Kevin, the Supreme Court has ruled that fetuses are not "persons" under the 14th Amendment, and one aspect of Roe v Wade that is not at risk is the provision that any abortion law MUST put the health of the mother above the fetus, even if the fetus is viable. ("Health" is defined as physical, emotional, psychological, and familial.)

Numerous laws have been enacted in the past few years to grant legal status to fertilized embryos, but they could technically be challenged as unconstitutional. (But who's gonna challenge a law that gives double sentences to a person who kills a pregnant woman?)

Some very interesting (and long) reading here:
Roe v. Wade and Privacy Law (PDF file)

I agree that RvW is under attack Bobert, but I don't think most people realize how chilling the Constitutional ramifications of overturning it would be. Access to contraception is allowed under the right to privacy. It's illegal to forcibly sterilize people because of the right to privacy. Your medical records are safe from public disemination ONLY because of the right to privacy. It's not just abortion that's a stake -- we're talking about a fundamental revision of rights and priviledges we take for granted.