An Open Letter to Pro-Lifers
by
Murray Sabrin
by Murray Sabrin
DIGG
THIS
My parents,
my older brother and I arrived in America on August 6, 1949. We
sailed from West Germany, where I was born in 1946, and a few months
after the Szabrinski (later changed to Sabrin) family emigrated
from Poland. My dad and mom were the only ones in their respective
families who survived the Holocaust in their native Poland. I grew
up in New York City never knowing my grandparents, uncles or aunts.
All my parents’ siblings were killed before they had children. I
never had any first cousins.
Living in Manhattan
and then in the Bronx during the 1950s and 1960s, politics was never
discussed much at home, because my father it seemed was always working
and we never had a chance to discuss politics at length. Nevertheless,
I do remember my father mentioning he contributed $5 to Adlai Stevenson’s
1956 presidential campaign. My "job" as a youngster was
simple – get an education and become a professional, so I wouldn’t
have to work as hard as he had as a sheet metal worker, then as
a New York City taxicab owner/driver.
One of my father’s
great passions was the survival of the State of Israel – a very
common feeling among Holocaust survivors. I shared his concern growing
up, but I did not have that "connection" his generation
had to Israel, nor for that matter many of my generation, children
of Holocaust survivors. I always felt America was my "Zion"
having become thoroughly assimilated in American culture, and at
a very early age embracing the principles of the Declaration of
Independence, life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
I bring this
up so you will know "where I am coming from."
As a New York
City college student in the late 1960s, I applauded the New York
State legislature’s decision to legalize abortion in 1967. At the
time I was a middle-of-the road Democrat who did not believe the
government had the authority to force women to have babies against
their will. However, I did not agree with the Supreme Court’s 1973
notorious Roe v. Wade decision to legalize abortion. By 1973
I had become a pro-choice libertarian who supported federalism,
the principle that contentious issues such as abortion should be
decided at the state or local level. I therefore agreed with the
pro-life community but for different reasons. I wanted abortion
legal but decided at the state level; while pro-lifers wanted Roe
v. Wade overturned so anti-abortion states could keep abortion
illegal. To me the ideal "compromise" of the most controversial
issue in America was simple: pro-lifers and pro-choice advocates
should battle the abortion question at the statehouse. This would
be democracy in action.
In the mid-1990s
one of my "nontraditional students" (someone older than
25) showed me a picture of a procedure called "partial birth
abortion." I was appalled that this could be legal, a fully
developed baby brutally killed in a grizzly procedure that animal
lovers would protest if done on a household pet or any other animal.
I was under the impression that Roe allowed states to ban
abortion in the last trimester and could regulate abortion in the
second trimester. I was wrong. Apparently, abortion on demand has
been the law of the land since 1973. I therefore could be described
as a pro-choice, anti-partial birth abortion libertarian.
In March 1997
the Libertarian Party of New Jersey invited me to be its gubernatorial
candidate that year. (I was a political independent at the time,
having left the Republican Party in 1971 soon after I joined it
in opposition to Johnson’s welfare-warfare state policies. President
Nixon’s expansion of the Vietnam War and his economic controls revealed
the GOP paid lip service to limited government. I concluded back
then that we only have one party in DC, the "Washington Party".)
I attended the Libertarian Party state convention at the end of
the month and I was nominated without opposition to run against
Gov. Christie Whitman, a pro-choice Republican and the eventual
pro-choice Democrat candidate, Jim McGreevey, who was a mayor and
state senator at the time. Both Whitman and McGreevey supported
partial birth abortion during the campaign. So much for compassionate
establishment Republicans and Democrats.
The partial
birth issue was to become one of the front-burner issues during
the fall general election campaign. Moreover, I also sought guidance
on the issue of abortion in general; I knew Rep. Ron Paul, who I
have known since 1982, was a pro-life libertarian Republican. I
called him to get his input on the abortion issue. He told me he
wrote a book on abortion making a libertarian case for the pro-life
position. I asked him to send me a copy. I read his beautifully
written 100-page Challenge to Liberty in one reading and
from then on I became a pro-life libertarian.
I never ever
thought I could ever be convinced that a pro-life position was consistent
with liberty and limited government. But in Challenge to Liberty,
subtitled Coming to Grip with the Abortion Issue, Ron Paul
demonstrated that logic is an indispensable tool to change peoples’
minds, especially when it comes to hot button issues like abortion.
For me politically,
I rejoined the Republican Party in 1999 as a Ron Paul Republican
and sought the 2000 GOP nomination for the U. S. Senate. I initially
was in the race against Gov. Whitman who dropped out of contention
in September 1999 and then three establishment Republicans jumped
in the race. The primary was held in June 2000; I came in fourth
as the GOP establishment used every legal trick in the book to thwart
my effort.
But getting
back to Ron Paul’s bid for the presidency: Can you imagine what
"miracles" Ron Paul could perform from the "bully
pulpit" of the White House? If Dr. Paul could convince me abortion
is incompatible with morality and humanitarianism, then there is
hope that he could convince millions, maybe tens of millions of
Americans that they should embrace the pro-life position. However,
for many men and women a candidate’s abortion position is a litmus
test. Yet, Ron Paul’s pro-life stance does seem to deter many pro-choice
voters from supporting him. Why? Ron Paul is a man of unsurpassed
integrity, is an unwavering advocate of liberty, free enterprise,
and a noninterventionist foreign policy. Moreover, Dr. Paul shares
all the family values pro-lifers could hope for in a presidential
candidate. Please visit his website, RonPaul2008.com.
By supporting
Ron Paul for president, pro-lifers get an unequivocal pro-life president
who has the best strategy to deal with the abortion issue. As Lew
Rockwell wrote recently on his blog:
Ron Paul,
while a pro-life champion for all his life, has always opposed
a constitutional amendment against abortion. Roe v. Wade was a
usurpation of federal power against the states, and it can and
should be undone by Congress. Congress has the explicit constitutional
authority to determine the jurisdiction of the Supreme and other
federal courts, except for a very narrow area (lawsuits between
foreign governments and the US government, etc.).
A simple
vote of both houses of Congress would do it, as Ron has long proposed
legislatively. His bill would strip the federal courts of jurisdiction
over abortion. But the Republicans don't want to repeal Roe anymore
than the Democrats do. It is too fertile an issue for both parties.
Under a constitutional
regime, the states handle such questions. New York and California,
for example, would have legal abortion; Alabama and North Dakota
would not. Of course, there would be no federal abortions performed
or subsidized, under Medicaid, the military, the Indian Health
Service, etc. (Funny how the allegedly pro-life Bush has never
vetoed tax-paid abortions in military hospitals.)
Such a federalist
regime wouldn't satisfy the centralizing ultras on either side,
who would be welcome to fight it out in the state legislatures,
but the vast majority of Americans would sigh in relief.
In any event,
only religion can effectively battle abortion, not the guns and
jails of the government….
For pro-lifers
who are supporting and flirting with voting for Mike Huckabee in
Iowa, New Hampshire and other early caucus and primary states, I
urge you to first read Dr. Paul’s positions
on abortion. Contrast Ron Paul’s positions with Mike Huckabee
who writes on his website, "To me, life doesn't begin at conception
and end at birth. Every child deserves a quality education,
first-rate health care, decent housing in a safe neighborhood…"
(Emphasis added) In short, Mike Huckabee believes in a comprehensive
welfare state just like any Democrat running for president. Mike
Huckabee believes in big government. Big government is bankrupting
America and Huckabee wants to expand the entitlement culture and
commitments of the federal government. Mike Huckabee is
a supporter of the most antipro-life policies of the federal
government, preemptive war and nation building. He wants to
"save face" in Iraq. The American people cannot afford
to have Mike Huckabee in the White House continue and expand the
welfare-warfare state.
My
fellow pro-lifers, Ron Paul opposes the welfare-warfare state with
all his heart and soul and mind. When you go the caucuses and voting
booths in January and February, there is only one candidate who
is running for president who deserves your support: the baby doctor,
the champion of the constitution and a great human being, Ron Paul,
who I am proud to call my friend and hero.
Sincerely,
Murray
Sabrin
December
18, 2007
Murray
Sabrin, Ph.D. [send him mail],
is professor of finance in the Anisfield School of Business, Ramapo
College of New Jersey, where he is executive director of the Center
for Business and Public Policy. He is the author of Tax
Free 2000: The Rebirth of American Liberty. Sabrin writes
a weekly column for www.usadaily.com
and blogs for the Star-Ledger, New Jersey’s largest newspaper, www.njvoices.com.
Sabrin and his lovely wife of 39 years, Florence, have each proudly
donated the maximum amount to the Ron Paul presidential primary
campaign.
Copyright
© 2007 LewRockwell.com
Murray
Sabrin Archives
|