AntiGuv, I was thinking just like you a few minutes ago, but read Justice Thomas’s concurrence (I posted a couple of sentences from it earlier on this thread.) He clearly states that the federalism issue was never raised in this case.
Yep, we are in agreement. The reason that the federalism issue was not raised is because the ban was (to state the obvious) challenged by supporters of
Roe v Wade and they know that federal authority over abortion is a central tenet of
Roe v Wade. If they challenged on the basis of federalism and they won then it would be a pyrrhic victory on their part, because that would undermine a key pillar of
Roe v Wade. They would win the battle by risking the war, much as in this ruling opponents of
Roe v Wade have won a battle by risking the war. Unfortunately, the status quo puts opponents of
Roe on shakier ground than proponents.
What should've been done by opponents of Roe was to get another state to pass a PBA ban, slightly modified from the Stenberg ban, and to thereby give the Court a case with which to effectively reverse Stenberg.