The U.S. Constitution is very far from being clear. The whole purpose of the Supreme Court is to explain the meaning of what is written in the Constitution; there are 9 justices in the court and they often disagree on that.

Just look at the second amendment:

  A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,
  the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Just as the second amendment has this "militia" phrase that provokes arguments, the fourteenth amendment starts with

  All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the
  jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State
  wherein they reside.

Natural language is just bad in expressing rules.

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Miller#Decisi...

[2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller...

I can believe that there is a lot of variance in maternal care and obstetrics in the US, but my wife and I had a pretty good experience. Documented here in what detail I could muster in those days: https://wiki.roshangeorge.dev/w/Pregnancy

> our declining population

Our what?

The birth rate correlates inversely with female earnings growth and correspondingly with male earnings growth; or, more to the point, declining birth rates correlates with the advancement of feminism (including birth rates approaching and then reaching zero.)

This is an observation and not a judgement. Take what you will with this information.

[flagged]

> If only because this would open up people born here to having their citizenship retroactively revoked.

No, that's not how laws work

Applying laws retroactively is much less common than a "simple" rule change

> If anything we need to expand it to include anyone who gives birth in this country.

???

That's exactly what this ruling affirms; no expansion necessary: it already included "anyone who gives birth in this country".