Your mention of "Safe, Legal, Rare" is what I'd like to focus on, but first some comments on the other points...
>The Dred Scott decision was never addressed straight on as I understand it...got caught up in the 14th Amendment ('Equal Protection')...btw, here is a perspective on the DS decision...
https://www.penncapital-star.com/civil-rights-social-justice/heres-15-things-you-didnt-know-about-the-dred-scott-decision-opinion/
Also, the DS decision doesn't make this list of 'Overturned Decisions'...
https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/a-short-list-of-overturned-supreme-court-landmark-decisions
I'm not an attorney, but Roe v. Wade was unambiguously overturned in spite of being upheld more than once...let's move on...
>Polling is a finger on the pulse of the American public...while there are statistical ranges to be considered, when 80+% of Americans...for nearly 50 years (my Gallup Poll post) state they believe abortion should be legal in at least some cases...that is not "my opinion"...that is the rock solid opinion of an overwhelming majority...in every state (see link).
You're a reasoned person...surely you can accept this reality.
>State vs. Federal Law...I base my comments largely on reading noted Harvard Law Professor Laurence Tribe's book "Abortion: The Clash of Absolutes" which includes a fairly detailed summary of all the major abortion laws prior to Roe v. Wade, and his understanding of the reasons for them...btw, Prof. Tribe has successfully pled over 30 cases to the Supreme Court.
My impression from reading those accounts is that the odds of states reaching a unified 'opinion' on abortion before Roe were essentially ZERO...therefore, it is necessary for Abortion to be 'Codified' (my un-lawyerly term) at the Federal level...I'll add my personal opinion that a woman in Alabama should have the same rights as a woman in New York or California...to not have such rights would impede her free movement within our United States...makes me think about "Equal Protection".
>The Hyde Amendment...this is all about making sure that poor people are not denied "Equal Protection/Access" to abortion...I'm fine with making sure funds are made available only to truly needy persons, but not eliminating aid altogether.
.......................
And now we get to "Safe, Legal and Rare"...I'm assuming your inclusion of "... I believe that the vast majority of Americans would believe in the mantra from Bill Clinton safe, legal and rare...." means that you would be open to abortions in "some cases"...let me know if this is your position...then we discuss together the best ways of making them "Rarer"...really hope that's the case.
Finally, I wholeheartedly support programs like "Agape House"...my wife and I support a similar facility in the Bay Area...as I've stated in other posts, financial support (from state and federal government) for programs that encourage women to carry pregnancies to term is a pillar of mine toward the goal of reducing abortions...good for you being deeply involved in this.
As for the "Whole World" comment of mine, that has to do with recent decisions by many countries on the abortion issue...Ireland revised its constitution to allow abortions...Mexico's Supreme Court ruled unanimously in favor of legalizing abortion...and India passed laws making abortion more accessible....plus, the fact that most European countries allow abortion in at least some cases.
Let me know your thoughts...especially wrt "Safe, Legal and Rare"...
Link: https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/religious-landscape-study/compare/views-about-abortion/by/state/