Representative Carolyn Maloney (D-NY) was arrested on July 19 during an abortion rights protest before the Supreme Court. She and others were blocking traffic. She gave the following statement to the press: “There is no democracy if women do not have control over their own bodies and decisions about their own health, including reproductive care."
Abortion rights activists always frame the debate in terms of a person's right to control their own body and make decisions about their own health. This is not the real issue. No one contests such rights, when framed in this manner. Deciding how to treat a pregnancy is not like deciding how to treat an illness, e.g. should a cancer be treated with an operation, chemotherapy, or prayer? The real issue, for the right-to-lifers, is that they believe the fetus is a person and has rights. The most common reason for believing this is religious: they believe a fetus is created by God, has a soul, and is therefore a person who is entitled to the full protection of the law. In my mind, this is a religious opinion, and the "no establishment of religion" clause in the Constitution should mean that laws blocking abortion are unconstitutional. This is how the debate should be framed. The argument for "personal control" is not effective for those who believe they are morally bound to follow God's will, and are trying to force others, by law, to do the same. This amounts to an establishment of religion.
We have a Supreme Court that has apparently placed personal religious beliefs above the Constitution. New laws from Congress to protect abortion rights may run into this obstacle, and be voided.