Just about everything you say is correct but your conclusion is not but I figure that's because you are not a lawyer or did not go to law school and thus there is a nuance to the Supreme Court process that you may not know.

Holdings are different than the reasoning. If there is other and better reasoning for a prior holding, the prior case should not be overturned. It should be affirmed on other grounds.

Laws that criminalize or otherwise prevent pre-viability abortion codify certain religious views over others and thus violate the 1st Amendment's anti-establishment of religion clause. That is the firm foundation under which Roe (and the other privacy rights cases--(sodomy/contraception/etc)) should have been decided and it is the grounds under which they should be affirmed. This is my essay on the matter that I wrote in December. https://medium.com/illumination-curated/abortion-is-murder-4d234daa2e71 Let me explain my title. I do believe that life begins at conception but I am 100% pro-choice. My subtitle is "Yet I steadfastly believe the decision is a personal one that should not be criminalized before the point of fetal viability as there is no justification for human laws to ban it."

By the way, I am not Catholic nor any other religion that believes that life begins at conception. I was born Jewish, which teaches that life begins at first breath and Judaism also happens to mandate abortion to save the mother's life. I do not follow any religion. My beliefs stem from my spiritual journey, which has no teachers or gurus. I explain how I personally came to my personal belief in this short essay: https://medium.com/p/75e8b88cecb2