Skip to main content

Roe v. Wade Arguments

The breakdown of the Roe v. Wade Argument without bias

The primary purpose behind determinations of the SCOTUS is to…

“The Court found two government interests that were sufficiently “compelling” to permit states to impose some limitations on pregnant women’s right to choose to have an abortion: first, protecting the mother’s health, and second, protecting the life of the fetus”

An unbiased perspective

Essentially the assumption of the argument on roe is that all women feel the same about the procedure and it needs to be made available in every city and every town. That is not true and it has become more about politics than actually providing access to safe procedures.

Furthermore, being that democrats and conservatives alike tend to live near each other and in clusters, it is safe to say both groups are typically found in concentrations of people with similar beliefs and ideals, it is only logical to consider the wishes and needs of the women in the immediate areas within which they live.

That being said, imposing the procedure and practice on those women who don’t want it is no diff than restricting it for those women who do.

Where does this patriot stand?

I support the state’s right to self-determination but feel that should be broken down further on a county-by-county basis, following the boundaries that are demarked and used in medicare plans. This “standard of care” for women should also then be voted on in that district’s nearest election. By doing so, this lays the local guidance and roadmap for the insurance companies and hospitals to then begin integrating the scope of this new law, into the standard operation procedure and available Medicare/Medicaid plans. 

Who should perform the procedure?

The procedure should be moved into the hospital and covered as an outpatient procedure. This allows for women who want it, to have it, and women who don’t, to not have it imposed on them, it also removes any need for third-party providers like planned parenthood who essentially act as funnels for political dollars and disbursement being there would not be able to provide the procedure nor would they be relevant anymore in promoting it. Effectively defunding the institution and formally including it as an in-hospital activity between women and their doctor

Done and done.

The conclusion in a “Nutt”shell

The only people who lose are the politicians and political influencers who profit from there being an issue and problem. By making it an in-hospital procedure and allowing women within the counties to vote directly on their own “standard of care”. This would then retire the debate and arguments surrounding it for all time.

If you disagree, you most likely will not live in an area where the procedure is available and if you agree, most likely that woman will live near or in a like-minded community.

Let’s solve this once and for all and move on. The only ones who benefit from this argument continuing in perpetuity are the political class.

About the author: Kevin Nutt
One of many stones, the builders refused.
Kevin Nutt avatar

Author Kevin Nutt

One of many stones, the builders refused.

More posts by Kevin Nutt

Get involved!

Get Connected!
Come and join our community. Expand your network and get to know new people!

Comments

No comments yet