I don't agree with that. Before Roe v Wade there were plenty of states that outlawed abortion, and we didn't need a "federal law" to state that. IOW, the States, before Roe v Wade, didn't need "affirmation" from the Feds. The same would be true if Roe v Wade were overturned, or at least severely curtailed. Like I said, there would probably still be some states where abortion would still be legal, but at least it wouldn't be the entire country, which is a step in the right direction. Again, it would at least make it easier to combat abortion on the state level.
The states will just pass a constittional amendment making abortion legal again. Are you arguing that the Court should ignore the amdnemtn?
I'm not sure what amendment you are refering to here, that the Court should "ignore". However, as far as states passing constitutional amendments permitting abortion, I seriously doubt that would happen in too many states, but where it would, since those number of states would be even less than states that would simply permit abortion by law, it would then be even easier to confine abortion to even fewer states.
Think of it this way, as this is what I'm envisioning: Roe v Wade is overturned, the issue is thrown back to the states. A good 50% of states right now would immediately enact laws prohibiting or severely curtailing abortion (this is a fact that one must know; it's not factual to presume that if the issue goes back to the states, the MAJORITY of states would continue to permit abortion, that is simply not true, the reverse is true).
Of the remaining states that would still permit abortion, pro life groups could then redouble and focus their efforts there, putting increasing pressure on the baby killers, much more than they can now that all states permit it. It's simple redistribution of resources: The same resources at the disposal of the lobbyists, focused to a smaller area will obviously equate to a greater amount of force. One could arge the pro-choice crowd would be able to do the same, but in this case, they are on the defensive, not only trying to keep ground they have (the states that permit abortion), but also trying to reverse efforts in states they've lost by the Roe v Wade reversal. IOW, the momentum is clearly on the side of pro-life.
Then, let's say a fraction of the states that permit abortion take the EXTRA step of also putting that in their Constitution. (an exceedingly difficult task, no matter how "universal" the cause). This means that only a fraction of the 50 states, maybe 2 or possibly 3, would have actual State Amendments that would permit abortion. This is a clear victory for pro-life, even if those states never overturn their amendments, because we've gone from 50 states to 2 or 3 that permit the killing of the unborn.
I'd take such a scenario. I'd be willing to live with that in the short term. I'm pragmatic, I realize that it's probably impossible to stamp out all legalized abortion, at least in my lifetime, but that doesn't mean I shouldn't support steps to eliminate it in the future. And it doesn't mean that anyone else who's pro-life shouldn't do the same.
Not all victories are won overnight.