Well, that is the belief of a commentator in today's New York Times.

Our greatest obstacle is the popular belief that overturning Roe would automatically make abortion illegal everywhere. In fact, our goal may well be undermined by politicians like President Bush, who seem to use “strict constructionist” as nothing more than code for “anti-abortion.”

Only a constitutionalist who supports abortion rights can create an anti-Roe majority by explaining that the end of Roe means letting the people decide, state by state, about abortion.

Mr. Giuliani’s ambivalence about the end of Roe is consistent with his belief that judges should not seek to achieve political ends. This is a judicial philosophy that pro-lifers should applaud, not condemn. It is, after all, the position consistently articulated by the pro-life movement’s favorite Supreme Court justices: John Roberts, Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia.

I'm not sure that I buy this argument. As a pro-lifer who is religious, I have long recognized that the death of Roe will merely throw the ball back to the states. So have many pro-life legislators who have already passed legislation protecting the unborn in the event that Roe is overturned. As such, I can't help but think that the author is really just looking for an excuse to support Giuliani rather than making a clear-headed argument from a pro-life perspective.