That was exactly the case that Scalia was referring to when he spoke of the importance of stare decisis. You seem to have missed the importance of the word 'importance.' It is not a synonym for 'impossible.'
I didn’t read the article or see the transcript so how am I supposed to know he was referring to Roe? I suppose it makes sense because it is the most famous and controversial case of the last 50 years, but you either believe in stare decisis or you don’t. I’m a layman when it comes to the law, but in my opinion, stare decisis is B.S. You need to have the freedom, as a Supreme Court justice, to overturn incorrect decisions. Dred Scott and Plessy v. Ferguson were horrible decisions. If justices were bound by some notion that stare decisis is inviolate or even mostly inviolate, we would likely have some horrible remnants in our society today.