While I agree with your interpretation of the responsibilities of the SC, my problem is with the course of action taken by the justices. The SC did not have to

While I agree with your interpretation of the responsibilities of the SC, my problem is with the course of action taken by the justices. The SC did not have to change the ruling, but the majority chose to do so, with full knowledge that a repeal would trigger laws that put the health and livelihood of conscious, living and breathing citizens at risk. The SC gave a metaphorical loaded gun to certain states, allowing them to aim and shoot at bystanders, at people who can not get out of the way (= i.e. have an out of state abortion), and in the process enact economic violence towards its own citizens [1] and put their life in danger. I am not expressing that the states are not at fault, I am expressing that the SC could have simply not taken any course of action given that they had previously expressed that it is a settled matter. [1] https://www.epi.org/publication/economics-of-abortion-bans/?utm_source=sillychillly https://www.epi.org/publication/economics-of-abortion-bans/?...