In MY 'opinion'; the folks who wrote PERSON to begin with gets to 'define' it.
No second guessing by 'individual sovereign state's is allowed!
Get those five blind men AWAY from the elephant!
In the context of the 14th Amendment, a person is a citizen or an alien imo.
Also, the 14th Amendment gives Congress the power only to strengthen the rights that the states have amended the Constitution to expressly protect, not to define those protections.
In Roe v. Wade (RvW), state sovereignty-ignoring justices noted that nonpersonhood was used to define slaves not unborn children, a subjective interpretation imo.
Also, since the states have never amended the Constitution to expressly protect the politically correct right to have an abortion, not only does Congress not have the legislative power to define what a person is in that context, but the 10th Amendment (10A)-protected power of the sovereign states comes into play for each state to define what a person is like what NY is doing.
And if NY can get ugly and exercise its 10A powers to argue that unborn children aren’t persons, such powers unchecked by any express language in the Constitution, then surely other states like Texas can likewise use their sovereign powers to define person way they want to within reason.
This is regardless that the post-17th Amendment ratification Supremes scandalously ignored the powers of the sovereign states in RvW, arguably to win votes for state sovereignty-ignoring Democrats and RINOs.
Insights welcome.