I know you disagree with my position, but please don't mischaracterize it. Roe v. Wade didn't "grant" a natural right, it merely extended the Constitution's protection to secure from governmental coercion a woman's right to decide for herself whether and when to reproduce.
Our natural rights as individuals aren't limited to those enumerated in the Constitution (freedom of speech, religion, etc). Our natural rights also include those of privacy and self-determination, which have been recognized by the SCOTUS as secured by the Constitution. The Constitution's guarantee of the states' rights to organize and regulate their militias has been interpreted by the SCOTUS to also extend to protection of the natural and individual right of self defense.
So what you offensively term a "Holocaust" is not government-driven genocide but merely the sum total of millions of individual decisions by women to decide their futures for themselves. If you don't like those decisions, then persuade and support these women in their time of crisis. Just leave the State out of it. So says the Constitution.
Here is where my fundamental disagreement with you starts: At the point a woman is pregnant, she HAS reproduced.
The time for a decision about reproduction is before insemination.
After that, she is no longer just making some decision about bumping uglies with Mr. Right or Mr Close Enough or Mr. Turkey Baster, she is making a decision about whether a human life should
continue.
You're already on the slippery slope, because you and the rest of the baby killers out there can't decide when to quit. Being 'mostly born' isn't safe any more, ("Partial birth abortion"--where the brains are sucked out of the base of the kid's skull while the rest of the kid is out of the birth canal), nor are you even protecting the survivors of procedures who have been "born". They're out, they are alive, but now, a survivor, once out of the woman entirely can be
neglected to death--something that would get you or I a short stay in gen pop at any prison, because even mother rapers and father stabbers have standards about who or what they will associate with, and killing babies is frowned upon by the vast majority there.
Any time there is a pregnancy, she isn't deciding whether to reproduce or not, that's already done. What she is doing is making the call to end a human life, something we regard as "killing", and in that contest, the killing of a helpless innocent, which neatly fits the definition of murder.
There are quite a number of ways to prevent pregnancy, from pills to implants to shots, to IUDs to abstinence and barrier methods (condoms, diaphrams), and spermacides.
That's a choice of whether or not to reproduce.
Killing the baby is not a 'choice', it's murder.
There is no Right, no Natural Right to murder. In fact, it is such a proscribed behaviour, it's in the big Ten Comandments.
No matter what judicial rabbit (dead or alive) the black robes pull out of their hats, there is one final Judge who will rule on the issue. Let the unrepentant beware.