FWIW, the pro-life movement has been in three distinct phases since Roe v Wade (dates are approximate):
Phase I (1973-1979): Stunned silence. Some activism and anger from grass roots but generally not even a blip on the political radar screen.
Phase II (1980-1991): Overturn the law. Conservatives thought the best way to overturn Roe v. Wade was to put five pro-lifers on the Supreme Court and get the law overturned. Nominees had to claim they had "no opinion" about the issue, which we all knew was a lie, but it meant nominees had to have little or no paper trail on the issue in order to get past the Senate (see Bork, Robert). This got us Scalia, O'Connor, Kennedy, Souter and Thomas, with Scalia and Thomas the only ones who came out of it solidly pro-life. The others have chosen to accept Roe v Wade as "historical precedent" even if they believe it was bad law.
This strategy proved to be a failure after 1991 rulings solidified SCOTUS interpretation of Roe v. Wade. Challenges were constructed in state law that offered challenges, notably laws passed in Pennsylvania, Nebraska and Louisiana but all were struck down by the Supreme Court except the Pennsylvania law on parental notification.
Phase III (1992-present): Nibble at the edges. Realizing that a one-swoop overturning was becoming impossible and with Clinton able to put more pro-aborts on the Court, pro-lifers decided to start nibbling at Roe v. Wade's edges. Bills for informed consent, parental notification, "partial-birth" abortion bans, etc. were introduced and passed many state courts. They have rarely succeeded at the high court though if they strayed too far from the Pennsylvania case (ironically the PA case went through Bob Casey who is one of the very few pro-life Democrats and who was publicly stifled during the 1992 Clinton DNC convention because the "party of tolerance" refused to tolerate anyone who differed from their monolithic thinking).
It's too early to tell if the semantic change Bush made in recognizing pre-natal care will have any traction in a legal recognition (and therefore acknowledgement) of the welfare of the fetus, but I suspect it will carry little weight in future legal decisions.
I explain all this to point out that, in Reagan's time, introducing legislation to curb abortion wasn't considered the proper way to go. There is/was also a "human life amendment" to the Constitution that would have recognized the fetus as a life worthy of Constituional protection and, though it made the Republican Party platform for years (and may still be in it), it has no momentum since it would need super-majorities in both the House and Senate to pass and then be ratified by two-thirds of state legislatures. Clearly, it couldn't muster the votes today to succeed.
Hope all this gives you an overview on how this issue has changed over time since the 1973 Roe decision.