I think all Americans would agree that a fundamental right is not something one is permitted to exercise only by the consent of another.  But this is what Roe v. Wade made of  a man’s fundamental right to procreate (Skinner v. Oklahoma, 1942).  

Prior to Roe v. Wade, 1973, consent to procreate was legally implicit for both men and women in every act of consensual sex, thereby guaranteeing equal protection of that right to both sexually consenting parties.   Following Roe,  the State transferred unilateral control over the consent to procreate to women, thereby refusing all men any protection of their right to procreate regardless of the circumstances. 

And so, while the State cannot indiscriminately sterilize multiple felons who are male because this denies them equal protection of the fundamental right to procreate (Skinner v Oklahoma, 1942), it can indiscriminately abort all of their preborn children at the legally protected consent of women without ever considering equal protection of  the fundamental right to procreate. 

The existence of children solely at the State protected approval of one gender  is no more Constitutional  than the existence of  churches solely at the State protected approval of  one denomination., or the existence of news media solely at the State protected approval of one political party.   The right of a nation’s citizens to procreate is no less fundamental, and no less worthy of protection,  than their right to practice their religion or to speak freely.   Support of Roe v. Wade is unbecoming of anyone professing defense of liberty. 

Lydia Hazel