Yep.

Trivia: Roe v. Wade is based on the implicit Constitution right of privacy, a right which has been upheld by numerous courts since pretty much the inception of the US. (And before someone says "literal interpretation," I will remind you that the US operates under Common Law, like England, where legal precedent outweighs the letter of the law.) The word "privacy," however appears nowhere in the Constitution of the US. Undermining Roe v. Wade would essenitally undermine the right of US citizens to privacy from the government.

Anyway, the fine people of the Independant Republic of California decided to overdo things in 1972 and amended the wording of the first sentance of the constitution:

Article 1 Section 1 of the California Constitution states:
"SECTION 1. All people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy."

By California law, the rights granted in the state constitution are not dependant on the US Constitution. That could be an interesting legal battle IF a federal law were passed outlawing abortion. I suspect the reaction in CA would be much like the reaction to outlawing medical marijuana at the federal lew -- "come and enforce it yourself, boys!"