This betrays a misunderstanding of their position. People who indeed hold the "all life is sacred" position do tend to oppose the death penalty as well for this reason, it also includes vegans and other assumably left wing positions that see that taking of any life as a moral wrong.

The right wing anti-abortion position is better summed up as "innocent human life is sacred" hardly controversial. In this view the death row inmate has been (hopefully) tried and found guilty through due process and as such the death is not seen as a moral outrage as the party is guilty. Whereas the unborn child has committed no crime and is therefore innocent and undeserving of death.

The real crux of the issue then revolves around at what point does one become a person. For the pro-abortion positions they consider the fetus being aborted to not be a person so the claim that the fetus has rights is rightly seen as rediculous. But to the anti-abortion position the fetus is not seen as fundamentally different than a baby, therefore a person and the position that it should be killed without probable cause is seen as rediculous.

The real thorny part that comes into play is that very few people hold extreme anti-abortion or pro-abortion positions in America.

Most people in the anti-abortion camp will agree that any kind of medically necessary abortion, either removing a fetus that is already dead or one whose birth will cause severe health risks to the mother, is perfectly justifiable, in the same logic that it's justifiable to kill when your own life is in danger.

Likewise most people on the pro-abortion position will also agree that it's not right to allow fully elective abortions of pregnancies that have proceeded into the third trimester as there is again little difference between a third trimester fetus and a baby in terms of development. Also the woman would have ample time and opportunity to seek an abortion before this point to exercise her right to choose whether or not to proceed with the pregnancy. (Admittingly, this is often used as a right wing talking point and I'll fully concede that any sane woman would not carry her pregnancy for 9 months only to decide to get an abortion on a whim).

The truly controversial part of this conversation comes down to the period from contraception to the second trimester on whether or not abortions should be allowed for elective reasons. Even then most people are largely in favor of allowing them very early in the pregnancy. Except for as you say the holier than thou church folk.

The issue with the debate is it's been ceded largely to the extremists on both sides for fundraising purposes and is used very much for this purpose. Politicians are less interested in securing women's rights than they are in securing their votes and donations. Otherwise they have had ample opportunities to counter right-wing opposition to Roe by pursuing federal abortion legislation that would have codified the position with something that would have appealed to the vast majority of Americans.

Painting this as a Women's issue is essentially painting it as a moral issue. Rather than a socio-economic issue. For the state of the discourse in the US however it's best described as a political tool rather than a serious position politicians are committed to furthering. The only women largely effected by Roe being reversed are poor women in red states, and while I'm not without empathy for how this uniquely impacts them, it's not without some understanding that this is something that they have agreed with, and in many cases an outcome that they wanted and voted towards.

To say it's a women's issue isn't wrong, but to say there is any solidarity amongst women on it is a misconception. If there is to be progress in Red states on this issue then typical talking points towards abortion need to be abandoned. Naturally focusing on programs that help prevent women from getting pregnant in the first place will see far more success in these areas than you'll see making arguments towards abortion in general.