roe v. wade didn't even do that. it simply reaffirmed that the constitution guarantees a right to privacy, and the justices decided that seeking that kind of care was protected on the grounds that it was a method of protecting a woman's privacy. it's extremely dubious language and i'm sure they expected the issue to actually be resolved with a formal change to the law rather than simply the precedent that case set on its own. but it never happened, because not every state would approve that law.  undoing that precedent was intended to return that matter into the hands of voters in each state, with the expectation that most would vote to retain the status quo without the roe v. wade decision in place, which they did. that's what just happened in this election, and even in florida, it's been pushed to the next cycle where it will be voted upon again in two years.
United States