That's the problem. Alito says that the matter is not one for the court to decide but for the people expressing themselves through their elected representatives. It is by application of the 10th amendment that we can say that it is the people's representatives operating on the state rather than the federal level who may express the people's intentions. But the 10th amendment has less than an impressive history of prevailing.
After all if Schumer's law passes, the people's will is expressed through their elected representatives on the federal level. What part of the Constitution makes that law unconstitutional? Is it because it represents an expression of unenumerated power? Good luck with that.
Remember, Alito went out of his way in his "language" to make it clear that the court was not advocating for or against abortion but for remanding the issue to the legislatures to voice the people's will. In effect they are committed to correcting procedure rather than eliminating abortion.
Alito is saying in this opinion that abortion rights is not a subject for the court to decide but for the people or their elected representatives to decide. Now the question is reduced to at what level should these elected representatives speak, state or federal? Now you have a far less compelling situation than Alito's original task of deciding the constitutionality of Roe vs. Wade.
I'm not at all sure that the court is committed to end abortion but it is committed to return the matter to the states, or somehow to the people or their elected representatives.
