You don't know anyone's true reason for anything. Your specific example of abortion is a ridiculously complex topic (hence the total disagreement in society), so simplifying it to basically "the other side is secretly lying" seems unfair and uncharitable.

I can't parse what this means. Is the idea that we are to assume malice of intent to the reasons the Court does things, and that "consistency" is not a legitimate reason to argue about it? How do you know what the "true" reason is?

It would be nice if you at least kept up the appearance of polite discussion.

Faux "quotations" make you look much worse than your nemesis. Projecting invented intentions is not okay, either. Not to speak of clearly breaking the site's guidelines.

What is this “right” to an abortion and who decided it exists?

It’s worth noting that the EU Court of Human Rights has repeatedly refused to recognize a “right” to abortion under the EU Convention on Human Rights: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A,_B_and_C_v_Ireland

There’s no right to an abortion in most of Europe. Legislatures allow abortion to varying degrees, but it’s seen as a matter of legislation, not “rights.”

So I’m a card carrying Fed Soc member. While I’m uncomfortable with legalized second trimester abortion (because at that point the fetus looks like a baby) I don’t think abortion should be banned altogether. But I still think Roe was wrongly decided and properly overturned. I’d estimate that half or more of Fed Soc supports some degree of legalized abortion, but virtually all think Roe was wrongly decided. The idea that it’s all pretext is laughable.

By the way, I think liberals also believe what they say. It’s just that they believe that judges should be cultured elites sitting on a throne telling the rabble how to structure their society.