Can't comment on the legal justification for Roe which I have always heard was suspect. In general though taking away a "found" freedom is always going to have a high bar in my book.
Long post incoming.
Yesterday, the court said that efforts to stop urban gun crime had to be “analogous” to those in place at a time when NYC’s population was about on par with a Pruitt era UT game, and reasoned that this was acceptable because there was gun violence in densely populated areas at the time of the founding. Regardless of what you think of the outcome, that reasoning is absurd.
Personally, I’m more than okay with some oddball reasoning that expands limits on government. If it doesn’t interfere with another person’s rights, the government should stay out of it, regardless of how moral or socially acceptable a given behavior is. Laws should exist to govern disputes between people, not to regulate how people live when it doesn’t affect others. Abortion is one of the few issues that seems to fall along that line, rather than to one side of it. It seems fair to leave that issue up to individual states to codify or enshrine in their own constitutions.
But I have a tremendous problem with the flip side of originalism, which is that it tethers our understanding of liberty to a point in time when it was acceptable to make people property and when even women who weren’t property weren’t viewed as much better than. We shouldn’t be forced to amend the constitution for things like recognition of marriage, access to contraception, the right to raise our children as we see fit because we know that the 9th Amendment was put in there for the express purpose of making sure that 1-8 weren’t seen as an exhaustive list.
So yeah, ambivalent about abortion but still see this case as indicating that Alito and Thomas are a problem.