If a person murders a pregnant woman, he is sometimes charged for two murders...not sure if gestation time is even taken into account.

certainly not in the Constitution. This is a RW meme, and they want it to read "from conception."

The closest we have is Roe v Wade, I believe, which is why the RWers want it overturned. It's why I pretty much vote against any RW attempt to define "personhood." It's generally a dodge to attack women's rights and women's health care options.

The 'late term abortion' debate gets clouded by emotion and rhetoric, when in truth it is very rare, and any ethical doctor will not abort a viable fetus in the 9th month. Even in 'health and safety of the mother' situations, a ceasarian would be performed to save both the child and the mother in virtually all cases.

In the end it is a matter of trust. Do we trust women and their doctors to make the 'right' choice? I do. Obviously, the religious fanatics on the right don't. They want to pre-load the definition of "right" choice to allow only their philosophical viewpoint.

Like "partial birth abortion" .

Roe v. Wade uses the term "viability" and it divided pregnancy into 3 trimesters, assigning increasing interest in the fetus by the state as viability increases through the three trimesters. At no point does the court use the term "personhood".

There is no such thing, scientifically, as the moment a fetus becomes a "person."

Abortion is generally legal until viability and that's because of Roe. Since the 90s (Casey) the states have had more ability to limit abortion and redefine what viability means. That's where the 'personhood' movement comes in.

This is the right's attempt to define a fetus or a zygote as a 'person' and therefore deserving of protection, with rights over and above the rights of the fully autonomous citizen carrying said 'person.' These laws keep popping up in states across the country, and most cross the line and are then ruled unconstitutional. The 'feticide' laws to which you refer were largely an attempt to subvert existing abortion law and define a fetus as a person. Same thing a few years back when there was a very stupid suggestion put forth by Republicans that they could provide financial assistance to fetuses independent of the person carrying said fetus. (Because a fetus has a mailing address and bank account and a method for getting nutrition independently...?)

And no. No "baby's" life can be terminated up to birth. You seem to not be aware that the "right up to birth" thing would actually be a caesarean section. A pregnancy can be terminated but the question as to when and under what circumstances varies from state to state.

From Wikipedia:
"The Court ruled 7–2 that a right to privacy under the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment extended to a woman's decision to have an abortion, but that this right must be balanced against the state's two legitimate interests in regulating abortions: protecting women's health and protecting the potentiality of human life.[1] Arguing that these state interests became stronger over the course of a pregnancy, the Court resolved this balancing test by tying state regulation of abortion to the third trimester of pregnancy."
There was a companion case to Roe v. Wade heard by the Supreme Court at the same time, "Doe v. Bolton", in which the Supreme Court overturned the existing law in Georgia where all abortion was illegal except "only in cases of rape, severe fetal deformity, or the possibility of severe or fatal injury to the mother. Other restrictions included the requirement that the procedure be approved in writing by three physicians and by a three-member special committee that either (1) continued pregnancy would endanger the pregnant woman's life or "seriously and permanently" injure her health; (2) the fetus would "very likely be born with a grave, permanent and irremediable mental or physical defect"; or (3) the pregnancy resulted from rape or incest.[1][2] In addition, only Georgia residents could receive abortions under this statutory scheme: non-residents could not have an abortion in Georgia under any circumstances."

The Court's opinion in Doe v. Bolton stated that a woman may obtain an abortion after viability, if necessary to protect her health. The Court defined "health" as follows:
Whether, in the words of the Georgia statute, "an abortion is necessary" is a professional judgment that the Georgia physician will be called upon to make routinely. We agree with the District Court, 319 F. Supp., at 1058, that the medical judgment may be exercised in the light of all factors - physical, emotional, psychological, familial, and the woman's age - relevant to the well-being of the patient. All these factors may relate to health.

As noted in the article on Doe v. Bolton, "Together, Doe and Roe declared abortion as a constitutional right and overturned most laws against abortion in other U.S. states. Roe legalized abortion nationwide for approximately the first six months of pregnancy until the point of fetal viability."

If one is truly "Pro Life", why isn't Doe v. Bolton ruling also being attacked? There is nothing in Roe v. Wade that discusses the reasons for allowing abortion or no, and most of the crumbs the anti-abortion crusaders throw to pro-choice concerns would bring back the Georgia statute that Doe v. Bolton invalidated - declared as being unconstitutional and onerous to women's health choices.
All Roe v. Wade requires is that during the first two trimesters have no regulations against legal abortion procedures, and that the states would have an interest in regulating abortions after the point of fetal viability. Roe does not have a requirement for states to allow any "abortion on demand" after the third trimester begins - but it's Doe v. Bolton that requires any state regulations concerning abortion must consider the health of the woman and defines what "health of the woman" considerations must include, no matter what the viability status of the fetus is. Doe v. Bolton allows for third-trimester abortions, though in almost all of those cases, the fetus is no longer viable the later in the pregnancy the abortion occurs.
If it's up to the last couple weeks, after the cervix has already started expanding and the pelvic area is readying itself for a natural birth, a C-section will be just as safe as other abortion procedures; if the fetus is still viable at that point, most clinics and OB-GYNs will rather do a C-section rather than a D&E, even if "mom doesn't want to keep the baby".
Especially with the ACA in place, clinics and OB-GYNs are more likely to collect much more money from the federal government and/or insurance company if they perform a C-section vice a D&E procedure during the last month of pregnancy, whether or not the fetus is viable.

Why Doe v. Bolton is not mentioned in the same voice as Roe v. Wade is telling - the party of "Pro Life" doesn't actually want to get rid of abortions, they just want to limit them to protect the reputations of wealthier girls and women who will be able to get their abortions by travelling out of the states where choice will be restricted (because on pandering to a hypocritical state's "religious-based moral grounds" would make it nearly impossible for poor families to have any choice) to states that are pro-choice all the way.

I've looked, but there's never been an official definition of "personhood" in any Supreme Court rulings. That seems to be a State conceit whenever they're pushing abortion restrictions. Supreme Court only comments on viability.

Haele

I tend to pay attention to who is doing the talking when I assess information. It's usually pretty helpful.