There was nothing to logically negate, that was merely an honest assessment of your argument. a) Your argument is a mess built on "a federal law must have been violated", and "The "Establishment Clause" seems most likely". That's grasping. Because none of that is an actual argument. b) You feel that a federal law must have been violated. You have no proof one was, you have no argument one was. Just you think one must have been. Great...well there's a crap argument if ever a crap argument existed. The second part is also NOT AN ARGUMENT. c) It seems likely that the Establishment Clause has been violated. Why? How? Again, no poof, no evidence, no argument.
d) It's not a personal insult to say that it seems to me that you're blinding grasping for anything because your post appears to be blinding grasping for anything. There's no meat, there's no substance, there's no argument, no proof, no evidence. Nothing. You think that a federal law must have been violated and it seems that the Establishment Clause is the most likely one. Explain. How so? The only thing you've provided to me was links to Wikipedia that don't support your case.
So slower now, just for you, to hear the honest question that you have responded to only with hostility and deflection up to this point.
The Establishment Clause deals with government endorsement or establishment of a particular religion over the rest. e) Abortion is not a religious issue. Pro-Life and Pro-Choice, by your own admission, not religious. So how is it that a clause meant to protect against religious tyranny is in play for non-religious causes. How is the Establishment Clause violated in this instance.
There is your honest question, now maybe you'll indulge me with an honest answer.