The question is settle by law. The left didn't like the answer. Being responsible and not ending the lives of a million babies a year in America seems to be something the left doesn't like. Compromise on issues isn't something they like either. Rape, incest, fetal abnormality and serious threat to mothers life are reasonable compromises that protect the lives of nearly a million babies a year. Responsible actions can prevent unwanted pregnancy and the fear of the bearing the child of a rapist, or caused by abuse, and the serious medical conditions can all be covered. They aren't because the left screams, kill a baby because I want too rather than save that life. Then tells us about how important lives are. The lives of illegal immigrants coming into this country in violation of our laws, and many after getting her are committing crimes. The left says they commit crimes at a lower rate but if they were not allowed in those crimes would not exist in America. Needless and senseless. You want immigration, then work for a reasonable immigration law that keeps rapist, murderers and drug dealers out.
No, Roe v Wade settled the issue by law and the anti-abortion RW didn't like the answer, so Reagan tried to appoint anti-choicers and PP v Casey settled the issue by law and the anti-abortion RW still didn't like the answer. Dobbs v Jackson, therefore, is merely one among many ways of settling the issue by law, and because it is always possible to change the philosophical composition of the SC, there will be different answers in future.
No laws with exceptions are seriously effective at protecting rape victims, incest victims, and victims of serious medical conditions. If a rape victim is too terrorized to report the rape to police, too psychologically traumatized even to report it to the doctor, etc., you'll just assume she consented and refuse her medical care. This is the opposite of assuming a man charged with rape is not guilty, so if the evidence is thin, he can just get off.
The same sort of problem arises in other cases. When the law doesn't make an exception to save the life of the healthy fetal twin from the fatally defective twin, even though the defective twin will be threatening the life of the woman after it kills the healthy twin, that means the law is defective, not the woman. When a woman has an incomplete spontaneous abortion, a doctor who completes it should not be afraid of the legislature. Rather, it is the legislature that should be afraid of the woman and doctor.
The notion that an embryo is a person is, in my opinion, an actually evil ideology that has polluted the US enough.
Most rapists, murderers, and drug dealers in the US are US citizens, and a lot of them are white. It's worth knowing that almost all are men, not women.