. . . or, at least, I’ve reverted.
For some reason, I always forget the Fourteenth Amendment. Usually, when the issue of _Roe v. Wade_ as such comes up, I concede the point that it is not about banning abortion so much as handing the matter back to the states, where it belongs, because I follow the conservative/Federalist Papers interpretation of the Tenth Amendment, that matters not covered by the Constitution belong to the States.
However, that argument leaves out the Fourteenth Amendment, which specifically guarantees the right to life. Granted, murder is a state crime, not a federal crime, so bans on abortion should be, as well. However, a proper decision to overturn _Roe_ should be that laws *allowing* abortion violate the 14th Amendment.
The interesting thing about _Roe_ is how the precedent is upheld but not the reasoning. Usually, when lawyers battle precedents (at least on TV), they talk about *why* the case was ruled as such. Not in the case of _Roe_, except for “penumbra of rights.”
You see, according to _Roe v. Wade_, the 14th Amendment *only* applies to US citizens. Only US Citizens are guaranteed the right to life in this country. Since the Constitution says you must be “born” to be a citizen, an unborn child is not a citizen and, therefore, not protected by the 14th Amendment’s guarantee of the right to life.
So, really, a decision to overturn _Roe_ really *should* outlaw abortion in all states.