Musty Roe and the Right to Privacy

I am not one of those women who believe that men don't have the right to an opinion on abortion. But something about Washington Post writer Richard Cohen's cavalier attitude towards the likely denial of that right in some states, if Roe were to be overturned, really rubbed me the wrong way. Cohen writes:

Conservatives -- and some liberals -- have long argued that the right to an abortion ought to be regulated by states. They have a point. My guess is that the more populous states would legalize it, the smaller ones would not, and most women would be protected. The prospect of some women traveling long distances to secure an abortion does not cheer me -- I'm pro-choice, I repeat -- but it would relieve us all from having to defend a Supreme Court decision whose reasoning has not held up. It seems more fiat than argument.

For some women, the "prospect of...traveling long distances to secure an abortion" would effectively translate to a loss of the right to an abortion. Would this be the case only for a very few women? Probably. Would these women be those in the most desperate circumstances? Probably. Those women who choose to seek an abortion because of their precarious financial situation or other severe difficulties would be most likely to find themselves unable to obtain one.

Though I understand Cohen's reasoning, I find it hard to believe that a pro-choice woman would be as quick to find such a scenario a welcome relief from defending musty old Roe.