both cases, of course, there were religious people on both sides of the issues. I don’t think it clarifies things to speak of the political activism of religious people as a violation of the separation of Church and State. The wiser course, it seems to me, is to search for and ally with religious people who have libertarian values on these issues. WILLIAMSON M. EVERS Palo Alto, CA ## Newman replies It’s too bad that Mr. Ferrera inferred from my article that all people who have “moral reservations about abortion are either bigoted, religious fanatics, or ultra right-wing reactionaries.” I was only trying to show that most anti-abortion activity is emanating from such persons. Certainly, there are libertarians who are opposed to abortion. But many are silent because they feel that it is more important that all women be given the right to choose whether or not they want an abortion. These libertarians do not wish to oppress others with their own moral or religious beliefs. But where I really must argue with Mr. Ferrera is over his belief that abortion is not justified for “expediency.” Why shouldn’t a woman have the right to decide whether or not she wants to interrupt her schooling or career to have an unwanted child, or whether that child would cause her unbearable financial hardships? That decision, unlike the expedience of corporate state interests supporting potentially dangerous power sources, whatever they may be, only affects her or her family. Unlike the decision of the corporate state, thousands or millions are not aggressed upon involuntarily by such a decision. Furthermore, more pregnancies than one might believe are not the fault of carelessness or irresponsibility. The ACLU has recently reported that one couple in three who practices birth control rigorously still has an unwanted pregnancy every five years. Finally, I must refute Mr. Ferrera’s contention that the pro-abortionists are disrespectful of human life in the same manner as the Nazis or early Americans. The Nazis were anti-abortion, yet they were not “pro-life” in their feeling towards certain minority groups. Today in many countries where abortion is outlawed or severely restricted by the state, thousands of persons might be randomly imprisoned, tortured, or shot, as in many of the nations in Central and South America. Thus, it would appear that there is no correlation between the outlawing of abortion and a general respect for the human rights of a populace. The important point of distinction is between the murder of an actual human being and the killing of a potential human being. And that distinction is a difficult one to define. The Supreme Court in its 1973 decision came close to drawing it at viability or the last trimester of pregnancy, where the high court decided to permit abortion only under emergency circumstances, and this in practice is what has occurred. In fact, only 0.01 percent of all abortions are performed at this time when the fetus is coming close to actual human being status. Most abortions are performed during the first trimester, before quickening of the fetus, long before that fetus is capable of life without the mother’s support system. And clearly abortion at this stage is not murder, but the termination of potential life. Abortion is not a pretty thing, and in my opinion, should be used only as a last alternative. But the factors of each case must be weighed independently. Every woman must have a right to choose and measure the “brutality and aggression” imposed by her pregnancy against the “brutality and aggression” she imposes against her unborn fetus. I would agree with Mr. Evers that religious people with libertarian values should be welcomed into the fold, and it was not my intention to alienate any such persons. Clearly, there are persons of every religious persuasion on both sides of the abortion issue. In fact, as I stated in my article, “a recent Gallup poll found only 25 percent of the Catholics polled supporting their church’s total ban on abortion.” As for the so-called separation of Church and State, ther are those who would heartily argue that the lobby by the Women’s Christian Temperance Union for prohibition of alcohol was clearly the establishment of religion. Political activism of religious people is not a violation of the separation of Church and State. But activism leading to the enforcement of certain religious beliefs against the will of others is a violation. State enforcement of the Catholic belief that conception originates at the moment of conception would violate a Methodist woman’s belief that her religious duty is to consider abortion in the case of an unwanted pregnancy. The proposed “human life” amendment would establish the religious beliefs of some as official doctrine to be legally enforced. This threat must not be brushed off as lightly as Mr. Evers implies. ## Libertarians in government Ron Paul Milton Mueller, in his September “Movement” column, looks for the “better political entrepreneur,” and then denigrates the only one in Congress, Ron Paul. Despite what Mr. Mueller says, it is possible to be both an effective legislator and a builder of public support for liberty. For the former, Ron Paul stopped the Treasury from enlarging its inflationary draw authority and has made real progress in taking away its power to seize private gold. And he was instrumental in stopping the reinstitution of draft registration. For the latter, he has introduced bills to repeal the Federal income tax and the Selective Service Act, as well as to reduce Congressmen’s salaries by the increases in the cost of living and to end junketing. All have been important in rousing public anger at government abuses. To say that Dr. Paul’s activist position against the draft got him “into a jam” with constituents, whereupon he backtracked, is scandalously wrong. Ron Paul has devoted more time and effort to the anti-draft movement — in speeches, committee testimony, floor debates, outside debates, insertions in the _Congressional Record_, press conferences, and lobbying of other members— than any other Representative. And he has been effective precisely because he is pro-American and in favor of national defense, and not one of those opposed to the draft because it might be used against Marxists. Many of these sunshine anti-patriots would be only too happy to have Americans drafted to invade South Africa or Chile. Congressman Paul did decline an invitation to speak at an SLS anti-draft rally; he was scheduled to be in Houston on that day. But he participated in an SLS teach-in on the subject with _LR_ editor Roy Childs, among others. Is it really selling-out to work and vote for laws that “make us just a little bit freer”? By Mr. Mueller’s rules, we couldn’t advocate tax credits, for example, since they are less than pure freedom. As to Ron Paul’s being a less than consistent advocate of liberty, “especially in foreign affairs,” does this mean his refusal to endorse entangling foreign treaties like SALT II, or to hail the Ayatollah as a big improvement on the Shah? Congressman Paul supports a noninterventionist foreign policy, and is the only Republican Representative who says we should bring our troops home. To some libertarians, it is not enough to be non-inter-ventionist; you must excuse the Soviets. It is not enough to advocate the repeal of victimless-crime laws; you must endorse the behavior they outlaw. Ron Paul is the only Member of Congress who takes a completely free-market position, domestically and internationally. If his moral beliefs bother the Radical Caucus, that is to his credit. But Mr. Mueller should get his facts straight. LLEWELLYN H. ROCKWELL, JR. Administrative Assistant to Ron Paul Washington, D.C. ## Mueller replies: I am very surprised at the huffy tone of this letter. To say that I “denigrated” someone my column referred to as a “man of principle” is a real poke in the eye. When I cited the pressures brought to bear on a Congressional draft opponent whose constituents support the draft, my whole point was that even the best, most principled elected officials have to make decisions, to quote the column, “about _which_ areas they can dismantle and which areas they do not want to risk their necks attacking.” That I used Representative Paul to illustrate these pressures is, in its own way, a compliment. My point would have been very weak and insignificant had I simply shown how political pressures affect your typical, amoral politician; the very fact that Representative Paul _is_ a staunch and principled opponent of the draft formed the basis for the argument. The argument was that “representative democracy limits the parameters within which libertarians can maneuver” — not such a controversial or insulting statement, is it? As it happens, I was wrong in this case about the extent to which Representative Paul’s actions were limited by his constituents’ support for the draft. More about that later. I will, however, stand by my statement that Representative Paul is not consistently libertarian on foreign policy issues. He is to be commended for his stand on troop withdrawals. But his signature on a full-page ad calling for U.S. intervention in Nicaragua is, frankly, disgraceful. (There are other areas of disagreement: he has submitted items in the _Congressional Record_ about nuclear power which say nothing about the free market, but simply promote nuclear power _per se_.) But Mr. Rockwell should know that disagreement is not _denigration_. Perhaps, as the next to the last sentence of his letter indicates, Mr. Rockwell has confused my column with the attack from the Radical Caucus; should I forward the letter to them? (I have never been a member of the Radical Caucus; it isn’t radical enough for me.) Incidentally, although the “Movement” column in question appeared in the September issue of _The Libertarian Review_, it was written much earlier — in late May and early June. Since then, Representative Paul has done absolutely fantastic work against the draft in the House. To say that he has stuck his neck out is almost an understatement: he has submitted a bill to repeal the Selective Service Act which, if passed, would totally end conscription in the U.S. for the first time in forty years. Even before we knew about the bill, SLS was planning to campaign for SS abolition; I hope Representative Paul will work closely with us in building public support for his heroic bill. Our disagreements over selected issues should in no way stop us from working together as respected allies. I am still bothered by the somewhat querulous tone of this letter, so I offer this concluding comment. If Ron Paul really wants to be considered a libertarian, or part of the broader libertarian movement, then he must be prepared to accept criticism and discussion from the movement. If Murray Rothbard, Charles Koch, Robert Poole, Ed Crane and Roger MacBride can take it (and believe me, all of these hardworking movement figures have come in for some pretty harsh treatment) then so can Ron Paul. _LR welcomes letters from readers. Letters intended for publication should be typed, double-spaced, and addressed to: Letters to the Editors, The Libertarian Review, 1620 Montgomery Street, San Francisco, California 94111._