[deathanatos]

You might not have a right to them, but those procedures exist, and citizens would like to avail themselves of those procedures. They could even do so, except for the state's intervention: and that intervention thus deprives the citizen of "life, liberty".

[andonisus]

You left out the “without due process” part. The due process is the state enacting laws to restrict access.

Of course, congress could pass a law enshrining the rights to an abortion tomorrow. This would grant and preserve this right for all Americans, regardless of state, due to the supremacy clause. Hopefully, this does happen.

[deathanatos]

I left it out, as I didn't find it relevant to respond to that particular comment.

A simple drafting of a law is not the whole of "due process"; the very Roe v. Wade encapsulates that. (Of course, now overturned.)

But also, take the cases of forcing a women to have a child she did not have a say in (rape) or which will kill her (e.g., ectopic pregnancy). These seem pretty close to bill-of-attainder type situations, but also, due process.

I'd also argue you need to overcome the equal protection clause; bodily autonomy seems to me like a right that we generally honor — we do not force organ or blood donations upon people — yet, here, we strip that right from one sex in particular?

[andonisus]

Agreed on bodily autonomy. It is my guess that the court would strike down laws that restrict abortion wholesale (when challenged), but who knows.

Of course, this is only applicable if the Congress fails to act; were they to pass a law that enshrines the right to bodily autonomy, there would be no issue.