I'm not a lawyer but I study the Constitution and my father was a practicing Constitutional trial attorney for the DoJ. We spent a lot of time arguing Constitutionality. So I have no problems asserting that the US Constitution is pretty clear. Roe was weakly decided because it asserted a right for The Government to regulate well outside the limits placed upon it by Am 4, 9, 10 and 13.

I have no doubt that Scalia, Thomas, Alito, Kennedy and Roberts would rule their beliefs and find some byzantine interpretation ala Raich or the "natural reading" (Thomas' anti-originalist, anti-textualist belief driven reading of Kelo) to allow a way to over-rule. Something along the lines of Scalia's recent bizzare interpretation of Am 2 to apply to only those arms and individual can carry.

The Constitution, in its structure and intent is pretty clear. Whether the current ideologically driven court would rule that way is a different thing. There was a recent article on Originalism that I read (might have been at Balkin's blog) where the argument put forth was that Originalism carry's within itself the seeds of its own self-limitation. Namely, since Originalism eschews deference to precedent and instead defers to the contemporary perception of "original intent", pretty much any ideological approach can be used. Thus any ruling that overturns Roe could itself be overturned in 5 or 6 years when one of the three: Scalia, Kennedy, or Thomas run into age related health problems and get replaced by an Obama appointee.