"It’s not state’s rights or even abortion — it’s the control of women and the imposition of Christian authoritarianism."

Correct, and this is why it is unfortunate that the holdings (outcomes) of Roe, and the other privacy rights cases (Griswold, Lawrence, etc) were based on that conjured right, instead of upon the firm foundation of the 1st Amendment's anti-establishment clause.

As I have written, and I'm sure I'm not the first, the anti-abortionist position is actually a religious position, and that is where the constitutional argument should end in favor of the unconstitutionality of the laws preventing or criminalizing pre-viability abortion and thus all laws that criminalize or unreasonably restrict pre-viability abortion violate the First Amendment’s prohibition on the establishment of religion. https://medium.com/p/4d234daa2e71 For context in the sincerity of my views, I happen to believe that life begins at conception yet I am 100% pro-choice. Relying on Hobbes and Locke and other sources, I go on to say "Laws preventing or unreasonably regulating the availability of abortion do not serve the societal benefits of government or criminal laws. An abortionist is not going to walk down the street and harm unsuspecting citizens. We all agree, regardless of religious and philosophical affiliation, that armed robbery and murder of a living and breathing human is an abomination and that citizens and their property require protection from such wanton acts. The abortionist need not be so deterred. Laws that allow abortion do not subject a mother or its unborn child to forced abortion. These laws do not serve any societal benefit."