Are you really going to pretend not to understand why this ruling came now, when the religious right just so happened to be in charge of the Supreme Court, and not at any other time in the past 50 years?
I completely understand that only one party is willing to make that interpretation on this topic. I think it is noteworthy that “the religious right” did not act as a superlegislature itself, given the opportunity, and simply removed it back to Congress or the states when in the absence of a law from Congress.
I observe that there are or were other ways to reach the outcome that the other party wants, that party has bungled all of those ways, and will likely continue to do so.
Not caring about the people for whom the system is designed for is exactly what makes this such a monumental problem. If the system doesn't work for the people it's designed to work for, it the outcomes don't reflect their will, then it's a broken system.
If this is the "correct" way, then the system might need to be torn down and rebuilt, possibly violently. Consider that as you avoid empathizing with those affected.
Possibly less so to their loved ones, some of whom may act violently in response to a system that killed a person they care about.
I doubt they're going to care meaningfully about which legal mechanism it was that would have been most appropriate to use to allow their loved one to live.
Contact your state and Congressional representations and find legislative candidates that are as passionate on this topic as you are, if there arent other causes you are more passionate about that different candidates care about of course.
It is accurate that several judges lied to Congress during their nomination process and we do not have remedies or sanctions for that. (That are deemed politically rational)
Paradoxically, the Roe decision created the division that has far extremes. A false dilemma of which there are many other possibilities. Also something those two justices agreed on.
Congress avoided the topic for 50 straight years, masquerading the ruling as good enough, now it continues to lack consensus for anything else, its up to the people to attempt something else. If consensus cannot be reached then consensus cannot be reached, which is something I empathize with, people need to optimize their use more effectively and conform it to the consensus mechanisms of this country. Generate proposals that are more inspired and would have broader consensus, of which I do have a few.