You make several points, clo.
"SCOTUS struck down Dobbs, their reasoning was it should be left to the states." I think the federal government should be permitted to write law on abortion rights. [Did you mean Dobbs struck down Roe?]
"He's proposing a nationwide ban." He's proposing a limit which everyone agrees has to exist. No one permits abortions at, say, 38 weeks. He says 15 weeks is the cut-off. Others have a different number. That he makes abortion legal is an improvement on the usual Republican position.
"A child that's a rape victim might have many conflicts with seeking help right away." You can write exceptions into the law for special cirumtances of different kinds.
"I have a problem with the government taking rights away from women/people. This was settled law for 50 years." This isn't removing a right. It's redefining a limit to the interest of the mother and expanding the interest of the foetus, thereby hopefully also reducing the possibility of suffering. [ps my method is not to think in terms of the "rights" either of the mother or the foetus but to consider the amount of time needed to make a choice in a situation involving the risk of suffering - I have translated for you]
"Three candidates for the court, when asked, agreed, it was settled." I agree that the court's decision was unhelpful and the duplicity of at least three justices has undermined the court's standing. But they have done so and congress is the right body to pick up the pieces.
ps This is really about electoral timing, more than it is about abortion. Graham is trying to take the issue off the table before the midterms because it's disastrous for the GOP among women voters. Dems would prefer to defer lawmaking on this subject until after the election.
| 