Roe v. Wade was an interpretation of the Constitution. You might not think it's the correct interpretation, but the decision itself is, in fact, an interpretation of the Constitution rather than a piece of legislation grounded only in itself.

Alito's opinion deciding that there isn't a right, or distinguishing one case from another, is as much a way of "legislating" as Roe was.

And frankly, due to the high likelihood of conflicts in law, this SHOULD be a federal issue. Should states be able to decide who is, and who is not, a human being? Under the Constitution, full faith and credit must be given to the rights afforded by those in other states. If state A says that an unborn child is a person and state B says that they're not, and a pregnant woman travels from state A to B, which state law controls?

The purpose of a judiciary is often to interpret laws that are complicated, often ambiguous, and sometimes in conflict. When people say that judges should just "interpret law" and not "make law," or that these issues should be determined by states... well, the issue will eventually come back to the federal level.

The new ruling will be against Roe v Wade, and that decision itself is, in fact, an interpretation of the Constitution.

This is the most underrated comment here.

Courts are not supposed to legislate from the bench. Roe v Wade was clearly inappropriate ruling from day one. It undermined the integrity of the supreme court.

Abortion should be ingrained as legal via state/federal law.