They begin with "The stare decisis considerations most relevant here—“the quality of [the precedent’s] reasoning, the workability of the rule it established,..." and proceed to find the considerations "all weigh in favor of letting Chevron go"
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/22-451_7m58.pdf
If you read the decision on abortion, you will find they spend significant time arguing that stare decisis underpinning Roe v Wade is not valid.
There's no harm from denying somebody an abortion when they're not pregnant.
There are a myraid of ways that roe vs wade could've turned out and in the final ruling document they'd all fit the correct format.
> [2] McCorvey gave birth to a daughter at Dallas Osteopathic Hospital on June 2, 1970
At that point she lost standing similar to another Jane Doe whose case became moot because she already had the abortion [1] and the desired action (injunction against an abortion) is irrelevant because it's already happened.
[1]: https://www.aclu.org/press-releases/supreme-court-issues-dec...
[2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roe_v._Wade#History_of_abortio...
One could argue, similarly to overturning Roe, they're diverging from a very critical precedent which is going to trigger a flurry of lawsuits over the next couple years