Yes, but in the years subsequent to the Roe decision, state laws such as informed consent and waiting periods were not yet in place. After the courts upheld these laws and they were allowed to go into effect in several states, they proved unquestionably successful. Pro-life sources have credited them with significant reductions in abortions in the states that have them.
That, plus the remarkable success of the Dutch policy, shows that abortion can be effectively combatted without resorting to complete prohibition, which would inevitably bring with it severe consequences for many young women in trouble who are not evil, just desperate.
Reductions to 1973 levels?
The problem I see with keeping it legal is that there are still going to be women - not the majority of those who procure abortions, but a certain percentage nonetheless - who are just plain selfish and think nothing of killing their babies. Informed consent and waiting periods will not stop them, but making it illegal might just make them think twice about it.
As for those who are merely desperate, there would still be pregnancy crisis centers for them to go to that could help them through their situation. And the fact that there are plenty of couples willing to adopt should help take the pressure off them. It's different now than in 1973 in that pregnancy doesn't have the same stigma as it did then. That means that there'd be less pressure for the woman to terminate the pregnancy so as to hide the fact that she ever became pregnant, which I'd guess was probably the largest factor contributing to illicit abortions pre-Roe.