Now, the only justification for banning abortions or regulating them in any way is whether the unborn child is entitled to any rights. Because if it isn't, I can't think of any legal justification for banning abortions. If it is entitled to rights, the question becomes what rights exactly, and at precisely what point during pregnancy - ie, the fundamental question here is "when does life begin?"It is time to heed the Constitution and return the issue of abortion to the people’s elected representatives. “The per-missibility of abortion, and the limitations, upon it, are tobe resolved like most important questions in our democ-racy: by citizens trying to persuade one another and thenvoting.” Casey, 505 U. S., at 979...That is what the Constitution and the rule of law demand.
This raises the question of "Constitutional Personhood," and that is a question where the SCOTUS had indeed opined in a variety of circumstances, including:
-Corporations (see Hobby Lobby and Citizens United cases in 2014 and 2010, both decided in 5-4 decisions by the Conservative Justices and conferring certain Constitutional rights upon corporations),
-Illegal Immigrants (see Reno v. Flores, 1993, where the Court found "it is well established that the Fifth Amendment entitles aliens to due process of law in deportation proceedings.")
-Felons (see Richardson v. Ramirez, 1974, where the Court found that felons could be denied the right to vote)
-Minors (cases too numerous to mention here, but there are many instances where a parent's rights override the rights of minors).
=====================
So, if questions of personhood as they apply to corporations, illegal immigrants, felons, and minors can be ruled on by the Supreme Court (and thus apply at the federal level), so can the question of what specific Constitutional rights an unborn child is entitled to. The more time I've had to think about this ruling, the more I think that returning the question to the states was a bit of chickening out on the part of the Conservatives on the Court and is going to create more problems than it solves for many years to come.
What the Court should have done, IMO, is tackle the question of gestational age. It could have found that Alabama's law was Constitutional on the ground that at a gestational age of 15 weeks, an unborn child is entitled to certain Constitutional rights, and could have upheld Alabama's law on that ground, effectively overturning Roe and establishing personhood at the 15-week mark.