Please make sure to read the Thomas opinion in full and not just any excerpts without context that may be flying around social media.

Are you able to make a substantive argument here? Can you quote anything from Thomas's decision to suggest he does not want to revisit anti-sodomy laws, gay marriage, and trans rights? Otherwise your post looks like a low-effort way to refute OP's argument with absolutely no evidence.

Thomas cites himself (he absolutely loves to cite himself, he does it 19 times in 7 pages(!)), 'As I have previously explained, “substantive due process” is an oxymoron that “lacks any basis in the Constitution.”'

He then goes on to say outright that Griswold, Lawrence and Obergefell should be reconsidered. I take that to mean the majority reactionary court, who also do not believe in substantive due process, will overturn those. And it also implies a call to action for reactionaries to start building cases.

Those cases created rights out of thin air and said rights are supported by huge majorities of the country. It would be trivial to pass a law actually codifying them. Not so with universal abortion, because it's not popular at all: https://twitter.com/Peoples_Pundit/status/152150922486134374...

That data is different enough from other poll data that I've seen that I have to call biased sampling.

It's very close to polling which breaks the question down more narrowly than simply "do you support abortion".

Until it actually happens I don't care. Almost anything can happen. There is not enough time in the day to get worked up over everything that can happen.

You do realize this exact same argument was made for decades as the Federalist Society worked to make today’s ruling happen?

> This doesn't affect me therefore I don't care about my fellow citizens.

Wild speculation about the future doesn't affect anybody.

Exactly how is it wild speculation when they are outright admitting that they want to do it, and they have enough far-right reactionaries on the court to do it?