Call for sponsor and co-sponsors: Respect Abortion Decentralization

220 views
Skip to first unread message

Donavan Pantke

unread,
Jun 24, 2022, 12:35:54 PMJun 24
to lnc-business

Today the Supreme Court of the United States has issued their ruling in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, overturning Roe v Wade.

While I cannot directly ask for co-sponsors, I ask an LNC member to sponsor the following resolution. I also ask members to contact their LNC's reps on this resolution, regardless of if you love it or hate it. It is vital for Party members to discuss where the proper line is between political decentralization and the promotion of your preferred moral viewpoint.

We can have bold messaging, strike an issue while it is in the public eye, and say something very Libertarian. This is a pro-decentralization resolution, not a pro-life or pro-choice resolution.

I would like to point out that, as I type this, headlines are everywhere about companies reimbursing travel expense to travel to have an abortion, so this isn't some hypothetical policy position I'm talking about.

Let's tackle this issue head-on.

I will address concerned about this resolution responses to this thread. Members should feel free to respond to me with feedback. I will address all questions and concerns that aren't super-obvious ( and yes, it's my judgement on what is super-obvious ). All feedback sent to me will be treated with confidence: I prefer to discuss ideas, strategies, and tactics, not people.

So without further ado:

Respect Abortion Decentralization


              

WHEREAS, the Supreme Court of the United States has decided that the issue of abortion is to be addressed by the states, and not by the Federal Government;

WHEREAS, states may enact conflicting laws reflecting a significant difference of opinion concerning the individual rights of the unborn child versus the individual rights of the mother.


WHEREAS, the Libertarian Party Platform, section 3.0 states in part: “The only proper purpose of government, should it exist, is the protection of individual rights.”

WHEREAS, these conflicting laws, where constrained to the protection of individual rights, are still consistent with the Libertarian Party Statement of Principles and Platform.


WHEREAS, the Libertarian Party Platform, section 1.0 states in part: “Our support of an individual’s right to make choices in life does not mean that we necessarily approve or disapprove of those choices.”

WHEREAS, the Libertarian Party Platform, section 3.4, states in part: “Political freedom and escape from tyranny demand that individuals not be unreasonably constrained by government in the crossing of political boundaries.”

WHEREAS, the Ninth Amendment of the United States Constitution states: “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”; now therefore be it

RESOLVED, that the Libertarian National Committee declares that individuals have the freedom to travel between the states and territories of the United States, and

RESOLVED, that the Libertarian National Committee declares that no individual should be punished for traveling to a different state to acquire goods or services to perform an abortion in a state where said purchase is legal, and

RESOLVED, that the Libertarian National Committee:

1. Calls upon the United States Congress to enact legislation protecting the right of a female to cross state lines to obtain abortion-related goods or services without fear of retribution from their state of residence.

2. Calls upon the United States Congress to enact legislation protecting the right of medical professionals, medical device manufacturers, and pharmaceutical companies producing drugs related to abortion to provide those goods or services in a state where it is legal to do so from being prosecuted by another state for providing said good or service.

3. Calls upon the President of the United States to enact an executive order instructing the Department of Justice to refuse to extradite any person for prosecution to any state for obtaining or performing an abortion or abortifacient in a state for which such purchase is legal.


Donavan Pantke
Region 7 Alternate

Donavan Pantke

unread,
Jun 24, 2022, 12:45:11 PMJun 24
to lnc-business, Donavan Pantke
Feedback I have received thus far:

- This is LNC overreach: if this is to be addressed, it should be done by delegates at convention.
-- It is the job of the LNC to interpret the will of the convention and carry out its mandates in between conventions. While we knew this issue was pending with the Court, the convention did not know how precisely the court would rule, and so it was improvident at the time for the convention to take a position on this. It is the LNC's job address the issue of the day as it's brought up the best we can. The LNC may disagree with me on the action to take, but I do not think this is overreach.

- The convention made it's feeling on this matter clear by deleting 1.5, and that feeling is that we should say nothing at all about this.
-- I respectfully cannot draw the same conclusion. Plank 1.5 was deleted by the convention via a mechanism that allowed for no debate. Delegates could not make their intentions on this matter clear. To draw this conclusion requires one to assume motives of the delegates prior to convention or based on side conversations on the convention floor, or based on how many flyers were distributed. I am of the opinion that I do not know the delegate's opinion on this policy, and thus I put it before the LNC and membership to clarify what that intent really was.

I will continue to respond with feedback as this unfolds.


Donavan Pantke
Region 7 Alternate

Steven Nekhaila

unread,
Jun 26, 2022, 5:19:13 PMJun 26
to lnc-business, Donavan Pantke
I think this would be a great candidate position but not a great LNC position. The platform is designed to empower candidates to make decisions, including candidates who may or may not agree on how to handle the issue of abortion, which is the reality within the culture of the LP.

Mandates, War on Terror, War on Drugs, etc, are much more clear cut and defined within the platform, although it is up to candidates to apply specific legal solutions.

Sincerely,

Steven Nekhaila

Donavan Pantke

unread,
Jun 26, 2022, 9:09:35 PMJun 26
to lnc-business, Steven Nekhaila, Donavan Pantke
You seem to say two things that seem contradictory, or at least are very vague. From your perspective, what is the bar that a resolution must cross to be considered appropriate? On the one hand, you're seeming to indicate the standard is a "clear cut" standard, but on the other you're indicating that resolutions should not contain a specific legal solution. I would assume the former, given the only reasonable interpretation of the resolutions we have passed thus far call for a specific legal solution, but I would like clarification on this.

Given that the platform changes the convention made this cycle, the delegates definitely altered the tone of the overall platform further from a candidate guidance document and more of a declaration of philosophy. I think there have always been elements of both, and the only reason I bring this up in this forum is that we should consider both factors when acting every time we act, and to avoid applying the analysis selectively based on our desired result. Which is advice to myself as much as it to anyone else.

Donavan Pantke
Region 7 Alternate

Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages