No, I don't think that every state would outlaw abortion in the event of the overturn of Roe vs. Wade, although the federal government might do so, in which case abortion would become illegal in all states.  However, there are also various other possible outcomes to the reversal of Roe vs. Wade, I was merely discussing one of the possible outcomes.  I could have been more clear about that, sorry for the confusion.

The Congress being a rough representation of the opinions of the people, and the people being split roughly 55/45 (depending on the pole and pole questions) on this issue, I doubt you are going to get such a bill past the inevitable filibuster, as others have noted in this thread.

Also, I'd expect a wide variety of legislation in the states, from an outright ban, to allowing abortions with various levels of restriction, to open access to state funded abortions.  Even in heavily conservative states, compromises will have to be brokered to get bills passed, emotions simply run too high on this issue.

I think you have made a very believable analysis of the political balance regarding the abortion issue.  There are two opposed factions, both of which have a large and devoted base of support among voters.  No matter how desperately the right-to-life crowd works to ban abortion, they will have to deal with an equally dedicated pro-choice crowd.

I think that my original comment gave the wrong impression of what I was trying to say.  My point was not to predict the end of legal abortion in America, but to suggest that rather than focusing on harassing individual doctors, as in the story that we are presently discussing, the anti-abortion movement might be able to accomplish more at the federal level, by influencing the laws and the interpretation of laws that govern the entire country.  And even though they certainly do not have the number of votes needed for victory on a federal level, they can still aspire to recruit more people to the cause, with the ultimate aim of becoming a big enough majority to overwhelm the opposition - and such a result is hardly impossible, either, although equally well it may never happen.  The current stand-off does not necessarily have to last indefinitely.  Demographics and politics change in America.  The country  could become either more conservative or more liberal, and this largely depends upon the efforts of conservatives and liberals to spread the good word and to convince people to join them in their causes.  No one really knows the future.  We can make reasonable guesses, in some cases.  Your guesses are reasonable, but you may still wind up being surprised at how things will work out a decade from now.  Then again, you may not.  We shall see.

Your post points out the importance of retaining Roe v. Wade as the law of the land. To allow the ball to go back in the states' court might see access to family planning, contraception, and abortion services (because it's really more than just about being able to get abortions for the pro-life lobby) still remain alive in those states you mentioned. But, if you're a rape victim or, worse (IMHO) impregnated by a close family member, and you live in one of the many states not listed in your post, well I guess it would just suck to be you.

Illegitimi non carborundum.

Well, I did say it would still be a disaster - but there are degrees of disaster.  I wouldn't want to live in Cuba, for example, but I'd much rather live in Cuba than North Korea.

I guess my question is why must part of the US be the US and another part be North Korea?

Illegitimi non carborundum.

I don't think that either part would or should be like North Korea.  The analogy I chose probably wasn't the best, since it needs some explanation.  My comparison wasn't supposed to be comparing two parts of the US, but rather between two different pictures of a post-overturned-Roe U.S.  My picture is that it (the US as a whole) would be like Cuba - not a great place to live, but not unbearable.  In my analogy skeptic's view is represented by North Korea - a really awful place where nobody would want to live.  Skeptic made it out like abortion would be banned immediately if the SCOTUS overturned Roe and we'd suddenly have this Orwellian society where pregnant women were monitored 24/7 to make sure they didn't abort their fetuses - but in reality, if Roe was overturned, it wouldn't be nearly that bad.  It wouldn't be good, but it wouldn't be awful either.  Abortion is illegal in Ireland, for example, but nobody claims that country is a dystopian hellhole.  If Roe was overturned it would be very, very bad.  I don't want Roe overturned.  I think the right to abortion is a fundamental right all women should have.  That said, I also do not hold to the belief that Roe being overturned would be a sign of the end times.  I'm not trying to be cavalier about it - I know that a lot of women would suffer and some may even die - but there are plenty of other policy disagreements that have led to just as much suffering and death (lack of universal healthcare, for example) which we don't get nearly as worked up about.

In the scenario that I depict, there is a Republican President who appoints a conservative Supreme Court Justice, resulting in the overturn of Roe vs. Wade.  That does not in itself make abortion illegal, however, it does create the opportunity for Congress to enact legislation that makes abortion illegal, which is not unlikely in the situation that I describe.

Mind you, it would not be impossible for the Supreme Court to outlaw abortion on its own.  This would require more than the overturning of Roe vs. Wade, but it would be possible for them to rule that since murder is clearly illegal and since fetuses are people in their opinion, fetuses cannot be legally killed for any reason.  This would just be an interpretation of existing law, rather than a form of new legislation.  Essentially it just requires the Supreme Court to issue a judicial ruling on the meaning of the word "person".

It is in any event perfectly true that there are a whole range of possible consequences of the overturn of Roe vs. Wade, even though I chose to examine only one of those possible consequences.  It is also possible, who knows, that the American public will amend the constitution to explicitly permit abortion, once they realize that they are otherwise headed back to the bad old days of the back-alley abortionist.

which is not unlikely in the situation that I describe.

Unless you're saying that the Republicans will gain the sort of majority in Congress that they haven't seen since Reconstruction, I'd say that I'll have to disagree with you on that one.  This is one law that Senate Democrats would filibuster until the bitter end, and given that there are at least a few pro-choice Republicans left, I simply don't see it passing the Senate unless the Republicans had a filibuster-proof majority, which seems very unlikely in the near future (if anything, it's going the other direction - some projections claim that the Democrats will take a full 2/3rds of the Senate this time around).

Abortion, like same-sex marriage, is one of those strange issues in which party affiliation is no guarantee of how a politician may vote.