These are great questions and I am sure they will be raised before the court. But my premise is that the “compelling interest” is based on the notion that personhood occurs at conception, which is not, as I said, medically or legally established (on the contrary, the whole viability standard is explicitly contrary) and I think SCOTUS can well defer to individual choice for pre-viability status, guided as any woman deems appropriate, by faith. The Satanic Temple may raise a RFRA claim, but it’s harder to make an opt-in (to a procedure or treatment) than opt-out, I think.