I think there are some problems here, primarily that the US doesn't generally ratify anything to do with human rights. Or at least they keep the things languishing in the courts. Their duty is to their constitution - and if an international treaty on human rights interferes with their constitution, they pretty much park it. Human rights abuses are therefore fairly common in the US - and their legal system seems (to me as a Brit at least) to be a bit more gung-ho and wild west. Their duty is to the their citizens, one nation under god and all that lovely wonderful stuff they say in the pledge of allegiance.

This means their right to abortions was guaranteed under the right to privacy and freedom from the state, underpinned by the constitution - the rights granted by Roe weren't therefore human rights (as granted in the rest of the world in varying degrees and codified in law) they were a byproduct of a faulty legal decision. The rights that women had, weren't really enshrined legally speaking, and so they have been removed and the American system will have to take this one on the chin and work out a solution as best they can.

I'm a libertarian-lefty and think that if you want an abortion you should be able to have one. Bodily autonomy is a core part of what I think - if you want to have an abortion because you're going on holiday and you want to look good in your bikini, the state shouldn't have anything in its arsenal to stop you. Once you've had a baby, things change. There is some legal back and forth on when exactly abortion should be legal and/or medically advisable, but that is subject to change with scientific advancement. That's fine, it's about making that judgment call and then voting on it. I'd prefer not to and think it's a matter for individuals, medical professionals and their religious advisors. That's it. I want no part of it.

And yes, Chimpanzees are wonderful; they are very much people! :o)