Fair enough, but the fact that his case will not rule on that makes this a bit more interesting politically than this otherwise might be. Democrats will have to try to pass something to appease their outraged constituents, and the internal Democrat debate over what that law should like like could get really interesting because Democrats themselves don't agree on that.
So on the one hand, you're going to have the hard-core progressives and feminists insisting on a bill that guarantees abortion without any restrictions at all, and likely including federal funding. But there will be other Democrats who know that "abortion up until birth" is a horrible loser politically, especially if paid for with taxpayer dollars. So they'll oppose that kind of broad legislation, and that means we may well see a very nasty internal fight among Democrats regarding the scope of abortion rights to be defined by Congress.
The point is that regardless of what the courts eventually decide about Congress' right to regulate abortion, we're first going to get the Democrat civil war over exactly what that right will encompass, and that could help us in November.
The point is that regardless of what the courts eventually decide about Congress’ right to regulate abortion, we’re first going to get the Democrat civil war over exactly what that right will encompass, and that could help us in November.
...........................................
I heartily concur with every thought you’ve expressed in this post.