Roe v. Wade

The SCOTUS decision finding Texas laws trying to deal with the termination of a pregnancy was based on two presumptions which were and are false.

1) The claim that the legislation is justified by the obligation to protect the health of the mother presumes that pregnancy is healthful when, in fact, it is inherently either detrimental or, at best, neutral. There is no evidence that pregnancy is in any sense a healthful experiecnce.

2) That a physician is necessary to terminate a pregnancy is also false. But, this presumption does indicate the prime motivation for the legislation– to promote physician services.

3) The notion that the Constitution extends rights or is their source is also false. Any natural organism’s functions are not derived from human legislation. The hubris involved in suggesting the contrary is spectacular, but not unusual. That the failure to destroy implies a right to persist is quite pervasive. e.g. the prohibition against interfering with speech is routinely referred to as a Constitutional right, rather than the natural right it is.