The controversial issue concerning a woman’s personal right to have an abortion has become so volatile and angrily divisive that a State, viz., Texas, has bizarrely chosen to deputize its anti-abortion citizens, by authorizing them, vigilante-style, to institute legal proceedings against anyone seeking an abortion, together with any accomplice [including the Uber driver that brought her to the clinic]. It is impossible to see any rationale for this dystopian legislation, which could, in any way possible, square with the American system of jurisprudence, nor with human reason. We refer to this grotesque situation, however, merely to illustrate the radical extent of the opposition to what would seem to be a women’s natural right to care for her own body, by an abortion, as generally approved by Roe v. Wade and any and every historical American tenet, concerning citizen liberty and protected privacy.

Those who have tactically arrogated to themselves the name, “Right to Life,” in the name of protecting the fetus [“life”], have perpetrated multiple acts of premeditative and deliberate murder of abortion providers and their assistants; in their misguided criminal insurrection against the abortion of a fetus. Their tactically, misleading name does not appear to prevent them from inconsistent acts,  such as opposing all governmental assistance to the needy mother or baby, after the signature event of birth, the championing of free and unregulated gun ownership, and of capital punishment. Their proclaimed motivation, viz.,  the preservation of the life of the fetus, revealingly, expires at the moment of birth.  This puts to the lie, their proclaimed motive, and their tactically misleading name. The blatant illogic and the discernable inconsistency of their actions, empirically suggest a different, underlying, and fundamental purpose; to be set forth below, following a brief statement on the moral justice and rectitude of preserving this major choice, naturally and exclusively to the pregnant mother.

Margaret Sanger said, “ No woman can call herself free until she can consciously choose whether she will or will not be a mother.”  We wholeheartedly agree and have sought for some time for the underlying motivation of the ardent opponents of this most personal and life-altering right. We have closely read and long considered the arguments on both sides of the issue and have recently concluded, that the most fundamental and efficacious basis for the legal rejection of such interference with the natural freedom of choice, to date, strangely, has not, to date, been revealed nor articulated. We have thus chosen, to express this overlooked Constitutional precept, proscribing such denial of abortion rights.

All purported motivations of the opponents of abortion having been factually and logically disproven by their own inconsistent actions and beliefs, we may, permissibly, conclude by elimination, that the essential motivation of the members of the anti-abortion movement is otherwise. Until credibly shown erroneous, we firmly believe it to be fundamentally, religious. Please take note that the faiths of Catholicism, Conservative Protestantism, Buddhism, Orthodox Judaism (only), Hinduism and Sikhism, all prohibit abortion.

As generally known, the “Establishment Clause” of the First Amendment to the Constitution, provides, inter alia., that government may not control the exercise of religion, nor vice-versa. If we are, indeed, deductively correct in our conclusion that a sub-rosa, religious basis, remains, by elimination, the only empirically logical and explainable motivation, for the ardent prohibition of a women’s right to seek abortion, it follows that it is in clear and flagrant violation of the Constitution’s “Establishment Clause,” and therefore, illegal, unconstitutional and unenforceable.

It is most illuminating and, indeed, telling, that the State of Texas, the warm beating heart of the Evangelical “Bible Belt,” and deservedly included among the most invasive of this most intimate of American, Constitutional freedoms, would give birth to this most conspicuously and witlessly [preferably aborted], reductive, legislation.


Published by


Retired from the practice of law'; former Editor in Chief of Law Review; Phi Beta Kappa; Poet. Essayist Literature Student and enthusiast.

Leave a Reply

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

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

Facebook photo

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

Connecting to %s