Support First Things by turning your adblocker off or by making a  donation. Thanks!

OK, OK, I overstated my case with words like “irrefutable” when I commented on Richard Stith’s very interesting insights into the opportunity provided by the federalization of health insurance policy in America.

Obviously, the question of the wisdom of federalizing health insurance policy in the first place is very important, and judgments about the bad consequences may lead many to determine that we should toss out the main thrust of the recently passed health care bill.

And furthermore, as some folks have pointed out to me, any expansion of governmental control of people’s lives creates the danger that it will be used for bad purposes. One reader draws attention to the possibilities of euthanasia as a cost-saving mechanism. Another points out that it is just as likely (more likely?) that the pro-abortion lobby will exploit the new law to expand abortion coverage.

All good points, and important points, to which we should add the fiscal question of whether we can, as a nation, afford this expanded coverage. And then add as well the question of whether this strategy for expansion will end up making the whole system into a lumbering bureaucratic giant that stifles innovations, and etc.

That said, I want to reiterate a point I made on Friday. A pro-life position is not a “limited government” position, nor is it a “free market” position. On the contrary, the pro-abortion crowd are the one’s in favor of limited government, as in limiting the government’s ability to have any say in what pregnant women do or don’t decide to do. It’s also the free market position insofar as it wants the supply to be free to meet the demand—why shouldn’t abortion providers be free to meet the market demand of women who want abortions?

We need to keep this in mind. There are very good reasons to want a limited government and free markets. In fact, I tend to line up with that side on most issues.

But only most, not all. I don’t think we should have a “reproductive free market.” And I’d like to see Roe v. Wade overturned. Why? So that our legislatures will no longer be limited by the spurious interpretation of the right to privacy that prevents them from criminalizing abortions. In other words, I don’t like the way Roe v. Wade limits government.

Comments are visible to subscribers only. Log in or subscribe to join the conversation.



Filter First Thoughts Posts

Related Articles