The first order of business needs to be the repeal of Roe v. Wade, after an appropriate SCOTUS becomes available, with immediate prosecution of baby body part dealers. That is already illegal.
We’re talking about the IRS, not ROE v. WADE!
Roe v. Wade is a US Supreme Court decision, not a law.
Laws can get repealed to negate them.
Judicial decisions must be overturned to be nullified.
My (admittedly limited) understanding of the issue is that Roe v. Wade turned on the basis of states' rights, and was not determined on the basis an Unalienable right to Life (or lack thereof). Thus, if Roe v. Wade were reversed, the abortion issue would then become 50 separate state issues. Most states would leave abortion legal in at least some form; a few others would probably ban it altogether; and "liberal" states would keep even late-term abortion legal.
For those who are pro-life, the unfortunate side effect of overturning Roe v. Wade would possibly be to create a situation where abortion could never be banned altogether in the United States. But perhaps a new case could establish something like that?
So, to me, overturning Roe v. Wade seems like it might become a double-edged sword and introduce unintended consequences. But at least individuals, if they felt strongly enough about the issue, would have the potential option of moving to states that banned abortion, while others who felt differently could move to states that allowed it.
I imagine that this would leave many pro-lifers disappointed, though, because, even though abortion would be illegal in some states, the notion of a nationwide ban would become impossible.
However, I'm not intimately familiar with the legal precedents on which the original decision turned. Clearly, some believe there are issues of federalism and states' rights involved, while others focus on an Unalienable right to Life that applies to all individuals.
It'll be interesting to see what happens, but I believe that those who expect a nationwide ban on abortion to occur as a result of overturning Roe v. Wade are probably mistaken...