Schumer gets his law and Mississippi promptly prosecutes an abortionist under its law. The abortionist seeks habeas corpus citing the federal law and the matter ends up before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court is then asked to decide whether the federal statute preempts the field and to declare the prosecution repugnant to a constitutional federal statute.
First, the court has to determine standing which probably exists and it must consider whether the abortionist can raise the federal statute in defense. Assuming these two hurdles are successfully negotiated by the abortionist, the constitutionality of Schumer's law must be analyzed. Given our recent history of expansion of federal authority over everything, I have not much confidence that the Supreme Court will strike down the law as repugnant to the Constitution for an exercise of an unenumerated power. If we can have Obama care and Covid mandates, why not a law that enacts a liberty to abort?
It is conceivable that the court can get to the same result down another path but then the question arises how will the court behave when the pressure of such litigation will be in order of magnitude greater than it has been since Roe vs. Wade was made the law of the land? If the justices are afraid to go home at night now, imagine the intensity under these circumstances.
Rather than find a workaround to declare the law unconstitutional it is far more likely that a pusillanimous court will find a workaround to avoid the constitutional question entirely, thus leaving Schumer's law intact. Finally, the court can simply decline to accept the case and leave Schumer's law in force.
It is not so easy to say that Schumer's law would be declared unconstitutional just because it is.
