In the United States for one party to impose his, her or their will on another requires a clear legal standing. No such standing to prevent abortion is currently in the Constitutuion. Can it be put there? Yes, by amending the Constitution, but that requires far more agreement than will likely be found today and a special process.
The modern assumption that life begins at conception is from science. It does not appear in the Bible or other scriptures. Various scriptures do imply the existence of a "soul" that precedes the preparation of a body, but are not clear when that soul is bound to the body. In science the "life" of a diploid life form (such as a "human zygote") "begins" when two haploid "life" forms (gametes) unite to form one organism. The "life" is a sort of complete DNA "program" that then runs in nature as a human. In the vernacular that is "life begins at conception." Still there is a dependence that can be very problematic as discussed here presently.
Politics and science being very different things, the definitions of science have not served a political purpose. The womb is not the same as a laboratory even with the most modern investigative equipment. The law has found it expedient to consider successful birth the beginning of the "legal" individual. Tracking an "individual" legally before birth would mean much paperwork without much certainty or for that matter applicable use. Such legal enigma as deciding "blame" for miscarriage is thus usually avoided. The birth certificate marks the beginning of the legal identityas an individual. It is somewhat like a "diploma" in individuality.
An ancient concept of "life" has been "by breath," and the words "spirit" and "respire" have the same origins. Without or without conscious intent, that definition has been useful in politics. It is important to remember that definitions are not facts. Definitions are merely labels to attach to such facts as might be found to the extent they might be found.
Just as there is nothing in the Constution that says when life begins, there is nothing in the Constution that enables the public to force their opinions on mothers, all of whom have their own rights and opinions. Confusion might remain when life begins, but that is all the more reason for government to avoid intrusion.
It having been observed that "viability" may be present some time before natural birth, especially with modern equipment, some attempt has been made to prevent abortions late term. Those are of course already for some time legally successful despite Roe v. Wade. However "viability" is not a certain thing, few things before birth are, and opinions vary at which point an unborn might survive. So it continues to be a legal "reality" (a "fact" for legal purposes) and expedient that the life of the individual (separate individual) begins at the drawing of the first breath. Very late term abortions might be legally punished, but it is not technically as for murder, even though there is considerable time to settle matters long before that.
Still it happens that political crusaders continue to harangue over "their better" abortion laws. No, there is nothing in the Constitution upon which to wage intrusion — yet.
Much of the "Republican" furor over "their better" abortion laws appears lately because they are so desperate to show some "accomplishment." It has become apparent that the court decision in Kitzmiller v. Dover that stifled alternate views on the origin of life, and the acceptance of a "science" that has yet to be determined, must be overturned in the interests of honest science. The "Republicans" were caught asleep at the wheel.
The same severe learning disability that prevented them from noticing that Kitzmiller v. Dover was an intrusion of politics (Kitzmiller) into science (Dover schools) prevents them from seeing their own intrusions. Science already defined life at conception, science is not their "enemy," or not by its choosing anyway. Some Republicans just continue to bungle "new" notions of the beginning of life without any sense of how all that can be legislated practically.
Notice also that if they did make abortions entirely illegal, there is no way for the public eye into the womb. Even with all the "smartphones" around people can be very private about their wombs. Having no exception for rape creates an insane burden on victims, and of what compensatory value is that? Having an exception for rape means a backlog of unsolved rape cases and/or innocent men being accused of rape.
They are intellectually incapable of facing the fact that Donald Trump really did not "accomplish" anything at all.
They might pass abortion laws that stand Supreme Court scrutiny. That has already happened, but political action can be extreme and a farce these days. They still have to learn to address bad politics with good politics, bad religion with good religion, and bad science with good science. (Some "data" on the pandemic still appears to fail good science. So some Democrats are problematic too.) It is the longstanding aim of this website to comb out the science, poetry, politics and religion of it all, as confusing them appears to be our downfall still.
Avoid sticking microscopes into women's wombs haphazardly, else be prepared for failure to cooperate as you have perhaps not seen lately, even in the pandemic.
It is highly recommended that Kitzmiller v. Dover be overturned first. Then somewhat restrictive yet sensible and practical abortion laws should pass more easily as people develop more respect for the unknown.