Without reading the article, a few quick observations:
The Civil Rights movement was primarily a moral crusade. People fought for what they thought was right. Of course, the equality that was written into the Constitution after the Civil War wasn't being respected or put into practice, so it also had a legal basis.
Abortion as an issue is a moral one for many people. But it also has a philosophical underlying principle: is it right for the Federal Government to yank away the rights of states to make their own laws concerning abortion? Does the right to privacy, as found in the Constitution, supercede the right of communities to make laws in line with their own moral principles? That's the issue at stake in Roe V. Wade... I personally think states/local levels should be able to outlaw/allow abortion as they see fit, in accordance with their values. Like dry counties, or legalized prostitution and gambling in Nevada... simply not a federal issue, but an issue where people of a given area should be allowed to let their morality dictate their laws.
A friend of mine made an interesting point last night. He said that laws should not be based upon an appeal to morality, but only to pragmatism, on a national level. While he felt that communities should be able to make their own laws based on morality at a local level, at a national level there should not be laws based on morality since it is impossible to engage a national consensus on moral issues. He has a point on one hand... but on the other hand, I think it's a pragmatic fact that people DO make arguments from morality on a national level, so that's probably not going to change anytime soon.
But I like his idea... on a local level, let communities dictate their own laws based upon their own morality. But on a national level, make only laws that are pragmatically necessary, and that are not based upon an appeal to morality.