The partial birth abortion ban can be easily distinguished from Roe. Roe protects first trimester abortions, not those in the later stages. Partial birth abortions are more necessary as the pregnancy progresses into those later terms. States can regulate as a woman's pregnancy progresses under Roe v. Wade. I agree with you on both points - that Roe is unlikely be overturned anytime soon and that this case is clearly distintuisable from Roe.
While I think Roe represents remarkably bad law - in the sense of reasoning from precedent - I do think the fundamental reason Roe will endure is that it represents something close to the practical compromise the majority of Americans want on abortion: not too readily available as a general matter because I don't think anyone other than a NOW activist thinks abortion is just wonderful, but not illegal if I (or my daughter or girlfriend or wife) 'needs' one.
Roe was and is bad science as well, but the three 'trimester' compromise Roe represents our ambivalence - early enough on in a pregnancy most people (not being philosophically or religiously consistent) are not deeply troubled by an abortion; as the pregnancy progresses the matter gets more difficult; and, at some point, most people see it as unacceptable.
So, as I see it, the question is not whether something like Roe will stand as a compromise, but whether the post-Roe decisions that vastly expanded the right to an abortion will stand. I would not be surprised if we ended up in 5-10 years in a position much closer to the situation shortly after Roe than where we are now.
The Court rejected the rigid trimester framework of Roe in the Casey decision. Please read that to understand the undue burden standard that’s now used.