What I am talking about is that the particular mode of originalism that seems to have been adopted in Dobbs (and especially the extension specifically naming the broader doctrine of substantive due process as needing reconsideration in Thomas’ concurrence) is one which it is hard to see incorporation under the due process clause surviving if applied in any intellectually consistent, coherent manner.

Agreed. If it does stand, it will be in order to maintain ideological consistency, not judicial consistency. What a mess.