Could new abortion bans lose in court?

Now consider a challenge to Missouri’s abortion ban, which immediately went into effect. This law has no exceptions for rape or incest. Under the Court’s new rational-basis review, that ban is almost certainly constitutional because Missouri can simply decide that the state’s interest in protecting “potential life” justifies it.

But suppose a federal court applied intermediate scrutiny instead of rational basis. Under that standard, a law must “further an important government interest” and “must do so by means that are substantially related to that interest.” It’s not clear that Missouri’s no-exceptions ban passes that stricter test. Is the state’s interest in every single “potential life” so “important” that there is no weight given to the pain and suffering of a victim of rape or incest being forced to carry her abuser’s or rapist’s baby? Would not the state’s interest also be furthered by a ban with a few limited exceptions that apply to only a few women each year?

Or consider the states eyeing laws that would criminalize women traveling out of state to obtain an abortion. There are many reasons these travel bans may be unconstitutional: the commerce clause, which prohibits states from restricting interstate commerce, or the principles of federalism. But if intermediate scrutiny were to be used, since the bans apply only to women seeking abortions, they may fall on equal-protection grounds as well. What is the “important government interest” that is furthered by what happens in another state, governed by a different government?