First of all, you really don’t seem to know what the fuck you are talking about. “Outlaw abortion”? Where in the world did you come up with that moronic idea? Anybody with half a brain knows 2 facts are in play here. First one is that the chance of SCOTUS ever voting just to rehear Rowe vs Wade is almost nil since most of the justices have already stated they won’t vote to rehear existing SCOTUS decisions. Chances are this will never come to SCOTUS to rehear. But the second fact is that even if SCOTUS rehears it and overturns it, WHAT THE FUCK DO YOU THINK IS GOING TO HAPPEN? I asked you that in an earlier post but you conveniently decided to NOT answer me. ANSWER THE QUESTION! Do you really think if it is overturned that abortion will be outlawed?
Inspector is right. The supreme court can't just magically overturn Roe v. Wade because they composition of the justices is different. A case in controversy needs to work its way up to the Supreme Court, and the Supreme Court would have to overrule their own precedent established in Roe v. Wade. Both of these are extremely unlikely, if not impossible due to the existence of the other. The Supreme Court can't have a case in controversy over a subject that's already been decided, and they can't decide on something (again) without a case in controversy. At best, someone could bring a case along the peripherals like Planned Parenthood v. Casey. In Casey, the state didn't outright ban abortions, but instead created obstacles like waiting periods and requiring parental consent and this was ruled constitutional. So there are ways to attack abortion along the borders, but there are balances to keep these in check. Also with the way the Supreme Court works, this would be years and years away.
Additionally, even though abortion was not protected by the Constitution outright in specific language, it can still fall under the penumbra of constitutional protections (Griswold v. Connecticut). In the same way the constitution did not specifically say speech over the internet is protected under the first amendment, or semi-automatic firearms are protected under the second amendment, there can be a logical inference that they fall within the constitutional shadow and are thus protected.
Also, of interesting relevance to us here in the firearms community, abortion and gun control are basically the same argument from polar opposite sides:
Primary argument: "We need to ban (guns/abortions) for the sake of the children"
Courts rule: "no you can't ban (guns/abortions) outright, but states can make their own policies."
Individual states: "Well we don't like (guns/abortions) so we're gonna throw up obstacles like waiting periods, and mandatory classes, and proof of competency, and make it really hard to have (guns/abortions) in our state."
Believing the federal government or states should have the right to restrict one and not the other is quite hypocritical.