That is the position of Josh Craddock in a recent essay in Public Discourse. His Public Discourse essay is a summary of the paper he previously published in the Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy.
Here is a summary of his argument: “Given the original public meaning of the term “person,” the contemporaneous anti-abortion statutes purposed to protect prenatal life, and the public explanations given by the framers of the Fourteenth Amendment as to its scope of meaning, protections should be extended to prenatal life on originalist grounds. If constitutional protections for the unborn were acknowledged, a state could not refuse to prosecute the intentional killing of the unborn while continuing to prosecute the killings of other classes of persons without violating the Equal Protection Clause.”