This decision had nothing to do with pro-life or not. It had only to do with whether the Court thought that women have a constitutionally protected right to have an abortion. They decided that abortion is not a right protected by the Constitution. It would be entirely consistent for a pro-abortion Justice to agree with the majority opinion.
The thing about this opinion that should make conservatives most happy, regardless of their views on abortion, is that, at least for now, we have a Court that is willing to (1) strictly interpret the Constitution, and (2) respect states' rights.
obviously I think a judge has to be pro life and almost by default Christian in their world view in order to correctly interpret and rule on the Constitution. Judges with no moral character are going to bend & twist that 200 year old piece of paper anyway they feel like, as we have seen, they make stupid arguments to fit their causes and we can see they do not interpret it correctly. RBG wasn’t prolife, but did think Roe was bad law but she never votes to overturn it, she preferred her outcome rather than good law
“that is willing to (1) strictly interpret the Constitution, and (2) respect states’ rights.”
I need to do more edjumacating of myself on why abortions can be left up to the states, while certain (all?) gun laws can not be left up to the states (as per the recent SCOTUS ruling on NYC severe concealed carry laws).
I guess determining who can/ cannot get a ccw permit falls under equal protection under the law? And of course the 2nd Amendment, but one would think that would over-rule all of the various state laws that, in my mind, go against the 2nd.