If you aren't old enough to remember, or just didn't pay attention in the 80s & 90s, this is a very good review of the Roe v Wade Supreme Court ruling,
who Roe was in real life, and how her views on abortion changed into something the pro-choice groups do not want to portray.

As the Liberal meltdown has shown, there will be gnashing of teeth and rending of clothing over Justice Kavanaugh's supposed attack on the Roe v Wade decision.

It would be wise to reacquaint oneself with the facts before the InterWebs is flooded with massive amounts of lies and misinformation.

The reason the Democrats are so worried about Roe vs Wade being overturned is that Roe lied about being gang raped. Kinda tough when the plaintiff in the case comes out 10 years later and admits she lied. And she became religious and changed her stance on abortion. Considering the Dems claim everything they hate is illegitimate (POTUS & SCOTUS), this ruling was partially based on Roe’s lie, so I believe this ruling is illegitimate.

I believe this should be overturned and be pushed back onto the states to decide. I doubt that this will ever be overturned however. The SCOTUS gets to decide what they want to deal with. The SCOTUS has had chances over the years to look at this again and have not. I don’t think with the addition of Kavanaugh to the court will change this.

What about Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992)

"Casey v. Planned Parenthood, though less famous than Roe v. Wade, is actually a more important case. In Casey, a more recent Supreme Court not only affirmed Roe's abortion right, but broadened the states authority to regulate it. And yet the decision remains as controversial as Roe, not just politically or morally, but legally. The "undue burden" test is more ambiguous and difficult to apply. With Justices John Roberts and Samuel Alito joining the Supreme Court in its 2005 term, it may revisit the constitutional status of the abortion right that Casey, in part, preserved."

https://www.thirteen.org/wnet/supremecourt/rights/landmark_casey.html

"After closely examining Roe's constitutional strengths and vulnerabilities, Casey reaffirmed its core holding. Namely: There are limits on the government's power to compel a woman to carry a pregnancy to term. In the early days of a pregnancy, the limits are severe, but the government's power grows as the fetus becomes a viable child. "The woman's right to terminate her pregnancy before viability is ... a rule of law and a component of liberty we cannot renounce," the Casey court held. "On the other side of the equation is the interest of the State in the protection of potential life."

By remodeling and reaffirming Roe, the Casey court raised the stakes for a future majority opposed to abortion rights. Any court cherishing hopes that its own opinions will long endure must pay due respect to the decisions of the past. Casey dug a second trench around the conditional right to abortion. Ever since, justices wishing to attack Roe must go through Casey, too. And "there is a limit to the amount of error that can plausibly be imputed to prior Courts," the Casey justices wrote."


http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/commentary/ct-supreme-court-roe-wade-casey-20180704-story.html

What about Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992)

"Casey v. Planned Parenthood, though less famous than Roe v. Wade, is actually a more important case. In Casey, a more recent Supreme Court not only affirmed Roe's abortion right, but broadened the states authority to regulate it. And yet the decision remains as controversial as Roe, not just politically or morally, but legally. The "undue burden" test is more ambiguous and difficult to apply. With Justices John Roberts and Samuel Alito joining the Supreme Court in its 2005 term, it may revisit the constitutional status of the abortion right that Casey, in part, preserved."

https://www.thirteen.org/wnet/supremecourt/rights/landmark_casey.html

"After closely examining Roe's constitutional strengths and vulnerabilities, Casey reaffirmed its core holding. Namely: There are limits on the government's power to compel a woman to carry a pregnancy to term. In the early days of a pregnancy, the limits are severe, but the government's power grows as the fetus becomes a viable child. "The woman's right to terminate her pregnancy before viability is ... a rule of law and a component of liberty we cannot renounce," the Casey court held. "On the other side of the equation is the interest of the State in the protection of potential life."

By remodeling and reaffirming Roe, the Casey court raised the stakes for a future majority opposed to abortion rights. Any court cherishing hopes that its own opinions will long endure must pay due respect to the decisions of the past. Casey dug a second trench around the conditional right to abortion. Ever since, justices wishing to attack Roe must go through Casey, too. And "there is a limit to the amount of error that can plausibly be imputed to prior Courts," the Casey justices wrote."


http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/commentary/ct-supreme-court-roe-wade-casey-20180704-story.html

My memory of this case does indeed uphold portions of Roe. However, it also upheld certain right to privacy issues as well as allowing states to ban mid and late term abortions. I still feel this is not a federal matter but a state matter. I believe that the SCOTUS in this case made law rather than judging it as constitutional or not. Which we all know is the job of SCOTUS. So getting back to the OP I believe that the Dems are terrified of Roe being overturned. But I doubt it will ever happen.