That said, I'd like to put out some logic that I think we should deal with. Since I read Roe v Wade some years ago, I may be misremembering some things. I don't want to go reread it because, frankly, when I read it before I had to watch Walt Disney's Fantasia twice to wash the corruption out of my mind.
The basic way the SC ruled the anti-abortion laws in the states unconstitutional was the 9th amendment (rights retained by the people) "purviewed" through the 14th amendment (citizen of the US only, not a state and recognized only if "born or naturalized).
Any other considerations notwithstanding, The "born or naturalized" clause in the 14th, to the extent Roe relied on it, would have to mean actually, physically born, and out of the mother's womb.
I would think any court would have to follow what the SC rules for the reasons the SC used.
A law banning a partial birth birth procedure, and with the wording I last saw when I read the bill (it was when it was first posted here), it could be reasonably argued that it is an anti-abortion law. An anti-abortion law wouldn't, by the reasoning above, be constitutional based on Roe's interpretation of the constitution, which is alive and active.
My understanding is that a court can take "judicial notice" of precedents and other facts that bear on a case. It may be that even a conservative judge would have to use those considerations, that it be likely the SC would rule it unconstitutional under their previous notions of the post 14th amendment era constitution.
I'd like it to be otherwise, but this is how I read the situation. 