Uh...
Timothy D. Terrell, Pro-Life Principles II: The Right-To-Life Amendment. July 30, 2002
There is no law against murder in the Constitution-that is not the purpose of that document, or even of the federal government. The Constitution of the United States leaves criminal law to the states, and was never intended to make all crimes into federal issues. Any prohibition against abortion ought to be a state concern, just as prohibitions against any form of murder are state concerns. Pro-lifers who want to use a federal instead of a state route to ending abortion are undermining the intent of the original Constitution. http://www.chalcedon.edu/articles/0207/020730terrell.shtml
Ron Paul in the US House of Representatives, June 4, 2003
I have become increasingly concerned over the years that the pro-life movement I so strongly support is getting further off track, both politically and morally. I sponsored the original pro-life amendment, which used a constitutional approach to solve the crisis of federalization of abortion law by the courts. The pro-life movement was with me and had my full support and admiration.
For the pro-life cause to truly succeed without undermining the very freedoms that protect life, it must return to principle and uphold our Founder's vision of federalism as an essential component of the American system. Undermining federalism ultimately can only undermine the very mechanism that protects the right to life. http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2003/cr060403b.htm
We've got 27 amendments, the most recent as of 1992. Amending the Constitution is a long-term process, requiring two-thirds supermajorities in both the House and the Senate, plus ratification by three-fourths of the states. A number of Right to Life constitutional amendments have been introduced in Congress, but to date, no definite action has been taken. Any amendment should focus on the federal courts where the problem is and return the issue to the several states where it belongs!
Republican presidents appointed seven members of the current Supreme Court. Supreme Court judge, Stevens, born April 20, 1920, is 4 years older than Rehnquist. The remaining seven are much younger. Replacements may wear the conservative label, but will they rule according to the U.S. Constitution, or according to judicial precedent? Will they follow the "activist" opinions, or the "restraint" of the Constitution?
It is true that if district courts could not hear abortion-related cases, then if a state legislature passed a law outlawing abortion, nobody could obtain an injunction from a local federal district court barring enforcement of the law. But if Roe remained, it would be a powerful political bar to state legislatures enacting abortion-ban bills.