Roe should be overturned for a very simple reason: the decision is constitutionally unsound. There is no constitutional provision prohibiting a state from banning abortions. The Ninth Amendment does not apply to the states, and "substantive due process" is a fiction: hence, there are no grounds for either the "right to privacy" or the "compelling interest standard." Both of these are inventions of the judiciary.
The very reason that there is no constitutional justification should be sufficient to overturn a ruling. Societal factors should not be considered, because the Supreme Court should not and is not meant to set social policy. But, as you point out, the Supreme Court has, sadly, taken a different approach.
I completely agree. This decision is one of the worst cases of the court legislating social policy from the bench, and casting about for a flimsy justification of its overstepping its bounds.
The Warren-Burger court was a terrible era of judicial overreaching, and it has not gone away yet. It's funny to hear liberals argue in favor of maintaining legal precedent as a reason not to overturn Roe vs. Wade. Did they feel the same way about Plessey vs. Ferguson? Did they object when the Supreme Court overturned a 1986 decision that allowed states to outlaw sodomy between consenting adults? Both these cases violated judicial precedent.
The interesting thing is that the need to defend this decision seems to be hurting those who sought it. Having cast their lot with the strategy of using courts to legislate by fiat, rather than taking the harder steps of building up public opinion, these people must now sweat bullets over every Supreme Court appointment, 32 years after their beloved decision. It seems like a phyrric victory. This would not be the case if the abortion lobby had convinced public opinion of their point of view, and perhaps made some compromises with state legislatures. This is how democracy is supposed to work.
I wonder if the proponents of gay marriage are watching.
