1) If it's anything it's a state issue as that's the level of government where we typically handle murder.
This was the way it was handled prior to Roe. Roe said the states couldn't regulate it, which is why it remains so contentious - the debate was frozen. A significant majority of people opposed abortion on demand, as did a significant plurality in so-called blue states, but there was no debate, no discussion, no real dialogue on whether or if it was a good idea to just throw dozens of state laws out for an invented "right of privacy therefore I can kill my unborn child" song and dance that 7 people on the Supreme Court of the United Staes decided would be a good idea.
2) We already have rules and regulations on how doctors can end an adult life, the same rules should apply to abortion. If the doctor isn't murdering a brain dead patient by pulling the plug then they aren't murdering a baby if it hasn't developed to similar standards of viability/functionality.
Not against the adult's will there isn't. And withdrawing support - whether feeding tube, artificial breathing support, etc., and letting nature take its course isn't quite
the same thing as inserting instruments into the child's living space and either cutting it up into manageable pieces, or otherwise disintegrating/removing it from the space by negative pressure.
As I said - I completely withdraw my objection to the procedure because we cannot afford the genetic material anymore. I do feel for the little ones that nobody sees or hears, and therefore it is easy for the destroyers to pretend they're not even there.