Furthermore, the Fourteenth Amendment was to overturn the Dred Scott decision where SCOTUS decided that Blacks are not legal persons even though they are biological persons.
The entire Roe v Wade decision was that the word “person” in the 14th Amendment meant “LEGAL (not merely biological) PERSON”.
But if that is really what was meant in the 14th Amendment then the 14th Amendment never applied to Blacks, who had already been determined by SCOTUS to be “human livestock” rather than “legal persons” (persons with Bill of Rights protections).
IOW, if Roe v Wade is correct and “person” in the 14th Amendment means “legal person”, then Blacks are STILL “human livestock” as decided in the Dred Scott case, because Dred Scott was never overturned. The 14th Amendment wouldn’t apply to Blacks, since Blacks have never been ruled to be LEGAL PERSONS who then qualify for 14th Amendment protections.
If the rationale of Roe v Wade was actually taken seriously, Blacks would still be legal non-persons. But everybody knows that Roe v Wade was just an excuse for SCOTUS to legislate from the bench. Nobody takes the rationale seriously because it is so deeply flawed.
And you can get some really tortured logic if you take Roe’s rationale seriously. For instance, involuntary servitude is banned. If that applies to Blacks, who are still classified legally as human livestock, then would it also apply to bovine livestock? Is bovine involuntary servitude forbidden in the US Constitution?
What if SCOTUS ruled that female humans are legal non-persons? Or Jews and the handicapped? Adolf Hitler didn’t exterminate a single person, you know, because he defined them all out of legal personhood before he exterminated them. What is to stop SCOTUS from doing the same thing, using the Roe decision as the precedent?
Roe v Wade is a terrible, terrible decision, on SO MANY different levels. It is the slavery beast and the Nazi beast all rolled into one. It is a travesty, and this nation is under its own curse as long as this ruling stands.
I've always been unhappy with the concept of legal precedent because it seems to provide unlimited power to twist the original (sometime simple) case into knots solely for the purpose of winning a later case. I am strongly reminded of Talmudic scholarship, but that is a discussion for another day. We do not have a "justice" system in this country. We have a confrontational judicial system. Big difference.