ANDREW MCCARTHY (NATIONAL REVIEW): I really think the Roe v. Wade thing is a political demagogic talking point more than a practical reality because we've actually been living under [Planned Parenthood v.] Casey, which is a case that was decided about 19 years after Roe and it opened up a lot of avenue to regulate abortion, rather than have to grapple with the holding in Roe v. Wade that this right exists. So the cases that are likely to come up in the future are going to be about are these regulations OK, not do we need to confront the Roe right or not.

...

MCCARTHY: I just think this is so overblown because to me, it's highly unlikely that that kind of challenge comes before the court. Much more likely we'll be talking about a regulation, and let's say even if the fantasy of some that the court jumps in and overrules Roe, which I think is highly unlikely but let's say it happens. All that would mean would be that the regulation of abortion would be returned to the states. It wouldn't make abortion illegal. And to me, it seems highly unlikely that any woman who wanted an abortion the day before Roe was reversed would be unable to get one the day after. It's simply not going to work that way.

Related: 

Wash. Post: What could happen if Roe v Wade gets struck down?

Previously:

The Supreme Court could overturn Roe v. Wade. Don’t buy these right-wing excuses that it’s not a big deal.

Fox guest: “Any justice that the president appoints” to replace Anthony Kennedy “should be against Roe v. Wade”

Fox guest: “We can assume” that the judges on Trump's Supreme Court shortlist “will overturn Roe v. Wade”