Legal ramifications of overturning Roe.

An important post at Mirror of Justice:  What would be the aftermath if Roe v. Wade were overturned?

First, the removal of Roe v. Wade would remove the misguided but nonetheless persistent and widely-accepted argument that nearly-unrestricted access to abortion must be a good thing because it is, after all, a constitutional right….

Second, and related to the first, after an initial period of confusion and probably heightened public distress (more on this below), the presumptions in the argument about abortion would shift toward those who unselfishly advocate protection of unborn human life….

Third… the current legislative movements toward protection of human life, even indirectly and imperfectly, would stand on firmer ground without Roe...

[Fourth], as a jurisprudential black hole that draws in and deforms everything that comes near its wandering path through spacetime, Roe’s gravitational pull has tended to collapse every nearby area of law into a pro-abortion singularity….constitutional jurisprudence in general will move onto a more healthy path once Roe v. Wade is overruled….

[Fifth], overturning Roe v. Wade would enhance democratic governance, the most fundamental freedom of all. …[because meaningful debate would return to the representative branches of government and to the public sphere, among other things]…

Supporting arguments for these assertions can be found in the post.  Sisk also has an important warning for us:

I anticipate that any overturning of Roe v. Wade would be followed explosively by inflammatory rhetoric from “pro-choice” advocates, portraying the result as the death of civil liberties in the United States and the dawn of a moralistic and paternalistic tyranny. Given that support for abortion rights is nearly universal among the cultural elite, especially those who control most of the national news and entertainment media, we should expect a full-throated and extreme reaction that would achieve, for a time, the desired apprehensive response from the general public, with a resultant effect on opinion polling about abortion. During that initial aftermath, a public that understandably is anxious about any significant change in the status quo (that is, a public that is naturally conservative in attitude) would likely be sincerely (if mistakenly) distressed by the judicial removal of a supposed constitutional right.

We’ve seen that the legalization of same-sex unions as "marriages" has mobilized heterosexual marriage advocates to enshrine male-female marriage in state constitutions. 

I predict that abortion-access advocates would try to ride the public backlash sentiment that Sisk describes towards a true constitutional enshrinement of the right to abortion — that is, were the specious "right to privacy" struck down, there would be a push for the insertion into the constitution of the words "the right to abortion shall not be infringed."

UPDATE.  The post I linked to was carefully crafted and well-argued.  This post, on the other hand, relies mainly on sarcasm — reasonably well, I think.  H/t Asymmetrical Information.