According to our "core" societal values expressed in the Declaration of Independence, humans have the unalienable rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness that no government can take away through Constitutional amendments or legislation without compromising their right to exist unless doing so is done so to resolve an unreconcilable conflict of rights. That is a core principle of our societal contract.

So, starting with that premise, let's explore abortion including what are the grounds for debate regardless of religious beliefs or any other ideology.

According to science and the Roe v Wade decision unborn babies are human. And so, they have the "right to life". In Roe v Wade the Supreme Court defined abortion as a "privacy" right which derives from a human's right to pursuit happiness.

In Roe v Wade, the court made clear both the unborn baby and woman were parties that had unalienable rights that were in an unreconcilable conflict with one another. When a conflict cannot be resolved in a way that accommodates the rights of both parties, then our system of government relies on legislatures where possible (as elected representatives of the people) and not appointed judges to determine how to resolve the conflict.

While there is some argument to be made, that privacy rights were "created" by the Supreme Court to give women an argument to favor abortion, I think privacy rights in general are important and are important in so many issues today including who can share a bathroom or a locker room. And to what degree the government can spy on you or demand you show evidence of a vaccine or even get a vaccine.

Getting back to abortion, the Roe v Wade decision never questioned a baby's right to life, it was assumed. What it said was the state had no grounds to represent the baby's interests until it was a legal person (different than human, corporations can be legal persons, dogs can't).

Prior to being granted personhood rights, the woman could violate a baby's right to life and no legal authority including the state had a right to interfere. The baby's right to life was never debated, instead the state's right to interfere was.

The current court merely ruled, that the past court had no right to determine when the state had the right to step in and protect a baby's right to life. Instead, it said that legislative bodies must make that determination since it represents a clear irreconcilable conflict of the human rights of two humans.

Where I think the 14th Amendment will come into play and the equal protection clause is that as states pass different laws regarding abortions, a baby's right to life and woman's right to an abortion will be different on a state-by-state basis.

At some point, the cowards we refer to as Congressional representatives will have to step up and create a standard that applies to all humans in all states including unborn babies and pregnant women.

The government clearly has an interest in the birth of "new" citizens since it relies on them to support the government. And in fact, protecting life is a core reason for government to exist. So, this argument is easily addressed.

But the government cannot ignore a woman's right to privacy, doing so diminishes the right and so it must be considered in any laws governing abortion and seen as a "compromise" with the baby's right to life.

Finally, whatever the compromise is determined to be, must be embraced by society as a whole (though clearly individuals will reject it), hence the need for representatives in a legislative body to frame the compromise into applicable law.

My expectation based on polling in this country, is that "the people" as a whole favor limiting elective abortions of healthy babies to somewhere between 10-15 weeks. I am not arguing this is "morally right or wrong" or any other position is morally right or wrong. I am simply saying that under the societal contract, we live under, at some point the application of the 14th Amendment will create a demand for a national standard and that national standard will gravitate to what I suggested based on polling data.

As a conservation or progressive liberal, your views count as one vote towards the eventual societal compromise, what you don't have a right to do as a progressive liberal or conservative is to impose your view on this issue on society through violence or intimidation, nor should we "the people" tolerate our politicians bending to political pressure from groups representing more extreme positions.