Well, there are 2 issues at play here.Forget Trump. He is hardly the 'stable genius' he claimed to be. Stable is barely and genius definitely not. All Trump did was followed what his conservative aides told him the base wanted. No one have any confidence that Trump have any intellectual capacity to discuss, let alone debate, the abortion rights issue.
No, they are not. That does not mean the Republicans at large, hard core base and moderates, are unconcerned about the consequences of this decision. But as many observers noted, the Virginia governor election should have been taken more seriously by the Democrats when post election polling have abortion rights lower in priority. Glenn Youngkin did not run on RvW but on parental rights and economics, and won.
Here is the main problem...Abortion rights is non-constitutional. Not un-constitutional. To be un-constitutional means to be ANTAGONISTIC or HOSTILE to the US Constitution in both principle and text. To be non-constitutional mean does not exist, at least in text, and that is what the latest SCOTUS decision mean.
The 10th Amendment say:
“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people”.
So how would you get the federal government involved? By what is called 'emanation and penumbra'. Basically, absent text, you interpret what you want to be linked to basic rights and liberties that the federal government is tasked by the Constitution to protect and prevent others from violating.
How this mysterious trinity of privacy, penumbra and emanations had eluded legal scholars for the then 176 years of our constitutional history was (and is) a question left unaddressed by the court.
If your interpretation, as presented in court, is successful, then the federal government is legally obligated to act despite absent explicit text in the Constitution.
Most of us are comfortable with one degree of separation, pretty much arm's length metaphorically speaking, and will support the linkage. But when a side issue is two degrees or more removed from the main issue, then all of us begins to diverge from unanimity, create subgroups, and defend our positions. When you have to interpret something, that is the start of that two or more degrees of separation and also the start of conflicts. Absent explicit text, what abortion rights proponents did was interpret how abortion is constitutionally protected and that argument was so weak that even today, Democratically minded legal scholars admitted that RvW was constitutionally problematic. Scholars no less than the notorious RBG herself.
When Ginsburg was confirmed to the Supreme Court 25 years ago, she explained whytime.com
So it might come as a surprise that, though she made history by endorsing abortion rights during her confirmation hearing, Ginsburg had well-known reservations about Roe.
What happened today is the prominence of the 10th. No text, no federal government involvement.
1.) Whether or not Abortion is within the right of our constitution. Which mean whether or not the due process clause of 14th amendment applies.
2.) As Justice Roberts states. If this is not a constitutional issue, then SCOTUS should not have the power to struck down the case, instead they should have gone back to the original case base and retried the case. That's why Roberts concur on the Dobbs v Jackson Women Health case, but Dissent when they over turn Roe v Wade.
Personally, I am leaning on 14 amendment did not applies on abortion issue, they really should have codify it after Roe v Wade, that is not a secure strategy. That's a personal choice, like whether or not you will get a driver license, I mean if there should not have guaranteed right for you to have a driver license, then there should also be no right to guarantee you to have an abortion
On the other hand, saying Abortion issue is not a constitution issue and therefore the SCOTUS does not have the power to judge the first time around does not negate the legal challenge gone with the SCOTUS washing their hands. That legal challenge would still remain, and don't forget Roe won the case in Federal Court level, and you cannot simply just say "this is not a constitutional issue" and ignore the original ruling. If this is a constitutional issue, and SCOTUS voted it did or did not violate our constitutional right, that would have been another issue, but the fact that they said there are no standing on the issue means they should move the case back to district court or Texas Supreme Court and have a retrial there..