I'm certainly not a Constitutional lawyer, Seneca, so I have no idea if a consent law would strictly violate RvW. They'd probably argue that it isn't saying a woman 'can't' have an abortion, simply that the putative father has 'equal rights' to decision-making based on being 50% 'responsible' for the life. A flawed argument vs a woman's, no anyone's, right to determine what goes on with their own body. Quite a few states have voted in regulations that make getting an abortion tougher although most of those have to do with the practitioner and service provider, rather than the woman herself.
Maybe someone should draft legislation saying that a woman has the right to veto her partner's vasectomy. Or that a woman has the right to have as many children as she wants and her partner has no right to 'deny' her a child and must impregnate her at her will. That'd go over like a lead balloon, wouldn't it? But they certainly have no problem with 'vice versa' do they?
It certainly is a slippery slope, isn't it?