No, just a Southron who rejects the Yankee-imposed Webster's orthography, and who is also an Anglophile, to boot.
But we did the same for all other forms of homicide, when we passed the 14th A. " ...nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." Homicide cannot be made legal by any State, because it denies the victim due process. This is as true for extra-judicial lynchings of Blacks that were not prosecuted at the time as it is for the unborn today. This is currently sidestepped in law by not granting the unborn with "personhood".
Unfortunately, the verbiage prior to the portion of the 14th amendment which you quoted says that this applies to those who are born in the USA or who are naturalised US citizens. The letter of the text would seem to exclude the unborn (an oversight I would chalk up to nobody in 1868 anticipating the industrialised murder of millions of unborn each year). On this basis, it doesn't cover the unborn - sad, but yet the case. As such, the matter DOES fall back onto the States, being a power not explicitly granted to the federal gov't nor denied to the States (10th amendment).
Federalism is not about State's "rights"; it is about the proper division and exercise of the Powers granted by the people to both the States and the Federal. Legalizing the extra-judicial killing of the unborn is not a granted Power to either level of government, so "criminalizing" it isn't a question. The default position is that it is already a criminal act, unless justified by due process (such as justifiable homicide in self defense is now).
Yes, federalism IS about State's rights, specifically because of the issue of proper division and role. The 10th amendment was intentionally left broad because the Founders wanted the States to be in charge of their own local affairs. The Federal Constitution was intended to regulate affairs that occur between States (i.e. to be an impartial referee), and to take care of matters which affect the Union as a whole (like foreign policy, warmaking, etc.) If the Fed steps in on issues that rightly belong to the States, then the matter is a States' rights issue.
Read it again. The "born or naturalized" part defines which persons are Citizens. The latter part applies to all persons in the jurisdiction, citizen or not. Citzens have additional immunities and privileges that non-citizen residents in the US jurisdiction do not, but all persons have rights to life, liberty and property, as well as equal protection.
Yes, federalism IS about State's rights, specifically because of the issue of proper division and role.
States don't have rights. Only people have rights. States have powers, delegated by the people. The States in turn, delegate some powers to the Fed and reserve others. The rest are reserved directly by the people, including the right to life, as noted in the 5th and 14th Amendments. The State and Fed only have the power to take a life with due process, and must give all persons equal protection from the unjustfied taking of life. They cannot protect Whites from murder and not protect Blacks, and neither can they protect infants but not unborn.
Under Amendment 14, Section 5.: "The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article." Therefore, under Federalism, and the 10th Amendment, which applies to the 14th as much as the rest, the power to enforce civil rights protections is delegated to the Feds, and the power to violate them is prohibited to the States.
The States have no "rights" or powers to allow extra-judicial killing by pregnant women or doctors. The only reason they do it now is that the unborn have had their humanity and status as living beings removed by the courts. That is no more logical than changing the legal definition of anyone over 80 years old to "non-living person" and allowing their families to euthanize them.
The language before about people born in the United Staes deals with citizenship in the United States. The courts have drawn a distinction between the rights of citizens and the rights of persons. The Rights of persons apply to all people including non-citizens. So, while it is clear that citizenship only applies to those who have been born it is not clear that personhood is limited to those who have been born.