Well at the time Roe was decided, we also didn't know that much about female reproductive processes. Hence any abortion necessarily had to directly affect the fetus. But technology has progressed. We now understand womens' hormonal processes much better. So now we have RU486 and similar which essentially only act on the woman's body without directly affecting the fetus.
RU486, from a legal perspective is little different than a corporation throwing out homeless individuals from its heated lobby on a killer-freeze night. Thus while conveying a narrower set of abortion types, we now have abortions that fit cleanly under the umbrella of Constitutional property rights and the 13th Amendments protections against involuntary servitude.
What those who want ot overturn Roe don't seem to get is that if it gets too restrictive, you will see different challenges to the law based on property rights and Am 13. And these will be much harder to narrow because once even the likes of Roberts are faced with the possibility that THEIR organs could be demanded in support of "the state's interest in preserving life", they will be much much less cavalier in granting that power to The Government.
