Quote:
How is it untenable?
It is untenable for a host of reasons which you are ignoring. Here are a few:
The anti-abortion side has gained support largely by being able to fixate singularly on issues like late-term abortion ("partial-birth"_ or New York's recent law. The perceived battle-line has shifted dramatically from there to a point where support is MUCH less, and anti-abortion forces don't appreciate how much this will damage their position in the debate.
If this stands, it will mobilize the pro-choice side. A basic maxim of American politics is that every action creates a larger and unreasonable over-reaction. Pro-life forces have been beneficiaries of this for decades.
Having abortion be theoretically legal, but unobtainable in practice was the best-case situation for the anti-abortion side. That is about to change.
The Pro-choice side will be able to point to victims either incarcarated or in bondage to their unwanted pregnancy. That matters. Gay rights succeeded because people were willing to be visible. The State is now directly responsible for this.
People can easily travel to other states for an abortion, and such travel will be organized and funded if bans are enforced.
Religion continues to wane, and the "protection at conception" viewpoint remains profoundly based on conservative religious views. This remains true even if some atheists are strongly pro-life.
The "state's rights" argument continues to play out badly, as states turn to majoritarian parochialism to restrict their populace, while refusing to improve the actual qulaity of life of their voters. There was always a silly view that "Roe v. Wade was the problem, and everything would be great if only that didn't happen." That is stupid, get rid of Roe v. Wade, and the issue multiplies and becomes more systemic as every state plays out their own form of radicalization on the abortion debate.
These are several small ways in which this action is untenable. Taken together, it is difficulat to see any positive or sustainable resolution.