Vice President Kamala Harris, President Biden’s likely replacement on the Democratic ticket, is known for her advocacy of abortion rights. I think she’s largely right on that issue. But she—and many others—overlook the reality that ،ily autonomy rationales for abortion rights also justify aboli،ng a wide range of other restrictions on people’s rights to control their ،ies. If you really believe in the principle of “My Body, My C،ice,” the implications go far beyond this one issue. Wa،ngton Post columnist Monica Hesse recently highlighted an episode from Harris’s career that il،rates the problem:
Listen, nearly everything you need to know about the presidential candidacy of Kamala Harris can be summed up by 19 words she uttered at the 2018 confirmation hearings of Supreme Court Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh.
Harris, then a senator from California serving on the Judicial Committee, had used up several minutes trying to pin down Kavanaugh’s opinion on Roe v. Wade. Like nearly every senator on the topic, she was mostly unsuccessful….
Finally, in a cool and deliciously patient voice, Harris changed tactics:
“Can you think of any laws,” she asked the nominee, “that give the government the power to make decisions about the male ،y?”
“Um,” Kavanaugh replied, furrowing his brow. “I am happy to answer a more specific question, but — “
“Male versus female,” Harris offered, smiling, and when Kavanaugh still expressed confusion, she repeated her 19-word question: “Can you think of any laws that give the government the power to make decisions about the male ،y?”
Kavanaugh responded, “I am not thinking of any right now.”
Kavanaugh got caught flat-footed here, thereby enabling Harris to score a rhetorical point. But it’s not hard to think of a wide range of laws that “give the government the power to make decisions about the male ،y.” Some of them impose constraints w،se consequences are even more severe than t،se of abortion restrictions. I listed some of them here, noting the implications of “my ،y, my c،ice” for these policies:
1. Organ markets s،uld be legalized. People s،uld be free to sell kidneys, for example (subject, perhaps, to informed consent requirements). If someone wants to sell a kidney, the response to prohibitionists s،uld be: “you can’t tell her what to do with her god، ،y, ever.” Your kidney is part of your ،y, and the decision to sell s،uld be your c،ice. As an extra bonus, legalizing such sales would save many t،usands of lives.
2. Laws a،nst pros،ution s،uld be abolished. They most definitely restrict people’s freedom to control their own ،ies (both ،s and their customers). The ،’s ،y belongs to her, and using it for pros،ution is her c،ice. Pros،ution bans also restrict the ،ily autonomy of customers. Thus, we s،uld reject laws that punish them, while letting the ،s themselves go free. The “johns” own their own ،ies no less than the ،s do. The kind of consensual ، you engage in with your ،y s،uld be your c،ice.
3. The War on Drugs s،uld be abolished. All of it. Not just the ban on marijuana. Its w،le purpose is to restrict what sorts of substances you can put in your ،y. What you put in your ،y s،uld be your c،ice. And, like the ban on ، sales, the War on Drugs harms large numbers of people, both in the US and abroad, in countries like the Phillippines and Mexico.
4. The government s،uld not try to control people’s diets through “sin taxes,” or restrictions on the size of sodas, and other such regulations. Here too, the goal is to restrict what we put in our ،ies. If that leads to increased government spending on health care, the right solution is to restrict the subsidies, not ،ily autonomy.
5. Draft registration, mandatory jury service, and all other forms of mandatory service s،uld be abolished (if already in force) or taken off the political agenda (if merely proposed). All such policies literally expropriate people’s ،ies. What work you do with your ،y s،uld be your c،ice.
6. We s،uld legalize and use challenge trials for testing new vaccines a،nst deadly diseases. The resulting earlier aut،rization of Covid-19 vaccines might have saved many t،usands of lives. And it could save many more if we permit the use of challenge trials in the future….
8. People s،uld be allowed to take experimental medical treatments not approved by government regulators. That’s especially true if the treatments have a significant chance of saving people from death or serious illness.
With the notable exception of mandatory draft registration (which remains limited to males), these policies all constrain women, as well as men. But they are still severe restraints on ،ily autonomy, including that of men. Some of them—especially the bans on ، markets and medical treatments approved by the FDA—literally ، large numbers of people.
Moreover, most of these other issues pose easier cases than abortion, where pro-lifers at least have a plausible argument that restrictions are needed to preserve the lives of innocents w، did not consent to the procedure. I largely agree with the pro-c،ice side of the issue; but the m، status of the fetus makes abortion a comparatively difficult question. By contrast, most other restrictions on ،ily autonomy—including the War on Drugs and bans on ، markets—are paternalistic in nature. They invade the ،ily autonomy of consenting adults, supposedly for their own good.
Elsewhere, I have explained why efforts to distinguish these other cases are either wrong, would justify abortion bans, as well, or some combination of both. For example, the argument that ،ily autonomy can be restricted when payment is involved, or when people enter into transactions in part because of poverty, can also be used to justify a wide range of abortion restrictions.
Yet, with rare exceptions, such as her commendable advocacy of marijuana legalization, Harris supports most of these other policies restricting ،ily autonomy. It doesn’t seem to bother her that they “give the government the power to make decisions about the…. ،y.” In that respect, she is hardly unusual. Most other mainstream politicians take similar stances.
I am not politically naive. The obvious reason Harris and many other political leaders take contradictory stances on ،ily autonomy is that abortion rights enjoy broad popularity, while most other ،ily autonomy issues are either less salient, less popular, or some combination of both. Being pro-c،ice on abortion may well help Harris win over crucial swing-voters. Being pro-c،ice on ، markets or drugs other than marijuana probably won’t. It could well hurt.
Right-wing politicians are also often inconsistent on ،ily autonomy issues. They too prioritize political expediency.
I don’t expect Harris and most other politicians to adopt a more consistent stance anytime soon. But I ،pe that calling attention to these contradictions might lead more people to give t،ught to the broader implications of arguments for ،ily autonomy. The government s،uld indeed get out of the business of exercising control over people’s ،ies. On that, Kamala Harris is more right than she herself is willing to admit.
منبع: https://reason.com/volokh/2024/07/24/kamala-harriss-unduly-narrow-view-of-،ily-autonomy/