“The Fedgov is not the place to adjudicate this.”
Again, your solution is a redux of the Kansas-Nebraska act. It didn’t work back then, and it won’t work now. Why? The unborn child is a person, and recognition of this fact concerns the fundamental nature of the person. A person is a person, not because of the lines of the state - but because of what a person is.
I am not even saying that North Dakota, et al, should not pass laws where they can to regulate and eliminate abortion. These are baby steps. They have to be done. However, the ultimate goal has to be recognition of the personhood of the unborn in every state of the union.
“There are FAR, FAR better methods of protecting individual liberties then tilting at ever morphing windmills.”
No, there isn’t!
The Federal apparatus, including SCOUS, is unbalanced and out of control. You, through your great oratory and persuasive skill may get a law passed to "protect the unborn" (like the 18th Amendment with alcohol). Then, the winds of public opinion change and we have another law passed to reverse the former unanimously passed law (like the 21st Amendment). This example far exceeds anything related to the normal legislative process. It was a Constitutional Amendment for crying out loud!
There are numerous constitutional anomolies from SCOTUS that distort the original intent (Roe v Wade, Kelo v New London, Lawrence v Texas, Obamacare, Wickard v Fillburn) and your great and mighty statism did nothing to prevent their implementation. In fact, federal statism enabled them.
Maybe, just maybe, the approach you are peddling isn't the proper direction....? Maybe, a VERY STRICT inprepretation of the constitution would set us back on the course our founding fathers intended.
Again, the Fedgov imposes edicts (Kansas-Nebraska act) and all citizens need to follow – regardless of the constitutional legality. So, your suggestion is to impose more Fedgov edicts and somehow we’ll achieve the original intent of our constitution regarding Liberty?