Once you have the basis wrong, all the logic you heap on top of the fallacious basis is incorrect. That's how people are so easily misled - they hear what sounds like logic without recognizing that the basis is wrong.
Has Scalia ever voted to strike down an abortion law on the grounds that it was a states’ rights issue? No.
Roe v. Wade decided that since SOME states legalized abortion, a national policy MANDATING legal abortion MUST be implemented, even if the MAJORITY of the states OPPOSED legalized abortion, otherwise a “patchwork” of “rights” creates the supposedly unreasonable situation of someone having a “right” in one state, and not another. Herein, the cynically manipulative USSC justices purposely confused “right” with “license”: If it’s not an inherent right, their argument is nonsensical, if it is a right, their argument is unnecessary.
Therefore, the “states’ rights” position in abortion isn’t truly about the rights of a state; rather, it’s an assertion that the “right to abortion” does not exist in the federal constitution, and therefore the issue of a “license” to abortion defaults to the states. Scalia has consistently supported federal regulation of abortion, therefore suggesting that the issue is not a valid case for state nullification; the federal government, indeed, does have an INTEREST in protecting life. The only question as to how “pro-life” Scalia is is whether he not he holds that the federal government may COMPELLED to protect life through judicial activism, or whether the federal government must do so through the representative process.