I get your point, but it seems to me you are actually arguing for the living constitution when you say the meaning of facts change with the times, and that originalists would say that the only facts that matter would be as they would have been interpreted at the time of adoption of the relevant portion of the document.
Your point on protection of the unborn life foreshadows a future essay by me that goes beyond constitutional matters, probably after I write the constitutional essay as what I am about to say will distract from that. The soul of an unborn child that dies in utero, whether by miscarriage or abortion, agreed not to be born when it incarnated the zygote. Thus, it does not need the protection of human laws and its parents do not need the punishment/deterrence of human laws as they are not a danger to society--their decision will be reviewed and addressed in Heaven in their life review.
I firmly believe, based upon discussions with my spirit guides, assisted by a channeler, https://medium.com/illumination/i-speak-to-god-and-god-speaks-to-me-23bff8ec2274
that our dates of death are predetermined, while free will, both personally and the choices made by third parties, very much impacts how we live and how we die. https://medium.com/illumination-curated/life-is-school-for-the-soul-9b081dbe8453
I have written about how that belief, if it became widely accepted, should affect tort reform, as the concept of measuring damages for wrongful death based upon future earning capacity would no longer hold any water, and that it should prevent suicide attempts https://medium.com/know-thyself-heal-thyself/matters-of-life-and-death-bc9752a36bff
