Yes, it should be ignored. And politics will not solve the problem. On one hand, the matter should be left to the states to decide or, on the other hand, it should be left to a national referendum to decide. If it should be clearly rejected by the majority, that’s that. If it should be clearly embraced by the majority, that is also that.
“If it should be clearly rejected by the majority, that’s that.”
Yikes, glad you ain’t in charge. Slavery decided by a majority vote? Murder? Sorry neither constitutional nor reasonable.
Trouble is that the Supreme Court has stood in the way of either option you mention. How do you suggest the American people reassert their right to have the say on such matters except through this tiresome process of trying to elect presidents who will hopefully appoint Justices who will overturn Roe? You present what may be valid approaches, but they are both “you can’t get there from here” kinds of situations.