denying a woman’s right to terminate an unwanted pregnancy— at the very least an unhealthy or coerced pregnancy —declares women second class citizens.

The "second-class citizen" argument is hyperventilation. Did the male-only draft make "second-class citizens" of men (whether or not it denied them equal protection of the law)? Why can a woman abort a man's child, but the man can't demand that the child be aborted? Does that make men "second-class citizens?"

You make some good arguments for abortion being legal. But they are policy arguments, not constitutional arguments. As a pro-choice institutionalist, I believe abortion should be legal, but SCOTUS was wrong to declare it so broad constitutional right. The damage to our politics has been intolerable. Even RBG believed that Roe short-circuited a favorable political trend.

I think the real philosophical issue regarding abortion is not when the fetus becomes a person, but when its host becomes a mother. Parents have an affirmative duty to protect their children that is wholly distinct from anyone's duty not to "murder" them. If you can't legally put your baby in the bull rushes, why should you be allowed to flush it down the toilet? (Yes, I'm exaggerating for effect, but no one who trots out "second-class citizenship" is in a position to complain.)

There may be a constitutional case for a woman's right to reject a pregnancy as soon as she learns of it, but I don't see why that window should remain open very long, especially now that abortifacient pills account for more than half of abortions.