You are missing the point. The point is comparing it to a hypothetical constitution that is 20 pages long, instead of 1 page long.
So, the 20 page long constitution, is probably easier to break, despite you misleading focus, on the irrelevant point, of the exact way the statement was phrased.
How?
While it is in many ways the main provision that gives meaningful impact to rights both in and beyond the BOR (though the 13th Amendment competes with it on that front, since if people can be treated as property instead of people, they have no rights) by applying them to the main locus of government authority, the states, which the BOR itself neglected to do, the 14th Amendment, which was at issue in Dobbs, is not part of the Bill of Rights.
So Dobbs doesn’t illustrate an assault on the Bill of Rights so much as its irrelevancy in the absence of subsequent amendments.
The founders understood the nature of power, and thus the importance of decentralization and diversity.
But also consider that nobody has yet been put in jail for harshly criticizing the President. And you can still buy a gun.
A lawyer once said that "show me a contract that's one page, and I won't be able to break it. Show me one 20 pages long, and I'll break it."