The contitution says nothing about eating, travel, pussy, vagina, or even womb, etc.
There's the crux of the issue and the reason that Rowe v Wade is getting overturned.
50 years ago, politicians unwilling to take on the contentious issue of abortion, decided they could pass that hot potato to the USSC. By getting the court to make it a Constitutional issue. It relieved politicians from having to make a decision about a divisive subject.
However, as you say, The US Constitution does not mention either male or female reproductive organs so a legal pretzel was created that made abortion on demand a matter of medical privacy. Also something not guaranteed by the The Constitution.
However, like most political chicanery, it emboldened the winners to believe they were untouchable and created a ferocity in the losers who felt (rightfully so) they had been cheated of letting the voters decide the matter.
For the last two years, either unable to make the connection or unwilling to believe they could lose, the people who have been chasing people around with needles and demanding vaccine passports, have now found that they have weakened the medical privacy foundation for the USSC decision has fallen apart and we are back to where we were in 1973.
So, those people who were so sure they could never have the landmark decision reverse have found out they were wrong and they have to decide which path to go down to get back into the fight.
They could go down the angry route ...
... violent protests and the destruction of public and private property. This won't really accomplish they changes they desire. It will make each side more militant.
... destruction of the USSC by adding dozens more judges that would make court stacking easier for BOTH parties when they are in power. However, since The Constitution sets and upper limit of 10 judges and we currently have 9. This isn't a realistic option.
They could go down the fair play route ...
... get the issue on the ballot in each state with abortion restriction laws and let the voters in each state decide. Proponents of unrestricted abortion believe the vast majority of people stand with them so this should be an attractive option for them. They believe they will win state plebiscites so there should be no problem with pushing for them.
... take the long game of pushing a Constitutional Amendment to make abortion on demand a Constitutional Right. This also puts the issue in the hands of the voters but only 3/4th of the states have to pass such an amendment for it to become binding on all the states.
I'm happy to see this decision back in the hands of the voters and legislators as was intended by our founders. Rowe v Wade was bad law. It was a cowardly way for politicians on both sides to avoid being linked to the extremists on both sides. Politicians could remain neutral and still claim whatever position played best to their bases.
Just a warning to both sides ... taking extreme positions will only chose to make this issue more volatile, making a final, LEGAL, resolution of the matter nearly impossible.
