Yes, SCOTUS opinions are based on legal bases, legal arguments. Your idea about greater protection for unborn than women has no foundation in law...unless you can link to something?
And I only brought up the value of women in society to demonstrate that your idea of 'protection' of the unborn becoming a priority was not legally based and then...not even logically based. There are times when SCOTUS does need to balances rights for the good of society tho. So it was not a legal argument, merely a rebuttal of your idea.
That has nothing to do with 'precedents.' They are legal precedents, not opinions that just preceded something in time.
This statement clearly shows you dont understand what a 'precedent' is.
See all the posts in this thread discussing the 9th and 10th Amendments. That's why it's not a state issue to 'ban' abortion. See post 101, that's a good summary.
It could send it back to the states but the states cannot violate federal laws, state laws cannot supersede the rights set forth in the Const. And many states would keep elective abortion legal and available as needed and there's no way for other states to keep women from getting one there.
And please, read the actual legal precedents that RvW is based on.
@minnie616 do you have those handy?