Yes, they are. Arguably only more so.
Yes, that is what the debate is about in some respects. It certainly was when it came to Roe, i.e. whether one group's preferred policies on abortion can be imposed on all 50 states via extra-Constitutional means.
Ah, but we do have the death penalty in some states but not others.
We'll deal with criminal behavior when and where it happens. I'm not willing to suspend the Constitution because some people are afraid of what might happen if we maintain a state's limited authority to govern itself through a democratic process.
Which is why a fetus, alive or not, has no right to life. The growth of a fetus is harmful, painful, and potentially deadly to a woman. Therefore she has every right to defend herself from it by using violent force if necessary regardless of whether it is alive or not.
This is because during the third trimester a woman's pregnancy is very overtly obvious. You don't need her or her doctor to tell you she is pregnant you can see it very clearly.
Simply put, that is your opinion. There are those who have a very different opinion. Our system of government calls on us to settle these differences through a democratic process where majority (sometimes a supermajority) rules. Legally speaking, you're in no position to make the declaration you have made here.
This makes absolutely no sense. A woman has a right to bodily autonomy until she's showing?
Yes, it does. That's exactly what Roe did.
You think that if it gives you comfort.
Why not?
The States are not a political subdivision of the federal government. The States are sovereign, just like the federal government. The US has a dual sovereignty doctrine. The federal government is further restricted to only the specific powers granted to them by the US Constitution. Whereas the States are only prohibited from exercising certain powers by the US Constitution. All other powers that the US Constitution does not specifically prohibit to the States belong to the States, or the people.
No, they are not. The States are sovereign, as I previously posted.
Of course it does. If you knew anything about the dual sovereignty doctrine of the US you would know that both the federal and State can charge someone over the exact same crime, and sentence them differently without violating the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment. Furthermore, the dual sovereignty doctrine has also been applied to permit successive prosecutions by two States for the same conduct, and to permit a federal prosecution after a conviction in an Indian tribal court for an offense stemming from the same conduct.
Incorrect on both count. The jurisdiction of the federal government is everything within the borders of the US. However, they are prohibited from interfering with States, including intra-State commerce, elections (except with regard to Congress critters), and they cannot require any State to enforce federal law.