There Is No Right to Abortion
A Pernicious Pro-Choice Lie
Joe Biden is once again claiming that there is a right to abortion. Biden, in a recent X post, states:
Donald Trump is running for president bragging about how he “killed Roe v. Wade.” Let’s be clear: The only reason a fundamental right has been stripped away from the American people for the first time in American history is because of Trump.
It may be true that Donald Trump is the reason Roe V. Wade was overturned. For that, everyone should be thankful. But was a “fundamental right” overturned? No.
First of all, the supposed right that was overturned by Dobbs was not the right to abortion. The right that was overturned was the right of the Federal government to intervene in state and local policies on abortion. This right is no true right. The Federal government cannot legitimately hold rights. It only has obligations to those it taxed, regulated, kidnapped, etc. Essentially, the government must rectify any aggression it has caused. Consequently, it cannot be legitimate for the Federal government to intervene in abortion laws by using resources stolen from others. The Federal government is obliged to minimize or cease aggression entirely. It does not matter if abortion is a right. Abortion being a right would not legitimize stealing from some to police the states.
More importantly, abortion is not a right. Why would a libertarian say this?
“I thought libertarians were pro-choice?” Well, not exactly. This is not to say that libertarians are pro-life either. There are certainly many libertarians claiming that abortion is unjust, therefore, warrants violent intervention. This is not my point. I am actually in favor of the evictionist argument. The mother’s body is her private property; therefore, she is justified in ejecting unwanted visitors. This includes fetuses.1
If you paid attention to the argument closely, it is clear that the reason abortion is “just” is not because it is someone else’s body, but because it is her body is her private property. In theory, a mother might contract with someone else to carry the baby to term; therefore, she would be relinquishing her rights to her body.
Essentially, the only rights are private property rights. There is no right to free speech or assembly. There is no right to healthcare, guns, or whatever. There is only the right to private property. You should be allowed to freely use your justly acquired property as long as it does not interfere with the justly acquired property of another.
Rothbard states:
In short, there are no human rights that are separable from property rights. The human right of free speech is only the property right to hire an assembly hall from the owners, to speak to those who are willing to listen, to buy materials and then print leaflets or books and sell them to those who are willing to buy. There is no extra right of free speech beyond the property rights that we can enumerate in any given case. In all seeming cases of human rights, then, the proper course is to find and identify the property rights involved. And this procedure will resolve any apparent conflicts of rights; for property rights are always precise and legally recognizable.
In the end, it is all about private property. 2nd amendment (2A) supporters understand this. They do not say that other people should provide them with guns because they have a right to bear arms. What they really mean is if they can justly acquire firearms, they should not be prohibited from owning them.
Sometimes 2A supporters complain about private gun-free zones. However, there is no right to bear arms on land where guns are not welcomed. Gun-free zones, no matter how stupid they are, are completely legitimate.
Let’s apply this to abortion.
Let’s say that somebody doesn’t have the money to get an abortion (What a shame). What shall be done? Shall the government fund abortions? Absolutely not. Funding abortions would obviously violate the rights of the U.S. taxpayer. Strip the abortion clinics of all government funding. It is often said that “if something requires the labor of another, it is not a right.” Saying it is a right is equivalent to justifying slavery or theft.
But let’s get creative. Since abortion is not a right, it can be prevented in a variety of ways in a libertarian society. Take the example of a private organization that owns and manages roads and sidewalks. If a pro-lifer owns or has a majority share in this organization, they could restrict access to abortion providers and companies that support abortion. They could legitimately build a blockade around an abortion clinic. This would be completely within their right.2 Gaining legitimate influence in a libertarian society is done through justly acquiring property. A private road company does just that. They would be within their right to limit who can use the road and when. Preventing use of your property by others (ostracism) is an excellent method of obtaining cooperation, but also of preventing people from engaging in taboos.
Imagine if we were in a libertarian society. Instead of the pro-life movement wasting money in politics, they could have been acquiring infrastructure in order to block access to abortions.
This entire scenario would throw pro-choicers into a fit of rage. “How dare they restrict access to abortion!” they might say. Well, take the principle of bodily autonomy you supposedly abide by and apply it to every other affair. You do not have a claim to what another produces unless they are indebted to you or voluntarily contracted with you. To claim that you do have a claim to what another produces outside of voluntary contract is tantamount to slavery.
There are countless ways that abortion would be limited in a libertarian society. I highlight some in an article I wrote for the Grove City College Collegian my last year there (2022-23).3
One thing we could do is establish covenant communities that ban anyone who has had an abortion or supports abortion in any way. Donated to an abortion non-profit? Performed an abortion? Ever been to a pro-choice rally? You will be banned from the community. Establishing communities like this that also provide good public services will attract people who would be pro-choice or support abortion but choose not to because the costs of doing so are prohibitively high. This would be completely with the anarchist/libertarian position.
Unfortunately, there are some libertarians who shutter at the idea of covenant communities in general, but there is nothing wrong with private rules on private property. Libertarians should reject the libertinism nonsense and recognize there are immoral activities that people should not engage in, and we should actively support private means of limiting these immoral activities.
So, no, Biden. Abortion is and never was a right. The justice of abortion is contextual. It depends on private property. All rights depend on private property.
Some have argued against the evictionist position first proposed by Walter Block. There are obviously arguments one can make against this. Walter Block first proposed this argument in the article, “Compromising the Uncompromisable: A Private Property Rights Approach to Resolving the Abortion Controversy,” and some of his responses can be found here.
I think that Walter Block would disagree. So-called “donut theory” - the idea that someone cannot be legitimately prevented from accessing their land or unhomesteaded land - would contradict my point, but I reject “donut theory.” If this point causes distress, then I will deal with it more extensively at a later point.