The issue is far more complicated and relates to at what point a human being becomes a citizen of a state and the country and the rights that accrue to them as citizens. Commerce clauses don't cover murdering humans, let's stop pretending they do.
A state that prohibits euthanasia would have a big problem with a family transporting an adult family member to a state to get euthanized. Especially, if the procedure was conducted on someone that did not consent to being euthanized. How is abortion different?
So, when a woman enters another state, she might have the right to an abortion, but that right does not extend to killing the unborn baby. If you can figure out how to do one without the other, you have solved the abortion issue. Trying to avoid defining the unborn baby as human, does not work, because human is a biological term, not a legal one. And our nation at least on paper has affirmed "human rights".
Personally, rather than twist the law, I believe Congress can make an argument that we need a national law governing under what circumstances abortions should be legal. The resolution of conflicting human rights should not differ from state to state as it creates unequal US citizenship rights based on state citizenship.
A national abortion law would likely provide for elective abortions up to somewhere between 10-15 weeks of pregnancy after which abortions become far more restrictive. Not surprisingly, this is where almost all the nations of Europe ended up after debating the issue during the period in which Roe v Wade ended debate in this country. This line is not my personal preference, it is simply a reflection of what the polls say is most likely place it would be drawn if Congress were forced to draw it.
Only a legislative body has the authority to resolve how to deal with instances where the human rights of two humans are irreconcilable. Let's stop playing games and pass a law, if we have to lock up our Congress and not allow them to eat or drink until they resolve the issue, then so be it. They are paid to make tough compromises, not to fund raise off an issue for over 50 years.
