Using "abortion" as a "rights" argument undermines the whole premise of your article. Both women and the unborn babies have rights, trying to find a balance between those conflicting rights is what "abortion law" is all about. Yet you seem perfectly willing to deny an unborn baby any rights? Or to blame the argument on religion somehow.
According to science, human life begins at conception. Sorry there is no other point to assign to the beginning of human life. Roe v Wade was not about when life began, but when a human life acquires "personhood" rights. In Roe v Wade, the Court ruled an unborn baby acquires personhood rights at the point of viablity. Meanwhile, "birth" remains the point at which a human being who is now a person, acquires citizenship rights. Three points in time and "status" are distinct, try not to confuse them.
Deny one human being human rights and you lay the down the basis for denying any human being any rights. Deny an unborn baby has a right to life and you undermine LGBTQ rights which are founded on the same unalienable rights (life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness), that babies' rights are founded on.
Abortion law is not about "religion" and never has been, that has been a misleading talking point by pro choice advocates for decades even as atheist groups exist that oppose elective abortions as an attack on human rights. Research them to help you understand why "human rights" atheists support a baby's right to life.
Now that we understand the issue, over 80% of Americans and even 60% of pro choice women support limiting elective abortions in the third trimester for healthy unborn babies. Over 50% of Americans oppose elective abortions after the first trimester. This suggests that most Americans find the tipping point between a woman's rights for an elective abortion and unborn baby's rights to life to be somewhere close to the first trimester plus or minus a few weeks. So, the upper limit would be 20 weeks and the lower limit for most Americans would be 8 weeks (the development stage in which an unborn baby becomes a "fetus").
That point of demarcation differs from state to state. So a national standard is unlikely to fit the values of the citizens of the different states. So is the better answer to allow states to decide what works based on their citizen's values or impose a federal standard, which will set off another 50 years of debate. My sense is most pro choice advocates would be happier if states made the decision, since there are at least some states likely to draw the line where they would. A Federal standard is likely to be closer to the first trimester since that is closer to where most Americans think the line should be.
When it comes to "rights", pro choice advocates are on the wrong side of the argument. Next, thing you will try to say is conservatives want to take away your 2nd Amendment rights, Freedom of Speech rights, Freedom of the Press rights, etc. No wait, those were the progressive liberals. Rights are rights, not privileges.
Keep in mind progressive liberal ideology is not about rights, it denies rights. Instead it argues that the "State" grants privileges based on what the majority wants them to be. So if the majority want "abortion rights" to be a "right", poof it is a right. And if the majority don't want "abortion rights" to be a "right", poof it is gone.
