Let me start by saying that there are certain circumstances under which abortion is exigent and necessary. Under such circumstances it should be legal everywhere in the nation, no questions asked: incest, rape, and severe risk of health or life of the mother. I despise the terrorists who think that the solution is to bomb abortion clinics; stalk, assault, and even kill doctors who perform abortions; and I hate politicians who abuse, and inflame, the diversity of opinions held on this subject in order to expand their agendas and power bases. Abortion, however, is not a form of "reproductive freedom," or "birth control." At least it shouldn't be considered such on a national level. Why? Because abortion as birth control is a moral issue that should be left to the states to govern. All of the debate surrounding abortion is about what is right and wrong, firmly cementing the subject into the realm of the moral.

Our founding fathers knew that on moral issues it would be much more likely to gain a consensus in a smaller geographic area--states are much more likely to have homogenous ethical standards and moral beliefs within themselves than between each other (I am not endorsing relativism here, rather the idea that built on the same core foundation of ethics people can and should be free to choose to live by a higher standard). It follows that our constitution provides for states to have different laws. That means that one state can allow abortion as birth control--according to the collective conscience and consensus of the constituency--and one may not, allowing for abortion only in those cases of exigency.

Over turning Roe v. Wade will not abolish abortion nation wide, but would allow states to make restrictions as they see fit. States should be considered well within their rights to declare that reproductive freedom ends when you choose to copulate without reasonable precautions. Voters’ opinions will actually make a difference if the issue of abortion is settled on a more local level. States, whether the majority of the population are in favor of or opposed to abortion would be allowed to regulate it as they see fit. Let's use our brains for a second--I know it hurts--and think about it. We have highly advanced forms of birth control ranging from all types of mechanical prophylactics, to chemical pills and patches. All of these should inexpensively nearly eliminate the need for abortions based on "reproductive choice." God forbid we take into account the reproductive freedom not to copulate if you don't want to get pregnant--that might sound like we are pushing religions values.

Allowing the national debates to center around issues where there are clearly regional differences in opinion only serves to artificially polarize the national discussion, making it easier for those who seek power to attain their goal. Additionally, all sorts of stupid laws spring up to compensate in areas where abortion is viewed as wrong; laws that actually endanger lives by removing a doctor’s discretion in emergency circumstances. This because the people of a state have reached a consensus and demand that their voice be heard. Limiting the scope of this issue to the purview of the states serves to assure individual rights.

As a by-product of nationalization of the debate surrounding abortion the liberty of the people is stomped on and mangled as Federal control and interference in our daily lives increases. The more concentrated power becomes the greater the risk of serfdom under a supposed "Democratic Republic." The lesson we should learn from this is: Don't vote for a party. Don't vote for a campaign based on one polarizing issue. If you do you will lose every time. Vote for a person. At least then you almost have a chance of winning.