Attacking Roe is stupid.
Making abortion socially unacceptable is easier (hell, we’re nearly there) and cutting off funding for abortion is easier too.
The most defensible ground there is is to say, “Roe is one of the best cases of 10th Amendment infringement ever. It’s a clear violation of state’s rights. However, it’s done. That however doesn’t mean taxpayers should be made to fund it. There’s no constitutional mandate for that. And more to the point, its a violation of men’s rights, in that the child is co-authored, yet only the woman decides.”
“Saying all of this, abortion, as a national evil is best dealt with by making it reprehensible, publicly unacceptable, a national stain, but nonetheless legal. We tried this with alcohol, and it doesn’t work.
And there is the legitimate point that any law prohibiting abortion does further infringe on the personal freedom of women in the most intimate areas of their lives.
So, no, as SCOTUS justice, we’ll let that very ugly dog lie right where it is. Let it be a monument to bad Constitutional law.
I disagree with your assertion that attacking the federal usurpation of authority from the states is stupid.
In fact, I will furthur stipulate that picking this forum to advance that notion is really, really stupid.