Yes, it will be an improvement when, post-Roe, abortion will be left to the states.
However, this is not enough. Truly, for our Constitution to fulfill its mission, for justice to be served, for our posterity to be protected, we must be careful not to settle for "states' rights" here, any more than we would have forever tolerated slavery in any state in the union.
After Roe is overturned, that is the point at which we need absolute clarity regarding the federal Constitution's role on abortion. On the basis of the Constitution, we must strive with all our might for a clear national pro-life policy.
In addition to the Preamble, the Constitution (by the 5th, 10th, and 14th Amendments) already provides the basis for the courts to side against any state law that amounts to a deprivation of life. In lieu of that, we will have to procede with a pro-life amendment. Just like the 13th and 14th Amendments, it will be a clearer statement of what should have already been understood in the Constitution.
You and I are really not all that different in wanting to end abortion on the basis of its brutality in ending a human life. I would hate to lose everything just because we could not get everything we wanted - and allow this grisly holocaust to continue its silent march at present levels - 1.2 million a year.
The principle is not lost. I will fight abortion until the day I die as long as policy is anything less than what you are suggesting - even if it does go to the states. Eventually perhaps, even after overturning of Roe, something like what you've outlined could eventually become the policy, as it should.
What Scalia is trying to tell you is that if this is what you want, it's going to take a Constitutional Amendment to explicitly make it the national government's job to define and enforce that policy.