From a conservative position, I don't believe the desire to overturn Roe has anything to do with whether or not abortion remains legal at any stage of pregnancy. It has everything to do with who should be making our laws. Elected representatives, accountable to the voters, or unelected unaccountable judges with life appointments.
Miers has stated she believes abortion is murder.
I agree with your assement from a personal perspective, but the movers and shakers in the prolife movement worry about the life aspect first and the procedure second. Their firt priority is life.
However, overturning Roe v. does not automatically revert the issue to the states. For example, a future court, maybe this one, might follow the path used for other death-penalty situations and impose an onerous appellate process on the question. States could then do whatever they wished, but the USSC's interpretation of "due process" would certainly extend beyond the 9 month period of concern and thereby moot out any conceivable state action.
Another route the USSC could take would involve a determination of relative rights depending on the duration of the pregnancy ~ you could see the trimester nonsense created in Roe v. metastasized into a day by day evaluation of levels of various chemicals found in amniotic fluid, and each level bracketed by formulas imposing various elements of applicable Constitutional rights found in the text as well as assorted penumbras and emanations!
Liberals and Democrats could be left gasping for breath with that one ~ a regulatory excess that even the worst of the mind-numbed, robot-like, knee-jerkers in their number could sense.
No doubt there are still other approaches that would keep abortion out of the hands of the states.