So many of the "facts" depend on a piori assumptions about what stage of nascent human existence mandates some legal protection, or none. The courts are particularly ill suited to decide that one as a matter of law. If any issue demands being resolved in the public square via the ballot box it is this one. The "truth" is totally subjective, and thus in a democracy requires majority rule. I put "science" in quotes for a reason. It is a canard. Science may have some influence has to who we come to our a priori conclusions and how to weight the competing considerations, but it has no real relevance to the law, particularly constitutional law. To go there, is to fall into the abyss, as we have seen. The effect on the public square is akin to a toxic waste dump.