Yes, I do respect the rule of law, so can you tell me what law is it that was passed by the US Congress with regards to the legality of abortion? I only ask because I don’t know of a single law that states that a fetus does not have the same rights of protection granted by the US Constitution.
If all rights are assumed to be inherently embodied, and inalienably granted by a force beyond human frailty (i.e. God), in personhood then the rule of law must first, last and always protect those personal rights.
As near as I can tell, the rule of law cannot apply, in this instance, because there is no law granting abortion, which has passed Congress and that the Constitution clearly states that law can not be made but only adjudicated by the courts. Law can only be made by the people’s duly elected Representatives. I don’t seem to ever recall electing a Supreme Court Justice, do you?
Since there is no representative law, where exactly does its legality lay? If the courts cannot make law and there are no statutes granting abortion then how can this be deemed “the rule of law”, rather than being what it is; “the law of men”. Sorry to burst whatever bubble you occupy, but from where I sit this ‘law’ (I use that term loosely, since it’s not really law) is unconstitutional, hence my previous comment about it being weak.
 Just because a law barring abortion has been overturned, that doesn’t mean that a law allowing for abortion has been created. Just because it is no longer deemed illegal doesn’t mean that it has become legal. Yet another failure of modern jurisprudence. To do as we do today is to ignore the Constitutional separation of powers. Therefore to do so is, on its face, unconstitutional. [end edit]