And part of what SCOTUS may be doing is pushing a trial balloon with public opinion so an immediate strong outcry is needed, especially if it re-invigorates credible durable arguments for protection of women's right to self-determination and self-defense (which I don't see any of the 6 items presented in the OP as actually being).
What is needed is argumentation that holds greater popular support for abortion and better binds abortion to personal rights, whether they are Constitutional or long strong traditional expectations of rights assumed but not included in the constitution.
That's actually the way legislation works, and so that's the path to ultimately amending state constitutions and the federal Constitution to ensure those rights become guaranteed forever. Constitutions constrain courts. Without constitution power behind them, rights are temporary until opposition controls the courts.
The arguments against abortion have mostly boiled down to protection of innocent life, and arguments have floundered in arbitrary definitions of life, and a social climate influenced way more by religion.
IMO, two popular well accepted rights (and there may be more) are self-defense and self-determination. Credible rational legal arguments can be made and must be around these (and/or other) strong traditions of these American values which can (and should) prevail over their competing arguments that are meant to punish or in practice DO punish women for breaking anachronistic religious beliefs and punitive customs.
Tossing out Roe doesn't ban abortions, it moves the issue back to States. The push for constitutional rights to abortion must be re-invigorated. Movements to enshrine that right in state Constitutions need to be forwarded to Legislatures that don't already protect abortion rights. When a clear majority of States have such guaranteed rights, a movement to amend the federal Constitution is more likely to prevail.
= new reply since forum marked as read