A reference to attempts to make abortion illegal led to a reply saying it was all b.s., abortion politics really a matter of extremes on both sides shouting, while nothing really changes. The problem is not illegality, though South Dakota and a few other states (and places like Guam) might do that if given the chance (SD tried not too long ago), it is a myriad of limitations that affect many girls and women:
1. Some states having one abortion clinic
2. People in the military, prisons and so forth not being able to get access
3. Lack of funding, even for those who require expensive abortions for health or in respect to a dead fetus inside of them (or one that won't survive birth)
4. Teen notification/consent laws that provide judicial outs to deal with anti-abortion parents via some complex obstacle courses, sometimes infused with religious teaching
5. Limits on a particular procedure that for a few women might be needed to protect their health and/or ability to have children in the future
6. Abortion doctors and clinics under siege, including the one the state has access to
7. Morning after pill supply being threatened, including by rape victims brought to Catholic hospitals; in fact, access to contraceptives overall is threatened, not only for minors, but via lack of coverage (while Viagra is covered)
8. Any number of abortion specific burdensome regulations to complicate and make abortions more expensive or make it a harder procedure for women, such as forced ultrasounds
9. Deprivation of funding to inner city clinics that even talk about abortion or overseas family planning where abortion is some small aspect of its services
10. Any number of non-legal issues, such as non-coverage of abortion in film/t.v., failure to note choice is not a one way street in religious faiths etc.
The net effect is that some are blocked from abortion services (e.g., waiting periods pushing abortions until its too late) but the immediate concern more often are a myriad of burdens that in any other fundamental right would be deemed truly unjust. Thus, a law that targets animal cruelty in the production of crush videos is deemed too broad,* while a myriad of burdensome regulations here are allowed. State protections and the ability to travel (and/or get funds) will mean overturning Roe won't be a total disaster, but even now, the rights that case protects are in jeopardy in numerous ways.
Attacks on those who want to do away with the protections, often based on selective religious beliefs, therefore might be somewhat exaggerated, but have a valid core.
---
* Rust v. Sullivan alone underlines the First Amendment free speech aspects to this cause. Certain biased counseling rules also are not merely a matter of infringement on abortion rights, but a certain type of invasion of doctor/patient privacy involving free speech geared to a specific patient. Two parent requirements can invade familial privacy (association), particularly when one parent has custody and/or makes decisions of that sort. And, the First Amendment religious issues are readily apparent as well.
I can, but won't, provide lots of links related to each area.