I agree that this should be in the Debate section (along with all of the political threads that are appearing here).
As to the topic itself, I think Roe vs. Wade was a horrible case, not because I am pro-life (although I am), but because the federal government shouldn't have held the jurisdiction over abortion in the first place. There is nothing to abortion that would make it a federal case: you don't start the operation in one state and complete it in another, etc. As with most other legalities of an individual nature like this, it should be held at most by the states, and the best circumstances at county and municipal governments. The 10th Amendment to the constitution stipulates that powers not specified by the constitution are reserved to the states and its people. For example, murder is illegal, but the laws against murder are held, for the most part, by the states. Same with prostitution (which is why some states, like Nevada, has it legal). What Roe vs Wade did, however, was to pull that control out of the states hands and place it in the hands of the federal government. Now the federal government dictates that abortion clinics have to be allowed to open in every state, even if the people of that state (or even city) do not want it. I think that when the case was presented to the Supreme Court, they should have declined to rule on it, stating that the jurisdiction rightly belongs to the states. That way if Utah, for instance, wishes to prohibit abortion, they are allowed to do so, likewise California may allow it in much the same way that prostitution is legal in Nevada but not in New York. Ideally it should be left to the cities / counties that determine whether they want to allow abortion. That way if a town / county has people of the same mindset that believe abortion is wrong, they can make a law prohibiting abortion in that city, much like dry counties that prohibit alcohol.