A very interesting point, although I have not seen it referred to in court decisions on this subject. Reliance on Roe v. Wade is less convincing since it was based on faulty logic and is, in the words of Sandra Day O'Connor, "on a collision course with itself" (i.e., the safety of having an abortion is overlapping the point of fetal viability). I wonder how the erstwhile defenders of SCOTUS decisions will feel if this case is overturned?
On a practical level, it is not desirable for a large portion of the population to feel that it has been muzzled by a small group of unelected ideologues. Such feelings of injustice can lead to irredeemable divisions in our society and give credibility to the use of force. A little "undue burden" may be a bargain price for avoiding this potentiality.
Casey, not Roe, reflects current jurisprudence concerning privacy rights with regard to abortion; Griswold/Roe/Casey is considered settled law, and the right to privacy fundamental.
Attempts to overturn Griswold/Roe/Casey, therefore, are not an attack on abortion or an effort to outlaw the practice, its an attack upon, and effort to destroy, our fundamental rights and liberties.
On any level, with regard to the fundamental workings of our Republic, we are subject to the rule of law, not men. Those who feel they are being muzzled or somehow subjected to an injustice must understand that government restriction is paramount to a free society, and threatening mob rule no remedy for their frustration.
When the standard of undue burden is applied to the state it places an important, appropriate, and necessary limit to a states authority, designed to protect individual liberty from the tyranny of the majority.
What doesn't count and under what circumstances?
As I recall the 10th amendment is still in effect.
You don't have to agree with me or even respect my opinion but the legalities still count.
The 10th Amendment is still in effect, but your understanding of it is incorrect; it doesnt mean what you indicate, as some sort of authorization of the states to nullify Federal law, ignore the Federal Constitution, or otherwise ignore rulings made by the Supreme Court. See, e.g., US v. Darby (1941), Cooper v. Aaron (1958).
The 14th Amendment applies due process to the states, both procedural and substantive, establishing a higher standard of judicial review with regard to a given state wishing to limit fundamental rights, such as speech, voting, privacy, and ones individual liberty overall.