The "What Roe v. Wade Should Have Said" debate

I find it rather interesting that these days many intellectuals - including staunch 'pro-choice' partisans - are publicly debating the merits, faults, and particulars of the United States Supreme Court's Roe v. Wade decision.

For instance, Jane Roh, reporting for Fox News, Sept. 22, 2005, in an article titled "Experts See Legal Abortion Without Roe" noted:

...Jack Balkin, a professor at Yale Law School, asked some of the nation's foremost constitutional law scholars to imagine how they might have written Roe. The results are compiled in "What Roe v. Wade Should Have Said: America's Top Legal Experts Rewrite America's Most Controversial Decision."...

What Roe v. Wade Should Have Said: The Nations Top Legal Experts Rewrite America's Most Controversial Decision

Click on the book cover above for the information available at Barnes & Noble.

Balkin, writing on his blog Balkinization, gave an introduction to the book here. (July 18, 2005). His scholars, I should add, include pro-life voices - and Balkin allows moral objections to be raised, along with the procedural objections, in his book. His eleven scholars come at the debate from every which way, and come to different conclusions about what the Supreme Court should have done, but he appears to let them each have their say. It's a university press book, and therefore a bit pricey, but it sounds like it might be a good resource for anyone interested in this particular debate.

Anybody who has actually read the book, please leave notes in the comments. Specifically, is it understandable to people who aren't constitutional law experts? From the summary in Balkin's blog post I'm thinking that it would be, but I'm making a guess here.