What could possibly me more compelling than protecting your citizens?
A fetus is not a citizen according to the US Constitution.
Are you kidding me?
No I'm not. that was the stance taken in Roe and has been affirmed at least 2 other times that I'm aware of. It seems to be like your biggest qualm with the argument but I've yet to see you argue against it.
Isn't that the basis of my entire thread? Judges don't have to define systems.
Actually they do. if a judge says a law is unconstitutional, it is usually customary for them to provide some guidelines for what similar laws would be constitutional. Otherwise, you are basically just asking the court to have ruled on 1,000 different Roe v Wade cases which is a waste of everyone's time.
If they were smart, they would have left it up to the states,
Which they did. They provided loose guidelines for the states to follow. The Supreme Court has not written the abortion law for this country by any stretch of the imagination.
If the Courts weighed in on when people could have open heart surgery, we would have a riot.
If the state govt. ruled that people couldn't have open heart surgery without a compelling interest, then the Supreme Court would be write in overturning that law.
The state dictates all kinds of health.
Yes, the keyword being health. The state does have a role in ensuring the good health of its citizens which Roe clearly acknowledges, hence the possibility for restrictions in the 2nd and 3rd trimesters and which is where we see the rationale behind all sorts of abortion regulations amongst the states today. What the supreme court rejected was that the state had a compelling interest in the health of a fetus, but you're free to regulate the health of the mother.
Suicide is illegal, drugs are illegal, a million and one different medical procedures are illegal.
Yes, because of the harm they cause to health of people, which is a compelling state interest. Roe already acknowledges that abortion restrictions can be provided based on mother's health, and we see those enacted by states in their own unique way all the time.
Again, this should have all been left to the states, like every other question of a medical nature.
That's simply not accurate. Not all medical decisions are left up to the states. When a state law violates the constitution the supreme court must intervene. Just because a law is relating to medicine doesn't suddenly mean we ignore the bill of rights.