Libertarians believe in the Bill Of Rights — all ten of those Constitutional Amendments. An event in Minnesota calls to mind what the Libertarian Party of Georgia platform says of religious freedom: “In order to defend freedom, we oppose government actions that either aid or attack any religion…Government harassment or obstruction of religious groups for their beliefs or non-violent activities must end.”
Minnesota police have issued a felony warrant for a Minnesota woman who has fled with her cancer-stricken son to avoid court-ordered medical treatment. Sixteen year old Daniel Hauser and his parents are followers of The Nemenhah Band, an American Indian religious order. As with Christian Scientists, the Nemenhah are opposed to invasive traditional medicine and put their faith in natural remedies.
The state of Minnesota and the mainstream press are beating their breast about “the good of the child.” But Libertarians believe this incident has nothing to do with child welfare, or even with medicine; we believe it is about control.
Libertarians see two fundamental issues at work. One is the question: Who owns you?; the other is parental rights. If you are free, what the Advocates call a self-governor, you have the right to decline medical treatment; and if minor children are the responsibility of parents, it is your job to make decisions on their behalf (young Daniel happens to agree with his parents’ view). If you are the property of the state, however, the state can force you to undergo whatever medical procedure it thinks is in your best interest. If your children belong to the state, the bureaucracy uses DFACS to take your child away from you and then charges you with interfering with the state’s legal custody of your kid. Then the state gets aid from the FBI and Minnesota’s Orwellian Bureau Of Criminal Apprehension (BCA) to hunt you down.
Minnesota seems to believe you and your child are its property. The state has assumed legal custody of Daniel Hauser, and issued a felony warrant for his mother for getting in the way of what the state wants to do to him.
Libertarians believe it is up to Daniel and his parents to decide what treatment the boy will undergo. We believe the family can refuse treatment — certainly for religious reasons under the First Amendment, but also for any reason at all because they are free individuals.
We reject the idea that the state knows best. Remember when government and doctors thought homosexuality was mental illness? How many medical practices of even a few years ago are now believed to be ineffectual at best, if not downright harmful? The state is far from infallible and so there is no reason to prefer its judgement over that of the parents.
We also reject the idea that the state has a compelling interest that overrides the Hausers’ First Amendment religious freedom. The state uses the compelling interest argument whenever the Constitution gets in the way of whatever it wants to inflict on us. Libertarians, on the other hand, believe the Constitution is more important than the interests of the state.
Will Daniel Hauser die because he and his family refuse treatment? Quite possibly. It is our politically incorrect conclusion that it is none of the business of the state of Minnesota. As long as there is no question about intent — the Hausers are not using religious freedom as an excuse to murder their son — everyone concerned will live (or die) with the consequences of refusing treatment.
Libertarians believe Daniel Hauser and his parents deserve our sympathy for the terrible choice that cancer and their religious beliefs have thrust upon them. They deserve our support — not because we would make the same decision with our children, but because we know it takes courage to exercise individual liberty and take responsibility for the consequences.
