RMC Responds: What Roe Really Means and Why it Matters

 
This week marks the 41st anniversary of Roe v. Wade, unquestionably one of the most groundbreaking Supreme Court decisions in American history.  In honor of the 1973 decision, we want to take this opportunity to focus on what Roe really means for Americans and why choice matters so much. 

 As representatives from both sides of the abortion debate speak out about Roe and imposing new restrictions in reproductive health rights, you may be asking yourself this question: why should I care?  One Facebook commenter this week even said, “I can’t believe that this is still an issue, 40 years after Roe v Wade” highlighting how contested this right still is as battles for choice and personal liberty continue to rage across the country.
  Image

We, like millions of other Republicans, believe in the GOP core values safeguarding the constitutional protections of privacy and the separation of Church and State. Yet 41 years after the historic Roe ruling, we struggle with how personal freedom is too often disregarded in political gamesmanship as if it shouldn’t be part of the equation.

Very personal medical and family decisions have become regular headline-making fodder for those of all political stripes. Unfortunately, there are those on both sides more interested in exploiting views for political gain than in opening a meaningful dialogue about ways to protect personal freedom while ensuring women and families have information and access to ALL of their reproductive health choices. Battle lines are too quickly drawn in politics and everything seems black and white, for or against. But we know that in real life voters and families understand that each situation is different, that each family is different, and that all are trying to make the best and most responsible decisions for themselves.

Roe v. Wade is and has always been about protecting the rights and safety of Americans NOT about the promotion of abortion. And we believe that information, early intervention and access to the full range of services are the keys to limiting the rate of abortion in our country. Regardless of which label, pro- or anti-choice, we choose to carry, this is a goal we all share. The only way to reduce the rate of unintended pregnancy and abortion is to focus on education and prevention.  Studies have repeatedly shown that increasing access to reproductive healthcare improves women’s health, leads to healthier and safer pregnancies, improves women’s level of education and employment, and promotes stronger relationships. Focusing on preventive reproductive health policies rather than further constricting women’s access to legal family planning would benefit all.

 Roe v Wade is not a political issue; it is common sense.  The underlying principles embedded in Roe; limited government, individual liberty and preventative safeguards apply to economics as much as social policy. And, as we commemorate the truths behind the Roe v. Wade decision — protecting freedom, personal choice, strong families and real solutionsRMC calls on all elected leaders to stop playing politics with a critically important issue regarding personal freedom and autonomy– and start focusing on solutions instead.

Advertisements

8 Comments on “RMC Responds: What Roe Really Means and Why it Matters”

  1. Jueseppi B. says:

    Reblogged this on The ObamaCrat™.

  2. D.E. Cantor says:

    A conservative defense of why women should have the right to bodily autonomy and why abortion should be legal.

  3. D.E. Cantor says:

    Very interesting and well-written.

  4. D.E. Cantor says:

    Reblogged this on D.E. Cantor and commented:
    A conservative defense of why women should have the right to bodily autonomy and why abortion should be legal.

  5. Thank you for speaking out.

  6. I regret that I find such arguments to not withstand even modest scrutiny. Terminating a pregnancy via destruction of an unborn child does not constitute recourse to the right to individual liberty. Voluntarily participating in the procreative act constitutes the exercise of individual liberty, and pregnancy is the natural outcome of such exercise. It is inherent in the right to individual liberty to accept the consequences of one’s acts of free will.

    Using this logic, if I smoke 2 packs a day for twenty years and get lung cancer, it is my right to have a double lung transplant at taxpayers’ expense.

    • GOP Choice says:

      Unfortunately, none of the claims in your argument are as simple as you suggest. Everyone must decide for themselves answers to the morally fraught questions such as ‘when does life begin?’ And indeed these are difficult questions. But Americans have a constitutionally protected right to access all reproductive health services, including sex education, contraceptives and safe and legal abortion.

      However, there is no taxpayer funding for abortion services except under certain dire circumstances covered by Medicaid (this is decided on a state-by-state basis but includes rape, incest, life and sometimes health of the mother), in the same way that Medicaid would cover lung cancer treatment.

      We have covered the issue of taxpayer funding of abortion in depth in previous posts. You can read more about it here.

      And if your concern is the cost to taxpayers, we invite you to read about how much more expensive unintended pregnancies are for both the government and taxpayers, and how billions of dollars could be saved by advancing the same preventive family planning choices also protected by Roe.

      • Not being American, I must ask your forgiveness with my lack of knowledge regarding how abortion is funded in various US states.

        In terms of Roe, I posit the following rhetorical question: If the Supreme Court, of either the US of Canada or any other nation, had decided that the moon was made of green cheese, would that make it true?

        I am developing the thesis that ideological feminism is a subset of “The Culture of Narcissism” as per the late Christopher Lasch. Abortion as a social phenomenon is can thus only be correctly understood from the application of gender narcissism theory to the social level.

        It has nothing to do with rights, equality, or justice. Nor, by implication, does abortion on demand.

        I do not wish to offend or troll, so perhaps we can defer this discussion until I complete my works and publish.

        Kind regards.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s