Withdrawing legal cover to pro-choice women is regressive and undemocratic

The beacon light of American democracy dims a bit as the United States Supreme Court holds a majority, conservative view that abortion cannot be a constitutional right of women. If the justices care to turn their opinion into a directive - the conservatives have a 6-3 majority - that would overturn the famous Roe vs Wade judgment. The country has no federal law protecting women's right to abortion. The Roe ruling was instead performing that function. If it becomes infructuous, the states will have to decide on abortion laws. That will divide the country like never before because Conservative states will bring in restrictive lawswhile the democrats are bound to remove all restrictions. Where does that leave American women and their right to choose? At the intersection of democracy on the one hand, and religious orthodoxy and vote-bank politics on the other. President Joe Biden was quick to hope that the court would not overturn Roe. As quickly, he also turned it into a Democrat campaign tool for the November by elections in which he expects a tough fight from the Republicans. He asked the Americans to elect pro-choice candidates to the Senate and House of Representatives so that the legislature could adopt legislation to codify Roe. This is the root of the problem: politics. It has made women suffer insults and ignominies for the last 50 years. Americans still remember that Biden who is pro-choice today had, as a Senator in 1982, voted for a constitutional amendment that would have let states overturn Roe and explained it off saying that as a practising Catholic he was a “victim” of “my background”. Republican Richard Nixon was the first Presidential candidate to launch an anti-abortion campaign to woo Catholic voters and conservatives. He won the 1972 election and abortion became a political issue, forever dividing the Republicans and Democrats. The Republicans thereafter even forged alliances with evangelical groups and painted themselves pro-family. Ronald Reagan who backed less-restrictive abortions as governor launched his 1980 Presidential campaign by calling for the appointment of anti-abortion judges. Democrat Bill Clinton played safe by calling for “safe and rare” abortions. Donald Trump was a determined pro-lifer as he raked in Catholic and conservative votes in 2016. He, like George W Bush before him, appointed three conversative justices to the Supreme Court leaving the democrat justices in a minority. Trump's presidency encouraged states like Kentucky, Georgia, Mississippi to ban abortions as early as six weeks, before most women even know they are pregnant. These actions may have been calculated to convince the Supreme Court to “revisit” the Roe decision which they did, as the leaked draft opinion reveals. In the United States that vouches for civil rights and chastises other countries for abusing human rights, the growing dislike for pro-choice women is an anachronism that takes the sheen off the American Dream. The question also is what exigency makes the court think of overturning Roe. Is conservative justice the new frontier justice?