In fact the ruling relies, for purposes of establishing that restrictions on abortion are an established part of the American tradition, on pointing to the exis

In fact the ruling relies, for purposes of establishing that restrictions on abortion are an established part of the American tradition, on pointing to the existence of a bunch of state abortion laws that existed in the 1860s, which were all ruled unconstitutional in Roe. It's effectively saying 'the existence of state laws that attempt to restrict a right, even ones which have been rule unconstitutional, is itself evidence that it's okay for states to impose restrictions on constitutional rights.' Which seems like a very odd argument to make the day after striking down a 100 year old NY State law restricting gun carry rights on the basis that there's no evidence of a long tradition of such restrictions being passed by states.