I am pro life and anti federal government. As such, I see my role as supporting programs that encourage mothers choosing to have their babies in most circumstances. I am opposed to Roe vs. Wade for the same reason as Justice Scalia, it was an assault on states rights, however I do not think it should be repealed. As offensive as it is to the Constitution and my sensibilities, forty years of roots is costly to undo and we have bigger fish to fry. 

Personally, I feel there are circumstances where a ‘get out of jail free’ card would apply, but how do you legislate that? It would be lovely if the commerce clause could limit the practitioners and profit of abortionists, but sadly it just does not apply. Remove the profit, and find a board certified ob-gyn willing to perform one might go a long way to keeping them safe, legal and rare as opposed to safe legal and rampant.  

The Right gets millions and millions and millions and untold more from Pro Life groups dedicated to electing pro life candidates to Capital Hill to effect change. Yet there is none, nor do I believe these candidates want any. 

The Left gets the same millions and millions and millions and untold more from pro choice groups to elect pro choice candidates dedicated to keep the 40 year old Roe V Wade a law with infinitesimal to none chance of being repealed, from just that. Nor do many of these candidates want to effect a rock solid solution to ensure it never will. Why? Because both sides count on the money to run their election campaigns and the rhetoric to jinn up their bases, and every last one of them, on both sides just make me sick.  

Meanwhile women keep fighting with each other, teenagers get venereal diseases and pregnant and are subjecting themselves to substandard care to ward off their parents, or in some cases, because the state is “protecting” them from their parents.

Women of all ages are getting abortions because they feel they have no options, our government gives us anything we want to prevent or kill a baby, is there really nothing left for one on the way? 

To my fellow pro-lifers, who attend protests, would you put down the sign and offer instead to rock a baby to sleep so his 19-year-old mother could sleep before that final exam the next day if you knew where to go? 

What if, all this money went to programs? What if all that pro life money went to help a woman facing a difficult choice, I want my baby, but I want to go to college, what if we had that unlimited pool of money from which to offer assistance so she could do both? How many babies would be saved? 

What if all the pro-choice money went to birth control and education? How many sexually transmitted diseases could we prevent and treat? How many unplanned pregnancies could we stop?

In many states, one cannot take out the tonsils of a child under the age of 18 without parental consent and these same parents can deny pain medication for religious purposes for a child needing stitches. Yet, this same underage child can get an abortion behind the backs of these very same parents? 

Both sides can make an effective argument as to why and why not this is terrible or wonderful. But what if instead, all this candidate money went to a bipartisan program inserted in a mandatory health class already required in most high school curriculums with an outreach to parents on the merits of both sides? Could we not greatly reduce the amount of children having medical procedures performed upon them without parental consent, lest they be forced to carry and bear their own baby sibling? 

What if we kept throwing this money at the problems? Eventually our backsides would collide because lo and behold, we have met in the middle. And think of all the good that could come from that. 

 Originally published on JarkesyPolitiical.com