I am reminded of the exchange in The Man for All Seasons:
More : There's no law against that!
Roper: There is, God's law!
More: Then let God arrest him!
Wife: While you talk he's gone!
More: And go he should, if he were the Devil himself, until he broke the law!
Roper: So, now you give the Devil the benefit of law!
More: Yes! What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?
Roper: Yes, I'd cut down every law in England to do that!
More: Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned 'round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man's laws, not God's! And if you cut them down (and you're just the man to do it!), do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then?
Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake!
You have Roper's attitude toward our Constitution: cut it down to get after evil.
By all means Federalize all crimes, since they are all issues of morality, and let's make anger a capital offense in keeping with Our Lord's words, and after we recriminalize adultery, we can criminalize flirting and lascivious looks as well. And let's do it all by Constitutional amendment like we did when we decided to go after 'demon rum'. /sarcasm
Roe should be oveturned, and abortion should be a crime in every state of the Union, but it is a matter for the states to decide. If one wants to hue the line of the Orthodox and Latin churches and make no distinction between 'formed and unformed', while another makes such a distinction; one state is absolute in its prohibition, while, another allows exceptions for rape and incest; and the like, then the law in the matter will be like that on every other major immorality our society sees fit to have the government suppress--adapted to local circumstance, state by state--and our Constitution will be intact to the protection of us all.
Yes, it would be most just (and ideal) to pass a Human Life Amendment protecting the life of the unborn. The slavery example is truly a valid one. However, such an amendment process requires both: 1) a 2/3 affirmative vote in each House of Congress and 2) the approval of 3/4 of the states.
Even though one can argue that this is not right or just, this issue must, as a matter of process to stand the test of time, go through the states. My goodness, remember we had to fight a civil war over slavery to get the 14th Amendment. And we're going to demand that a candidate for POTUS, in this culture, declare that they are going to do it unilaterally?!