Why isn't the US Constitution enough for you? Why would Congress need to write a law that says the same thing as the US Constitution?
Your question makes no sense. Why would Congress need to write and pass a bill that says the same thing as the US Constitution?
Yawn............ I gave you my point of view. Take it or leave it.
Because a person has to also be born first under the Constitution and federal law. Funny how you omit that part. It certainly doesn't help your argument, whatever that is.
Are they born?
What about it?
You first! You're the one going on and on about the unborn being persons or having rights, when that is clearly and legally not the case.
Neither you or the states have provided any legal explanation as to why not.
Yo have made it clear what restrictions you would impose or at least support. What you haven't explaoned is why those restrictions should be imposed at all.
Based on what? Nothing more than your feelings?
How so? What would be a "common sense" restriction and under what parameter makes it "common sense?"
Yes abortion is regulated. Why does it need the level of "regulation" by politicians that it gets as opposed to actual medical professionals and medical standards?
No one is murdering babies as that is already illegal, period! But were talking about abortion, which has nothing to do with babies or murder.
If the states then allowed abortion or "murdering babies" as you say, would you have any issue with it, as it's a "states matter?"
Left it! Let us know when you have something of substance to offer.
I am not obligated to provide you anything. Pose your question to the individual states and their voters.
Again, I am under no oblgation to.
based on my point of view.
If there were no restrictions, baby murdering would become just routine birth control. like the pills. Some would murder the baby as late is a day before birth.
Meeical professionals unless they become congress critters do not write laws. Pollytishuns do.
Nothing to do with babies???????????????
What matters is that constitutionally it is a state issue.
Yawn............
claim. If the federal govt recognized the unborn as persons, recognized unborn rights, how can the Dobbs decision allow states to have them killed without due process?
In other words, you're not really interested in any meaningful discussion. Just typical talking points with no substance, all feelings. Got it.
It's part of a different sentence, and refers to the requirements for citizenship, not personhood:
And actually, one does not merely have to be born, but born in the United States, or naturalized there, to be a citizen. Again, this has nothing to do with personhood, unless you want to take the position that green card holders are not persons.
Not an explanation, but another revision.
Green card holders are not citizens. But they are persons, as they are already born. You still fail to specify how the unborn are considered legal persons with rights under the Constitution, federal law, or even state laws which permit elective abortion which, if the unborn were persons with rights, it would be legally considered to be murder, which it is not in any state. You utterly and continuously failed to reconcile all those points with regards to personhood.
...but not in the United States as the sentence you brought up requires.
First we need to teach you basic sentence structure. Then we'll move onto more complex subjects.
You still overlook the "persons born" part. ANd if they become naturalized, they are also citizens. You still haven't demonstrated how the Constitution (or federal law) applies to the unborn. Or reconciled the previous points made. It's like you think ignoring them will make them invalid.
You have to read the whole sentence, not just two words. Do you not get how "sentences" work? You can't just ignore words arbitrarily. Let's try again:
If you think the part in red is the requirement for personhood (I disagree, but we'll get to that later; we're going to start slowly so you don't get overwhelmed), that would mean tourists, work visa holders, refugees, and green card holders are not persons, as they were neither born in the United States nor naturalized in the United States.
Like I said, we have to start slowly. Let's see if you can do better than Lursa in learning how sentences work.
Snark, along with your lack of comprehension, only demonstrates the weakness of your argument. It's no surprise @Lursa repeately blows your arguments out of the water. Still waiting for you to explain how states can allow elective abortion and those that do allow elective abortion do not consider abortion murder of a presumed "person" nor does the federal govenment.
you are just running your "keyboard" 
and running away. claim? If the federal govt recognized the unborn as persons, recognized unborn rights, how can the Dobbs decision allow states to have them killed without due process? Cut and paste doesnt mean you understand it.
And another leftist fails to understand how sentences work...
I'm not a leftist. So that's another thing you're wrong about. And if you have to turn this into a left/right thing (which is irrelevant to the discussion), it's clear you have a bias and a weak-@ss argument, which only further demolishes your credibility. Although Lursa already did that in spades.
Ho hum.....
In NY state, if someone is threatening your life but you have the ability to flee readily to safety, you have an obligation to do so, except in four circumstances, namely, if someone is threatening to rape, sexually assault, kidnap, or felony rob you. In those cases, and cases where you are actually being raped, sexually assaulted, kidnapped, or felony robbed, you have the right to use lethal means if necessary to prevent or stop that felony, and so does a third party trying to help you.
I do enjoy them. Because I know that, though it will take some time, as long as we remain a democratic republic that holds elections, eventually, people who oppose the constitutional philosophy of the SC's conservative Catholics will replace them and that philosophy. Then, Dobbs will be overturned, just as Roe was overturned. So will not be allowed to have Dobbs forever - it's an even worse decision than Roe was.
They can count the exact number, even though it is probable that mistakes will be made. That latter is unimportant. What's important is that they can't possibly count the exact number of the unborn. The ambiguity guarantees error.
You can't clearly tell whether a woman got an induced abortion or had a spontaneous abortion. Of known pregnancies, as many as 20 to 25% end in spontaneous abortion. You want the government to waste all its money and time investigating miscarriages now? Women will stop having sex with men and having kids at all - just wait until you outrage even the anti-choice women!
The above only applies in cases of rape or incest. Consensual sex is another matter. To nature, it's an invitation. And the concept of comparing an embroyo or fetus brought about by consensual intercourse to a rapist or kidnapper is beyond the pale.
What difference does it make? Conception can occur regardless of the circumstances, be it rape, incest, or consensual. That's nature. All you're doing is selecting which circumstances are appropriate or not for abortion, which is also a hypocritical position. And regardless of the circumstances, an embryo/fetus inhabits and feeds off the woman's body & bodily resources. She cannot be legaly compelled to have her body used to support another without consent, just as no one else can have their bodies used for another, per established legal precedent.