The issue is getting judges that will apply the literal language of the Constitution together with the actual body of documentary history that spells out the original intent of the framers. If the people want to amend the constitution to provide that murder by the mother is ok, they are free to do that and if they can get such an amendment enacted, it is the law of the land. (Immoral under God's Law, but the law of the US.) Think they would have some trouble doing this.
Roe v. Wade was decided on the facts of that case which included the state of science on the fetus at the time the case was argued. Science has advanced--we now know that as a scientific proposition, life begins, even for the tumor in the mother's stomach analysts, at a very early date in the process. So a Constitutional judge who is applying the literal law ought to decide that abortion deprives a "person" of life without due process at a very early state in the pregnancy, whatever his personal view about the rights of woman--unless and until the Constitution is amended.
The kind of judges that are literal language Constitutional judges are also the kind of men and women that are likely to overrule Roe v. Wade, perhaps in stages. They are also the kind of judges we need to be sure we get a level playing field on other fronts.
You can't have a liberal state Supreme Court like Florida deciding it is unconsitutional to count votes except for those cast for Al Gore because the issue is local law--if you don't get level playing field judges, you will never have the opportunity to convert ballot victories to reversal of Roe or anything else.
I agree, ths issue is a strict constructionist one.
However, Roe was not decided upon science at the time, unless one means they did so by declaring it also inconclusive.
Roe v Wade makes its decision based on some interesting thinking:
First, it asserts that it is not capable of knowing ancient attitudes toward when life begins, and toward abortion, precisely. But finds no proscription against abortion in ancient religion.
Then it dismisses the hippocratic oath by showing that it precisely reflects only one group's point of view.
Common and Canon law receive the same treatment, as it is able to point to a variety of opinion.
in any case, it does not appear to have based its opinion on scientific evidence, but on the history (or lack) of jurisprudence regarding the matter:
"We need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins. When those trained in the respective disciplines of medicine, philosophy, and theology are unable to arrive at any consensus, the judiciary, at this point in the development of man's knowledge, is not in a position to speculate as to the answer.
"...Physicians and their scientific colleagues have regarded that event with less interest and have tended to focus either upon conception, upon live birth, or upon the interim point at which the fetus becomes "viable,"..."
A beautiful quote from REHNQUIST's Dissent:
"The decision here to break pregnancy into three distinct terms and to outline the permissible restrictions the State may impose in each one, for example, partakes more of judicial legislation than it does of a determination of the intent of the drafters of the Fourteenth Amendment."
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=410&invol=113