Bork and Roe v. Wade

I meant the second point, not necessarily the sine qua non part. Which leads me to the following question: since the biggest threat to abortion rights is the overturning of Roe v. Wade, and since the "activist" origins of the ruling are the most obvious (and justifiable) grounds to overturn it, why has the pro-choice camp never introduced actual legislation to legalize abortion, whether at the state or federal level? I mean, everybody freaked out and started wielding pitchforks and torches at the thought of h...ho...homosexuals getting married, passing state-level "defense of marriage" acts, even though there is already a federal DOMA on the books. There have been plenty of Democratic majorities, and even if such an effort failed, the Roe ruling would still be binding, like a legal safety net, right? If the legislation worked, then even if Roe were overturned, abortion would remain legal and the anti-abortion camp would be deprived of a principal objection to it. There must be a reason this wouldn't have worked (I doubt it would now with GOP majorities all over the place); otherwise, somebody would have thought of it before me.