I would agree but, more expressly, say that this argument isn’t difficult to adjudicate, it is simply illogical. If we’re saying that fetal life is human then privacy just has no bearing. It’s like saying that so long as you can murder a woman quietly, in the privacy of your home then it’s none of the governments’ business. That’s plainly insane.
We have to assume that the judges who decided Roe were not insane so there must be more to the decision than privacy - and specifically about what constitutes a human life. But that can’t reasonably be gotten into without, effectively, saying that a secular, scientific answer to the question is the only answer that the US government is allowed to give and that arguments like “a second soul enters the mother’s body during contraception” are nonsense.
A full Roe decision would have required an affirmation of the government’s requirement to ignore religious teachings. The justices were, I expect, afraid to write a decision on the definition of life that opposed popular Christian teaching and so they simply hopped past addressing the question and wrote the whole decision with the implicit understanding that a fetal life is not a human being - and thereby a matter that can fall under the privacy rule - without explaining how they came to that conclusion.
A real and complete pro-life decision can’t just be a decision on medical privacy, it also needs to create a standard for human life and - per that - it must abide by the 1st Amendment and use a secular definition. That would be an even bigger kettle of fish to deal with and almost certainly cause an even larger amount of chaos since - I assume - almost all Americans have no idea that their government is intended and required to be secular, and rubbing that in their faces would almost certainly turn them against the whole institution.
Ultimately, the purpose of the Constitution and the 10th Amendment was to alleviate discord between the states by giving each state the freedom to act as its own nation and the expectation that everyone else would afford them that right. If Pennsylvania wants to be a nation of Dutch speakers, that’s fine; if Maryland wanted to be Catholic while the other states were Protestant, then that would be fine; and so on.
Fundamentally, if the people of Kentucky think that human life begins at conception then, whether that has a secular basis or not, it’s their state and their right to make that rule - just as they could decide that you’re in your rights to shoot a man for walking on your lawn without permission, while New York requires that he attacks you with a weapon in the privacy of your home, and the shot be fully in self-defense. So long as the rule is public and well-known, the people who live there have the freedom to complain about it, vote, or up and leave, as they see fit.
The states are supposed to be different. If one state wants to be Muslim and practice Sharia then - to the extent that it doesn’t conflict with the Bill of Rights - that should be allowed. One standard for all goes against the planned setup of the nation by the framers. It was their answer for keeping peace between nations with different religions, beliefs, and languages.
We started like the EU. Our current state where everyone thinks of us as a centrally managed nation with a uniform set of laws, and a primary focus on the Federal government, is contrary to the Constitution. In general, the Federal government isn’t even allowed to make domestic law - it has to offer money to the states in return for their acceptance of a national standard, or use other workarounds like that.