Great article.
You do realize, of course, that the article is mostly discussing what would happen to abortion law in the several states if Roe were overturned.
Overturning Roe is only the beginning.
But without it, we are reduced to limiting abortion around the edges, at the fringes. We're talking about being able to act in a way that reduces abortions nationally by perhaps 20% - 25%.
And that's good stuff.
But without overturning Roe, the number of abortions in the United States will continue at the 1+ million per year, and unborn children will not be protected in law.
I'll reiterate - to “send abortion back to the states (at least in a substantive way}” is to “overturn Roe.”
P-Marlowe is right - if we abandon the fight to ultimately overturn Roe, by whatever legal means, the pro-life movement is dead.
sitetest
You're wrong.
Please see the article I linked to in the previous post.
The states are where the battle is being fought. The states will continue to come up with laws which will be challenged, and which will be modified, and put up for vote again.
These laws will end up in SCOTUS.
THAT is what will end Roe because it will be a reversion to pre-Roe intentions, where the abortion challenges at the state level will make Roe beside the point.
Roe is never going to be taken down from any president or senator deciding this. It's going to come down when a state law is challenged.
At this point Roe will be beside the point. The pro-life movement won't be finished, as you point out.
But Roe isn't going away because Michael Steele isn't pro-life enough.