Hmm...interesting Sandman. But keep this in mind ... Abortions are legal yes, but not at viability. If the fetus is viable (capable of living on its own outside the womb) abortions are not possible. 6 months is usually the cut-off for abortions. Abortions are possible AFTER viability only if the mother's life/health is in jeopardy. So perhaps the law isnt so inconsistent after all?
WRT Supreme Court ... the argument exists that the father has just as much interest in the fetus as the mother. After all, he is 1/2 the creator. I briefly looked for some case law, but couldnt find what I was looking for and dont have the time right now to look any deeper. But, I did find this, which althought not exactly on point, does provide some insight as to the Court's thinking:
Coe v. Cook County (7th Circuit)
In establishing the constitutional right of a woman to have an abortion without having to notify the father, the United States Supreme Court necessarily as well as explicitly weighed the woman's interest in reproductive freedom against the man's interest in potential paternity, and found the former interest to be the weightier. Inasmuch as it is the woman who physically bears the child and who is the more directly and immediately affected by the pregnancy, as between the two, the man and the woman, the balance weighs in her favor.
Also, ...
Coe v. Cook County
If a fetus's right to life were deemed to outweigh the pregnant woman's interest in being allowed to make the choice for abortion without being impeded by the father of the fetus, the United States Supreme Court would not have forbidden the states to require such notification. The life, liberty, and property that the due process clauses protect are rights of persons, and the courts have decided that a fetus is not a person within the meaning of these clauses
Nim