Allowing states to decide the issue for themselves would be an improvement on the status quo, and would likely be a necessary intermediate step toward getting a pro-life amendment ratified.
Further, I would posit that just as states have the authority to declare under what circumstances homicides are "justifiable", so too they would--absent a Constitutional amendment--retain the authority to render such decisions for abortion. Would you take away states' authority in the former instance?
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men..."
Blackmun predicated Roe on the lie that unborn children are not persons.
Is an unborn child a person?
The only time abortion is in any way “justifiable” is when the life of the mother is threatened.
C. Everett Coop, Ronald Reagan’s Surgeon General, said that in his decades of experience delivering babies, he never saw a case like that.
Would you take away states’ authority in the former instance?
***Yes, in the case of baby killing. Which is why I believe this frederalism approach is way wrong for unborn babies as well. I’m okay with incrementalism, but this is the wrong approach.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1921162/replies?c=499