On The View, conservative firebrand, Tomi Lahren, shocked many by stating that she is pro-choice. She said,
“I’m pro-choice and here is why. I am someone that loves the Constitution, I am someone that is for limited government, so I can’t sit here and be a hypocrite and say I’m for limited government but I think the government should decide what women do with their bodies. Stay out of my guns, and you can stay out of my body as well.”
Tomi Lahren’s ‘my body, my choice’ position isn’t limited government, though. It might be an Anarchist position, but not small government. Also, her language was straight out of the Leftist handbook, “How to Avoid Actual Discussion and Just Yell ‘War on Women,'” so it’s really more of a SJW position.
Now, to be honest this isn’t all that surprising. She speaks positively of Trump’s policies with the same irrational, emotional vigor that SJWs speak about racial and gender justice issues. Although she doesn’t advocate for shutting people up, she does tend to explain her positions like them, with boisterous talking points, rather than giving a well-thought out assessment of the facts at hand. This is the trouble with viral firebrands.
Regardless of this, it’s important to not mock, but debunk her inaccurate statements. So, let’s delve into this. Why isn’t ‘my body, my choice’ a limited government position?
This can actually all be summed up in one two-part sentence: Abortion procedures actively kill a human being, and according to any constitutional conservative, even a limited government should regulate the circumstances under which someone can actively kill another human being.
You see, that body inside of a pregnant woman is not in fact her own body. It is its own separate being. This means the child in the womb is equal in value to those of us already outside our mother’s womb, therefore killing them for the sake of convenience is murder. So, considering ‘limited governemnt’ as a philosophy isn’t against, but for, regulating humans killing each other, outlawing abortion would obviously be a position consistent within the philosophy. The government’s main function, after all, according to the US Constitution she claims to hold so dearly, is to protect life, liberty, and property. Murdering an unborn child violates all three of those rights.
Additionally, her comparison to gun-rights is wildly flawed. The Second Amendment in the Constitution states that the “right to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.” The federal government is directly prohibited by the constitution from severely regulating or outlawing the buying, selling, owning, and carrying of firearms by law abiding citizens. Not to mention, owning, buying, selling, and carrying firearms does not take away anyone elses right to life, liberty, and property, unlike the act of abortion.
‘Limited government’ and ‘constitutional conservatism’ aren’t some arbitrary terms of which any political opinion can be assigned. And encouraging lax regulations, or no regulations at all, on abortion is not anymore compatible with limited government, than encouraging lax regulation on the killing of a two year old.
So clearly, Tomi Lahren insisting that she is pro-choice because she believes in limited government is not only irrational, but it shows her as the hypocrite she so adamantly claims to stand against.