Issue 2 – November 2025
Interview Time!
In this second issue of Solid for America, I’ve succeeded in not writing all the articles myself. Here I’ve got three interviews with pro-life people who are definitely not your stereotyped pro-lifers: Herb Geraghty, a pro-life atheist and Chief Communications Director of Secular Pro-Life; Albert Veldhuyzen, Secretary of the Pro-Life Libertarian Caucus; and Jason Dean, President of the Rainbow Pro-Life Alliance. I’ve also got an interview with Curt Smith, Chairman of the Board of the Indiana Family Institute–who might be regarded by some as a stereotyped Christian pro-lifer but, if so, he doesn’t let that slow him down. Thanks to all four for the prompt responses and (I think) great interviews!
What Do Christians Have in Common with Unbelievers–
If They’re Pro-Life?
Life, Liberty, Happiness, and Hoosiers
Can There Be a “Unified Pro-Life Liberty Movement”?
“Racist, Bigot, Anti-Gay”–What Does That Have to Do with Abortion?
What Do Christians Have in Common with Unbelievers–If They’re Pro-Life?
An interview with Herb Geraghty, Chief Communications Officer, Secular Pro-Life
Editor: I see that Secular Pro-Life has been around since 2009, but I just recently found out about it. One thing that especially got my attention on the Secular Pro-Life website is where you say, “Among our followers and supporters are Catholics tired of having their arguments against abortion dismissed as merely ‘imposing religion,’ Protestants interested in more diverse pro-life outreach, and members of a variety of religions who feel mismatched with overtly Christian pro-life organizations” <https://secularprolife.org/religion/>. Me, I’m a Catholic Christian (formerly an unbeliever) who follows the teachings of St. Thomas Aquinas, one of which is basically that much of Catholic moral teaching is not specifically Catholic or Christian; rather, it should be acceptable to all people of good will even on the basis of natural reason alone. Likewise, I’m not seeing anyone in Secular Pro-Life saying, “I don’t believe in God, therefore I’m pro-life”; rather, the arguments are for all human beings who were already alive before they were born, regardless of religion or irreligion. How would you suggest that the entire pro-life movement today could be enlarged, improved, and unified by focusing on what we can all agree on, based on natural reasoning?
Herb Geraghty: I want to clarify that we do have some members of the Secular Pro-Life community who say they are pro-life because they are atheists. One of our board members, Terrisa Bukovinac, often shares her story as an example. She was once a pro-choice Christian, but after deconverting and identifying as an atheist, she became pro-life. She explains that when she was Christian, she had this idea that abortion was sad, but at least those babies would go to heaven, which is a sentiment we hear often from pro-choice people with religious or spiritual backgrounds. But when Terrisa stopped believing in God, she says she realized that this life is all we have. That shift made ending the life of an unborn child seem like an even greater injustice. If there’s no heaven waiting, then ending a life means taking away everything that person will ever have. And since the unborn are human beings it follows that it’s wrong to kill them for the same reason.
Editor: Interesting! I’ve heard that atrocious rationalization for abortion before, but not that reason for rejecting the rationalization. In fairness to pro-life Christians who may read this interview, though, I should add that we do have a reason for finding the rationalization just as bogus as you do. The basic idea is that God has a good reason for putting us in this world rather than sending us straight to heaven. Often, though not always, the reason is to enable us to do good for ourselves and other people even when it might be much easier to do evil–which you can no longer do if you’re in heaven, where there are no incentives to do evil. And mere human beings, who are neither all-wise nor all-good, sure aren’t entitled to substitute their judgment for God’s judgment about whether other human beings should be alive in this world or not.
Herb Geraghty: That said, at Secular Pro-Life, we’re not prescriptive about why people should defend human life. Teresa’s story is just one example, but others in our organization come from more academic philosophical backgrounds. They might approach the issue through frameworks like categorical imperatives or other forms of secular moral philosophy – all of which lead to the same conclusion: it’s wrong to intentionally kill an innocent human being. In general, we don’t find it necessary to convince people that killing is wrong. Most Americans, whether they’re Christian, Jewish, Muslim, atheist, or anything else, already oppose the unjust killing of non-aggressors. The challenge is showing them that the pro-life position fits within the moral principles they already hold.
Editor: I’m sure that’s right. That, I believe, is why some pro-abortion zealots came up with the nightmare fantasy of the unborn “aggressor brat”–i.e., the idea that an unwanted unborn child, unbeknownst to the child, is a sort of unjust aggressor comparable to an attempted murderer. It doesn’t matter to the zealots that the unborn child totally lacks the culpability to commit any crime!
Herb Geraghty: So, if a Christian is speaking to another Christian, we’d never tell them to avoid religious language. If both people believe in the Imago Dei, of course, that could be a persuasive argument. But we also believe everyone should be able to make a purely secular case for life because not everyone shares that belief. And because even many Christians say things like, “I’m personally pro-life, but I wouldn’t impose my religion on others.” For those conversations, secular arguments are essential. I think they’re often the most persuasive and, for some audiences, the only kind that will resonate. They also align with our country’s traditional commitment to the separation of church and state. If abortion were wrong only because a particular religion said so, that’s not a strong argument for criminalization. Things like lying or premarital sex can be considered sinful in many faiths but they typically aren’t made illegal in the United States. But abortion is different. It ends the life of a human being. No one argues that banning the killing of born people is “forcing religion” on others, because it’s a matter of protecting human life, not enforcing theology. The same principle applies before birth. That’s why we insist on a strong secular foundation for our arguments. Not just because it’s persuasive to a broader audience, but because in a pluralistic society, our laws should exist to protect people from harm. And liberal abortion laws fail to protect both unborn children and their mothers.
Editor: Individual pro-life atheists have been around for a long time, some of them pretty well known; I’m thinking of people like Kurt Vonnegut, Nat Hentoff, and (for a while) Bernard Nathanson, after he became pro-life but before he became a Christian. But who first came up with the idea that there could actually be an organization defying the stereotypes of pro-life people as almost all Christians, and unbelievers as almost all anti-life–and what did they proceed to do about it?
Herb Geraghty: Yes, there have absolutely been pro-life atheists throughout history, and many have been active in anti-abortion efforts. But as far as I know, the first organization founded specifically to give a home to non-religious pro-lifers was Secular Pro-Life, started in 2009 by Kelsey Hazzard, who still serves as our president today. In the beginning, Secular Pro-Life was mostly an online community, a space for pro-life atheists and agnostics who wanted to connect with others like them. At that time, we focused on building community and visibility, inviting secular pro-lifers to join us at the March for Life, putting out online content, and showing up for both pro-life and pro-choice audiences to speak about abortion. We were completely volunteer-run for more than a decade, led by Kelsey along with Monica Snyder and Terrisa Bukovinac, and supported by countless volunteers over the years. Then, in 2021, Monica decided to take a huge step forward. She became our first full-time staff member, support raising so she could dedicate herself fully to the work. I think that’s what moved us beyond “a really good Facebook page” into the professional, active movement we are growing into today. Every day we meet people who tell us they’re pro-life but feel alienated from the broader movement, maybe because they’re atheist or agnostic, politically progressive, LGBTQ, or just uncomfortable in spaces where certain religious beliefs are assumed. When they find us, they realize they’re not alone, and that they do have a place in the movement. So while part of our work is engaging pro-choice people and making strong secular arguments against abortion, another huge part is simply creating space for non-traditional pro-lifers to connect and take action together.
Editor: What about you? Your introduction article says you’re a pro-life atheist. Correct me if I’m wrong, but I’m guessing you first became an atheist and later became pro-life. If so, how did that come about, and what did you do about it? If not, what did happen?
Herb Geraghty: I don’t have a dramatic conversion story from being pro-choice to pro-life. From when I first started forming political opinions, I tended to lean liberal on most issues. As a teenager, I identified as a feminist, I opposed the death penalty and war, and I believed strongly in nonviolence. So at first, being pro-choice seemed to fit right in with those values since it was presented as the pro-woman, progressive position, and I accepted that. But when I learned what actually happens in an abortion, I realized those beliefs didn’t align the way I thought they did. My convictions about equality, non-discrimination, and nonviolence couldn’t be reconciled with the reality of abortion. When abortion was described to me only in euphemisms like “choice” or “healthcare,” of course I supported it, I believe in women’s autonomy and access to medical care. But those terms obscure what’s really happening. Abortion isn’t simply a procedure that makes someone not pregnant; it’s an act that ends the life of a child through extreme violence. I also believed that our ethics and our laws should be grounded in science. And the scientific community is in consensus: every human’s life begins at conception. Once I understood that, it no longer made sense to say that the right to life should begin at some later, arbitrary stage of development. If every human being has a right to live free from violence, then that right should begin when our lives do.
Editor: Many people, I think, would find it surprising that people who don’t believe in a supremely good and wise Creator of human life can nevertheless hold basically the same belief about the value and dignity of human life as those who do believe in the Creator. Do you agree that many people would probably find it surprising? If so, why? And why do you not find it surprising?
Herb Geraghty: People are often surprised when they meet a pro-life atheist but honestly, they shouldn’t be. According to national polling, there are literally millions of us. Secular Pro-Life has compiled some of that data, and even the most conservative estimates suggest well over 12 million non-religious Americans believe abortion should be illegal in all or most cases. So still a minority, but not at all insignificant. But more importantly, there’s nothing contradictory about it. About a third of this country either describes themselves as an atheist or says they don’t belong to any religion in particular. Almost none of those people support legalizing murder in most cases. In fact, secular people are often on the front lines of movements for human and civil rights. When I participated in local Black Lives Matter rallies in Pittsburgh after an unjust police killing, no one ever asked me, “If you don’t believe in a supremely good and wise Creator of human life, why do you think it’s bad when an unarmed black teenager is gunned down?” Nobody has ever questioned me at an anti-war protest about why I think human lives overseas have value. In general, people understand that moral convictions don’t necessarily require belief in a God. For some reason, that goes out the window when the topic is abortion. As a secular person, I find the double standard frustrating. Whether it comes from pro-choice atheists or from pro-life Christians, it’s offensive to suggest that only one religion or metaphysical framework has a monopoly on opposition to literal child killing. People like me can and do oppose violence, discrimination, and injustice across many issues. Abortion is violence, discrimination, and injustice, so it makes perfect sense for everyone to oppose it regardless of whatever else they do or don’t believe. Morality can and does exist outside of religion and the belief that human beings deserve protection from violence doesn’t belong to any one faith or worldview.
Editor: In view of the focus on arguments that all people of good will can accept, without regard to religion or irreligion, I’m thinking pretty much everything in Secular Pro-Life would remain the same even if (improbably) all the leaders and members were to become Christians–except that people would have to insert “former” in front of “atheist” in their descriptions of themselves. Do you think that’s true? Why or why not?
Herb Geraghty: I think you’re probably right, at least when it comes to our shared belief in the right to life. But I would add that many people who align with Secular Pro-Life also fit into the mold of skeptics, and I think that’s one of the qualities that sets our leadership apart. I don’t necessarily think that atheists are the only people with an inclination toward questioning and evidence, but I do think that for many of us, it can be a part of our identity. Of course, we’re skeptical of supernatural and faith-based claims but that same habit of skepticism can also shape how we approach the abortion debate and how we engage with the world in general. And I think that serves us well. When we hear sweeping claims, whether from the media, politicians, or even within the movement itself, many of us are naturally inclined to dig deeper, and to ask, “is that actually true?” That skepticism helps us get closer to the truth, which should matter to everyone, regardless of belief. So whatever changes any of us might experience in our worldviews over time, I would hope that the unique way of looking at the world that is often found in the secular community remains in some form within our movement.
Editor: Actually, so do I. Not only did I use to be a Bertrand Russell-like agnostic once upon a time, but now I follow St. Thomas Aquinas, who always started out his articles with the best arguments he could find against what he was going to say. Faith, he says, goes beyond what we can agree on by reason alone, but it never contradicts or destroys what we can know by reason–and to make sure we know it, we have to dig deep and ask, “is that actually true? What about these great reasons for thinking it’s false?”
Thanks for a great interview, Herb! I presume you’ll have no objection to my ending up the interview with this comment: “You may not believe prayer has any effect, but I do–and I’ll pray for the continued success of Secular Pro-Life as an important part of the pro-life movement.”
Herb Geraghty: No objection! Thanks 🙂
Life, Liberty, Happiness, and Hoosiers
An interview with Curt Smith, Chairman of the Board, Indiana Family Institute
Editor: The great division among Americans today, I think, is not exactly between “left” and “right,” Republicans and Democrats, or Christians and non-Christians. It’s between people who are faithful to America’s great traditions, above all the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and those who are not. The Indiana Family Institute (IFI) seems to me to be for all Hoosiers who are faithful to these great traditions. Do you agree? If so, how do you, or would you, reach out to pro-life, pro-family people who don’t see themselves as right-wingers, Republicans, or Christians?
Curt Smith: At IFI, we think about this topic in terms of worldview. Do you have a theistic (God-centered) worldview, or a humanistic (man-centered) worldview? A theistic worldview embraces the American founding (our rights come from God, not the government) and the great traditions referenced. That worldview is shaped by family (or the lack thereof), church, and education. We advocate for strong natural families embraced and supported by government and culture. We advocate and train churches to preach the whole counsel of God (all of the Bible), and we support school choice, home schooling and other options so parents can select the best educational setting for their children. When family, church and school align, the worldview IFI supports emerges almost always. That said, we strive to work with all allies on the various issues, and recognize we must be adept at building coalitions from disparate groups to pass legislation in a state of 7 million-plus citizens.
Editor: IFI’s 5 Freedoms Project, devoted to education about First Amendment rights and protection of those rights, seems to be the kind of thing that all Americans should support, even if they disagree with one another about many other things. Isn’t it obvious that, if you can induce the government to shut people up when they disagree with you, they might equally well get the government to shut you up when you don’t agree with them–so the government really should not be in the business of shutting people up for peacefully, non-coercively expressing their views of any kind? And yet many people today seem to find this far from obvious. Do you have any idea why–and what, in brief, IFI can do about it?
Curt Smith: The amount of anger and even rage today is over the top. Perhaps at no time since the Civil War era has our national and state conversation been so coarse and contentious. Cancel culture is rampant. At IFI, we seek to counter this by speaking Biblical truth in as winsome a way as possible. Sometimes simply declaring there is Biblical truth is taken as being divisive. But we persist nevertheless through two primary methods. First, we provide legal guidance, counsel and even representation when important rights are being eroded in Indiana. This work has gone all the way up to review (but not a decision) by the US Supreme Court. Second, we take the experience of Hoosiers to heart as we propose legislation and advocate for families, faith and freedom in the Indiana Legislature. We also share those experiences with our counterparts in 38 other states in a network of shared commitments known as the Family Policy Alliance.
Editor: The First Amendment generally applies only to governments, not to private corporations or other private actors who may seek to restrict the right to liberty. People may lose their jobs or suffer other ill effects because they disagree with higher-ups in large corporations that control their livelihoods. Can IFI do anything to help such people? If so, what?
Curt Smith: We are asked frequently to assist people with “cancel culture” issues outside of government, including employment matters. As we assist Hoosiers, we have provided public relations counsel, served as informal mediators, offered spiritual encouragement and more. We also can sometimes connect people with someone who is or has experienced similar problems, providing a connection that can be a sources of wisdom and comfort. On occasion, there are legal avenues even though all parties are non-government entities.
Editor: The national Democratic Party’s anti-life positions are well known, but the national Republican Party also seems to lack concern about some important pro-life issues, especially the rapid increase in chemical abortions. What can we do about this on the state level? And what would you say pro-life Hoosiers should do when neither major party supports them on this issue?
Curt Smith: This question underscores a big challenge for the pro-life movement — chemical abortifacients sent through the the US Postal Service or other national shipping services. As cold and crass as it sounds, and it is cold and crass, the federal courts have ruled these pills are a form of interstate commerce protected by the US Constitution. Legislative efforts are underway in Congress to change this, but the outlook is not good for pro-lifers and babies in the womb in the near-term.
Editor: Another issue that many pro-life people are concerned about is in vitro fertilization (IVF), which the national Republican Party seems to be actively pushing. Would you say this is an important pro-life issue? If so, why, and what would you say we should do (or try to do) about it?
Curt Smith: It is an important pro-life issue, but not one that IFI has done much work on yet in Indiana. We celebrate life and the technologies that help couples conceive and have children. But the troubling aspect of IVF is that, typically, many eggs are taken from the woman and fertilized with the man’s sperm in the laboratory. Then maybe one or perhaps two of the fertilized eggs are implanted in the women’s womb and hopefully bring forth a full-term child. But what happens to the remaining fertilized eggs, which many pro-lifers believe are a life created in the image and likeness of God? They are either discarded or frozen. These frozen eggs — called “snowflakes” — are rarely thawed and implanted. Today, some estimates say there are more than 1.5 million frozen eggs in limbo just in the United States. Efforts to encourage snowflakes to be implanted are one course we can pursue.
Editor: The issue of biological males cheating in girls’ and women’s sports by passing themselves off as females has received a lot of attention in the news and in legislation. What about the larger issue of confused young people being exploited by zealots and profiteers pushing a “transgender agenda”? Would you say this is something that all pro-life, pro-family people should be concerned about? If so, why, and what should we do about it?
Curt Smith: This is indeed a critical issue that IFI has led on with significant success. The literal explosion of gender dysphoria was blunted by courageous legislation in Indiana [Indiana Senate Bill 480 enacted in 2023] authored by Dr. Tyler Johnson, an emergency room physician. It bans puberty blockers and surgeries for minors (less than age 18) by the medical community. The phenomenon of sudden, rapid escalation of gender dysphoria and its related issues (bathroom assignment, sports teams, birth certificates, driver’s licenses and more) is best explained by social contagion theory — the rapid spread or ideas and beliefs as a physical illness is transmitted. Dr. Johnson’s legislation removes the prospect of profiteering with minors. We have also scored significant legislative victories protecting women’s sports.
Editor: We’ve seen the effects of the American people’s purchasing power in inducing some large corporations to abandon so-called “woke” agendas and return to being mere businesses without ideological axes to grind. It seems to me that, with enough education and co-operative effort, much more could be done with purchasing power to promote the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, both in America and throughout the world. Has IFI done anything to promote the use of purchasing power for good purposes? Do you have any ideas about what more could be done in this way?
Curt Smith: We have undertaken only minor efforts in this area, but we are aware of others* working very strategically to identify the huge swath of “values buyers” and develop marketing approaches that succeed with these consumers. The marketplace recognizes this demographic and is responding appropriately.
* Editor’s note: Mr. Smith wasn’t sure whether these “others” would wish to be publicly identified right now, but I’ll let readers know in a future issue if they do. Maybe they’d even like to be interviewed!
Editor: The prospects were bleak for the abolitionist movement in the 1830s and 1840s–and yet slavery was legally abolished within a few decades, and today no one proposes the reinstitution of slavery except in malicious hoaxes. Do you think we dare hope for a similarly complete victory–I mean, an earthly victory–of the pro-life movement in the widest sense, including pro-family and more? If so, what are some signs that give you hope?
Curt Smith: We remain optimistic about a total earthly victory, or we could not do what we do. The Dobbs case was a huge step forward, though not a complete win. That full and final victory will require changing the hearts and minds of Americans so that abortion, harming a child, infringing on religious rights and eroding parental authority is once again unthinkable. We work toward that day, realizing such a victory requires Providential intervention. And so we pray and work for that victory.
Can There Be a “Unified Pro-Life Liberty Movement”?
An interview with Albert Veldhuyzen, Secretary, Pro-Life Libertarian Caucus
Editor: One of my big ideas for Solid for America Magazine is to explore the possibility of a unified pro-life political movement in the United States. If this really happens, it will be like the reorientation that happened between about 1830 and 1860, when “anti-slavery versus pro-slavery” supplanted “Whigs versus Democrats” as the great divide in American politics. The extreme anti-life positions of today’s Democrats are well known, but today’s Republicans also seem to me to be veering away from a totally pro-life, pro-liberty position. Do you see any prospect of a unified pro-life political movement? If so, what do you think today’s pro-life Libertarians could contribute to such a movement?
Albert Veldhuyzen: In order to make pro-life versus anti-life the great divide, there would need to be a convergence of factors: a political party and candidate willing to make this a salient issue, a cultural change that values human life, and politicians at intermediate levels who are willing to run on it. I agree strongly that a unified pro-life liberty movement is a must to restore America to greatness. The Democrats and associated socialists are anti-liberty and anti-life, and they wish to steal our taxpayer dollars to finance the murder of unborn children. The Republicans generally talk a good game but don’t follow through and are increasingly accepting of the Leviathan State as long as it can be used for their own special interests. Also, the GOP can no longer be considered a pro-life party given that, in 2024, it dropped its long-standing pro-life plank from its platform. While the Democrats are racing towards the cliff of societal collapse, the Republicans are moving us there in the same direction, but at the speed limit. We need a third political party and politicians such as Rand Paul and Thomas Massie who will stand uncompromisingly for the principles of private property, liberty, and life.
Editor: Let’s see what steps we might be able to take toward a “unified pro-life liberty movement.” Me, I belong to the American Solidarity Party, America’s totally pro-life party for the whole of human life. This party favors life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness within the context of human solidarity, which can be defined as “strong and enduring co-operation for mutual help and help for the helpless, in accordance with the common good.” The party also has a strong emphasis on widespread ownership of private property and on “subsidiarity,” meaning basically limited government (especially at the higher levels of government) and the primacy of natural and voluntary social groups whenever government isn’t really needed to step in. This seems to me a lot like Lincoln’s idea that the purpose of government is to do for the people whatever they can’t do at all, or do so well, on their own. How would pro-life Libertarians agree or disagree with the American Solidarity Party’s ideas?
Albert Veldhuyzen: We would generally agree with your concepts explained above, with some caveats. Libertarians favor drastic smaller government but we are divided between Classical Liberals, Minarchists, and Anarcho-Capitalists. The latter would deny any legitimate role for the State, whereas Minarchists do believe in a very minimal State for the purpose of national defense, police, and the courts. Classical Liberals would allow for a bit more expansive State. I think the Classical Liberals would be more in line with your idea that the purpose of government is to do for the people what they can’t do on their own. The danger of this line of thinking, though, is that it can be expanded to such an extent to justify our current expansive Welfare State because “what they can’t do on their own” can be an elastic concept. Also, Lincoln would not normally appear as a libertarian hero given his statist policies of imposing an income tax, abrogating habeas corpus, and generally presiding over the biggest expansion of government power in the 19th Century.
Editor: Well, of course any line of thinking has dangers if you carry it too far–or not far enough! And probably not everyone, even in a unified pro-life liberty movement, would agree on how far is too far or not far enough. About how much compromise, on what issues, do you think pro-life Libertarians in general would be willing to tolerate for the sake of getting the big job done–that is, the job of making “pro-life versus anti-life” the great divide in American politics, and of seeking decisive pro-life victories?
Albert Veldhuyzen: I don’t believe there is a need for any particular compromise if we agree on particular issues and are willing to pursue them as part of a coalition. Pro-life libertarians can work with others, even statist pro-life Democrats (of which there are few today), on the life issue. I very much believe in issue coalitions where we work with others who agree on a particular issue–whether that be life, the First Amendment, the Second Amendment, etc. However, if you are talking about getting libertarians to support a particular candidate who is pro-life but not liberty-oriented in other policy areas, this will necessarily involve a balancing of interests and each person will have different priorities. For example, the reason why the LP candidate in 2024 did so poorly is that Trump adeptly courted the libertarian vote by showing up at the Libertarian Convention, promising to free Ross Ulbricht,* to abolish the Department of Education, to start no new wars, and other promises that appealed to libertarians.
* Editor’s note: For anyone who may not know, Ross Ulbricht was the founder and operator of the online marketplace Silk Road, for which he was convicted of numerous federal crimes and received an extremely severe sentence. He was pardoned by President Trump in January 2025.
Editor: It appears that the President, despite his faults, was also more nearly pro-life than the 2024 Libertarian nominee, Chase Oliver. From your article about the 2024 National Libertarian Convention, it appears that the Libertarian Party has been deeply divided over the pro-life issue. Is there really a future for pro-life Libertarians?
Albert Veldhuyzen: Prior to 2022, every single national convention was consumed by the abortion issue. By spearheading the effort to remove the Abortion Plank from the Platform and succeeding, the Pro-Life Libertarian Caucus managed to take that issue off the table for future Conventions. It wasn’t an issue in 2024 and most likely won’t be mentioned at the 2026 Convention. I believe that most Libertarians now believe that it is best for the Party not to resurrect this issue, but rather agree to disagree and unify on our central focus which is to reduce the power and funding for the State. Now that the Dobbs Supreme Court decision has relegated the Abortion issue to the State level, many in the PLLC feel that our battle must be a grassroots bottom-level effort to get State Libertarian Parties to adopt pro-life planks to their State Platforms. When enough have done so, we may revisit this issue and attempt a pro-life Plank to the National Platform. However, at this point in time, a pro-life Plank would probably not be successfully adopted at a National Convention as it lacks organic support at the State level. However, the positive of the current situation is that pro-life libertarians are no longer “second-class citizens” within the LP, and most successful LP candidates are in fact pro-life. In the Pennsylvania Senate race in 2024, John Thomas, the LP candidate, was unabashedly pro-life while both his Republican and Democratic opponents were unashamedly “pro-choice.” While it is correct that the presidential candidate was pro-abortion, his nomination was a fluke as I explained in my article for Libertarians for Life. All the other choices, except one, for the nomination in 2024 were pro-life, which, in itself, is quite remarkable, and demonstrates the change of the culture within the LP. Oliver ended up with the worst showing ever for a Libertarian, garnering less votes than the Green Party candidate and even RFK Jr. who had dropped out by that point. It was an utter embarrassment, so I believe it is rather unlikely that the LP will nominate a “left-libertarian” of the same caliber in the future. The LP should be focusing on lower level races as well as uncontested races. It should also strategically target Republicans who don’t stand for liberty. It should consciously avoid races against liberty Republicans such as Thomas Massie and Rand Paul. In fact, currently, Trump is trying to drum both of them out of the Republican Party, and if need be, it would be a great if the LP actively worked in tandem with them and offer them the possibility of joining the LP as necessary.
Editor: I’ve been accustomed to think of the Libertarian philosophy as one of extreme individualism, with accordingly deficient concern for the common good–but I’m thinking that, at least for pro-life Libertarians, this might not be true. How do pro-life Libertarians see the need to work together for the common good?
Albert Veldhuyzen: The ”common good” is a misnomer because one person’s “common good” is another person’s “common nuisance.” A better way to gauge the general well-being of a society is to determine how free citizens are to pursue their interests, commerce, and other activities without being molested and coerced by the State. Since individuals make up society, the least amount of coercion brought to bear on each individual is what to best for all individuals in society. However, liberty comes with responsibility not to harm others, which is why libertarians are committed to the non-aggression principle. Neither individuals nor governments have the right to unjustly violate the persons and property of other peaceful human beings who have not initiated aggression. This clearly applies to the pre-born human who has the inherent right to life. This has nothing to do with “common good” but rather the individual right of the pre-born. We strongly believe in “My body, my choice” for everyone in all contexts, including the unborn. When we think of common good, we often think of matters involving the Tragedy of the Commons, such as public property and waterways. Ideally, most property in a libertarian society would be private and individuals violating the private property of others are liable in law. However, to the extent that property is public, individuals and businesses should not be allowed to harm others using public property. For example, industries that pollute the air and waterways and harm individuals and private property need to be held accountable. But in this instance and all instances, the courts and governments must vindicate the interests of those harmed by others, rather than a nebulous “common good.”
Editor: Any expression can have multiple meanings, and it’s necessary to clarify what you mean. Here’s how I would clarify the meaning of “the common good”: a common good, of any kind, is one that can be shared without diminishing it by sharing. A simple example: teamwork to achieve a shared aim, like victory for a sports team. The right to life and the “non-aggression principle” are common goods; you don’t diminish them, indeed you increase them, by sharing them with others through recognizing that others are entitled to them just as you are. The common good of human society as a whole, in the simplest terms, is “everything needed for society to protect and promote the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” For example, honest, unbiased, and effective enforcement of necessary laws is part of the common good of society. Seen in this light, the unborn person’s right to life has everything to do with “common good.” Unborn babies can’t choose for themselves; they can’t exercise the right to life by protecting their own lives; other people have to do it for them, if it’s to be done at all. This necessarily involves the recognition that the right to life is a common good, shared by those who can’t protect their own lives and those who can do it for them. I don’t think this concept of the common good is “nebulous” at all. How about you?
Albert Veldhuyzen: In today’s society, “common good” is often defined to reduce the inherent individual right to life, liberty, and property. For example, “liberals” can make the argument that the “common good” requires mandatory public education whereby resources (taxes) are coercively extracted from the populace to benefit the segment of society that have children. A libertarian approach would get government totally out of education, abolish taxes for that purpose, and allow the parents to contract with whatever private school they want. If a common good requires coercive taxation, libertarians would generally oppose it–and this is where you have a range of opinions between anarcho-capitalists, minarchists, and classical liberals. If you define “common good” to exclude “positive rights” such as the “right” to education, to welfare, to medical care . . . etc . . . then, I think we can be on a solid common ground. You note the enforcement of “necessary” laws–the problem is that “necessary” can be in the eye of the beholder and therefore requires rigorous definition.
Editor: Yes, just as “common good” requires rigorous definition. I think I’ll try to write an article about that! Meanwhile, it seems to me at this point that pro-life Libertarians and “Solids” (American Solidarity members and sympathizers) can agree about many things, but not everything–as I was expecting! In particular, I think Solids would generally say that the common good requires somewhat more government involvement–in controlling and assisting with the costs of medical care, for example, though perhaps not in education!–in order to protect the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness for those who aren’t well enough equipped to protect those rights for themselves. But issues like that one can be revisited down the road. Right now, I’m sure you’ll agree, we need to focus on what we agree on, not what we don’t agree on. Please, let’s keep in touch; I’m pretty sure there will be occasions for more discussion!
Albert Veldhuyzen: Thanks, David, for reaching out! I will add you to our newsletter email list.
“Racist, Bigot, Anti-Gay”–What Does That Have to Do with Abortion?
An Interview with Jason Dean, President, Rainbow Pro-Life Alliance
Editor: I’m always interested to meet people who don’t conform to stereotypes, like the stereotype of pro-life people who are conservative Christians, predictably Republicans, and lump all L’s, G’s, B’s, and so on into one great enemy known as “the Left”–and the mirror-image stereotype of an “LGBTQ++++++” monolith whose members are predictably Democrats, march in lockstep to the pro-abortion beat, and lump all pro-life people into their great enemy, called “the far right” or similar names. I see that your founder, Tom Sena, started what was then known as “Gays Against Abortion” back in 1990. Can you tell me how he first got the idea of breaking out of the stereotypes to become pro-life?
Jason Dean: Tom Sena was before my time; I don’t have details of what inspired him. Joe Beard was a co-founder who I did have the pleasure to meet. Joe spent thousands of hours growing the group. He spearheaded a name change from “Gays Against Abortion” to “Pro-Life Alliance of Gays and Lesbians, PLAGAL”. Joe passed in 2002. Joe gave me a book by Ayn Rand and as far as I could tell, Joe had libertarian leanings. The next President, Cecilia Brown was dramatically different as a Green Party Buddhist. Then there’s me, I am Populist and Christian. We’ve had quite an eclectic bunch through the years. All that said, as a group we’re non-sectarian with no particular party leanings.
Editor: What about you? How did you get that same idea, and what have you done about it?
Jason Dean: I began my activism in the pro-life movement in 1989 when a high school classmate invited me to a Saturday morning protest at the clinic of our local late-term abortionist, George Tiller. I learned that women from all 50 states and 6 foreign countries were coming here to Kansas to kill their babies up to the 38th week of pregnancy. It was pretty slim pickens to find a “doctor” to do “it” that late. Unless you wanted to deal with Gosnell’s clinic with cats running around, souvenir dead babies in jars and a separate, dirtier room for the ladies of color; there were only a handful of all-term “clean clinics”. Tiller had an incinerator and I remember a time it was running in the winter and it was snow and ashes coming down.
Tiller was assassinated in 2009 by an anti-abortion pro-choicer. Yes, you read that right. Kinda like Ligers and Tigons, they’re pretty rare breeds. They mix and match value systems. It is seen as hypocritical when a supposed pro-lifer kills an abortionist, and rightly so. Authentic pro-lifers see value even in the lives of the abortion workers. With the conversion of over 700 abortion staff, pro-lifers have witnessed the power of their testimony in changing hearts and minds.
I protested numerous times through the years with the local pro-life groups before I became involved with PLAGAL (now The Rainbow Pro-Life Alliance). I remember a protest at the clinic in the early 90s where the pro-aborts had bused in about 300 people from 300 miles away. They were chanting “Racist, Bigot, Anti-Gay, Born Again Christian Go Away”.
That really started gnawing at me that day. I thought to myself, they’re at the wrong protest. What does any of that have to do with abortion? At least ‘Keep Your Rosaries Off My Ovaries’ and ‘Every Ejaculation Doesn’t Deserve a Name’ were sorta on topic (technically we weren’t really worried about ovaries or ejaculation either, but at least they had some elements of reproduction in sight).
Editor: Butting in for a moment–I’m always nterested to see what slogans really mean when you strip off the catchy language. Both “Born Again Christian Go Away” and “Keep Your Rosaries Off My Ovaries” mean that opposition to abortion is nothing but a religious prejudice, which should be opposed by appeals to anti-religious prejudice. “Every Ejaculation Doesn’t Deserve a Name” means that actual unborn human life is no different from merely potential human life. But, as you were saying . . .
Jason Dean: Racist? Between Maggie Sanger speaking to the KKK and all the hard data showing a disproportionate amount of black and brown babies being destroyed, any real racist would surely know what side to choose. Bigot? Sure, I suppose, once I learned that ‘Bigot’ meant anyone on ‘the other side’. At least ‘Anti-Gay’ probably did fit for many on ‘our side’. And yet there was I. Only out to a few close friends, a small voice indeed but I wanted to yell: “Excuse me! I’m gay!” I was not loud and proud, and being gay wasn’t all I was, but in that moment I felt personally attacked and insulted that they were using the gay issue to distract from the holocaust at hand.
Editor: On your “About Us” page you say, “We have surprised, confounded, confronted, and enraged both pro-lifers and pro-choicers.” Can you tell me about some especially striking incidents where you’ve done these things?
Jason Dean: I marched with PLAGAL in 2000. As we started to enter the march we were told by park police that the organizers had said that we could not march. The President of the March for Life event was Nellie Gray. She was no stranger to us and was certainly anti-gay. If you looked closely you could see that there were other ‘non-traditional’ pro-lifers who were allowed to march, Vegans for Life, Atheists for Life, Socialist, Buddhists…but not us. Nonetheless several pro-lifers who were passing by said to us “We’re glad you’re here”. Finally we were allowed to march but could not display our banner. Did pro-life marchers have to agree on all the pressing moral issues of the time? No, but someone wanted to pick a fight with us and once again distract from why we were there.
I tabled at our local Pride event and had several interesting responses. A young person said “I’m pro-choice but I want to hear why you’re pro-life” I was floored by the maturity and poise of someone that was maybe 16. A couple older folks had snide remarks like “What’s 2 young gay males telling women how to control their bodies?” They didn’t really know me and they just assumed my gender, they should have known better. (This was right before they “discovered” that males can get pregnant so we won’t have to hear that again 😊.) One of the trans organizers of Pride (who also worked at the abortion clinic) sent out a expletive-laced Facebook rant demanding information about who let us in. But some LGBT+ folks defended our presence; after all, wasn’t this an inclusive event?
Editor: Do you have any idea why it’s supposed to be surprising (and possibly enraging) that anyone would identify himself or herself as gay, lesbian, etc., and also be pro-life?
Jason Dean: It’s a cover-up. Planned Parenthood uses the LGBTQIA+ community to sexy themselves up to distract from their discriminatory business that violently eliminates humans based on race, sex, ability, location. They kill babies after genetic tests show the baby is intersexed. In 2005 Consumer Reports discovered Planned Parenthood had some of the flimsiest condoms in the industry, certainly putting many gay men’s lives in more jeopardy and we’re supposed to swoon?
Editor: I don’t think the expression “pro-lifers” will go out of date any time soon–but what about “pro-choicers”? Isn’t that expression becoming a bit antiquated in view of the abortion industry’s efforts to suppress pro-life pregnancy help centers and other endeavors that are both pro-life and pro-choice–I mean, that encourage women to choose life for their babies?
Jason Dean: Once you see states like New York eliminate laws protecting the lives of wanted preborn babies, who are killed by deadbeat dads that don’t want to pay child support, you realize the ‘choice’ has already been made. When you want a dead baby you can choose that, but if you want legal protections for your unborn child you’re on your own. That’s not choice, that’s pro-abortion.
Editor: Me, I would probably be counted as a pro-life conservative Christian, although I don’t call anti-life zealots and profiteers “the Left,” and I don’t believe in the anti-life “LGBT++++++” monolith any more than you do. How do you relate to people like me who probably don’t agree with you about a lot of things, but do agree about being pro-life?
Jason Dean: What did Hillary say? Stronger Together! I can’t stand Hillary! but yeah I’ll use her slogan here.
Editor: One of my big interests is in trying to reorient American politics around a totally pro-life position for all human life, in opposition to positions that are anti-life in various ways. If this really happens, it will be like the reorientation that happened between about 1830 and 1860, when “anti-slavery versus pro-slavery” supplanted “Whigs versus Democrats” as the great divide in politics. I’m thinking you would be interested in a big, totally pro-life movement if one were to develop. Do you have any suggestions about how such a movement could be developed, whom it could include, and whom it would have to exclude?
Jason Dean: Well, there’s the LGBT+ organization called ‘The Human Rights Campaign’. I would name this pro-life reorientation you speak of as “Another Human Rights Campaign”. Some LGBT+ folks will want to claw your eyes out and maybe some right-wingers will wonder if ‘you’re goin’ queer’ or something lol. But yeah that’s what I see you’re talking about… there’s been other human rights campaign and this is another, the most important in our lifetime…intriguing!
Editor: Yes, it would definitely have to be another human rights campaign, distinct from the organization that presumes to call itself “The” Human Rights Campaign (HRC). That organization appears to be definitely pro-abortion, to judge from articles like “Summer of Outrage: Protect Abortion Rights” and “Supreme Court Finds Anti-Abortion Group Does Not Have Appropriate Standing to Bring Forward Challenge Against Mifepristone, Shutting Down Attempt to Further Restrict Abortion Access“. In the latter article, I note that HRC’s president followed the lead of the Southern Poverty Leadership Conference in branding opponents of their preferred agenda as “hate groups” merely for disagreeing with them. That will never do. What we need, I would say, is a movement bringing together people who agree on at least the core pro-life issues, while they don’t speak ill of other pro-life people, even those who may strongly disagree with them about other issues. Among Republicans today, Ronald Reagan’s “eleventh commandment”–“Never speak ill of a fellow Republican”–seems to have totally gone down the drain. But pro-life people can and should resurrect that commandment in a new form: “Never speak ill of a fellow pro-lifer.” How does that sound to you?
Jason Dean: Today, I believe pro-lifers are mostly okay with non-traditional pro-lifers like us. . . . I think you have a rather large percentage of the LGBT+ community that are pro-abortion by default. . . . The LGBT+ Community rightly perceive conservatives as being anti-LGBT+ so they think ‘I’m going to be the opposite of everything they stand for’. And we’re saying, ‘No, denying basic human rights in utero or ex utero is wrong regardless who’s saying so’.
Editor: Yes, on both sides of our present polarized political environment, it seems that far too many people are thinking “I’m going to be the opposite of everything they [supposedly the supremely evil enemies of all good] stand for.” And the solution is exactly what you’re suggesting: to recognize right and wrong for what they are, regardless of who does or doesn’t say so. You may think some group is wrong about all issues but one; that shouldn’t keep you from agreeing that they’re right about that one issue. Let’s hope many more people on both sides come to see that!
Solid For America