Your premise is somewhat silly. The Supreme Court ruling is not a victory for pro life supporters or a loss for pro choice supporters. It simply switches the decision from the limitations impose by Roe v Wade (which have been largely ignored by Progressive Liberal states anyways) to each individual state.

The result is some states will pass third trimester abortion laws and for the most part conservative states will limit abortions to somewhere in the first trimester. Meanwhile, the lawsuits against the laws of both progressive and liberal state laws will begin... in fact several have already been filed. No matter what law is passed by an individual state, if it does not consideer both the rights of the woman and the rights of the baby, it is subject to being declared unconstitutional.

For pro choice women, there are plenty of employers and foundations who will pony up the cash for women who cannot afford to go to a state that offers abortions for their condition to get the money to do so.

For pro life women (about half of all women), they can feel good that at least 26 states are likely to limit abortions to sometime in the first trimester.

The sticky issues state law will have to address is that at some point after 20 weeks, unborn babies become viable... meaning they can survive outside the womb. Aborting a baby, that does not require a woman's womb to survive is likely to raise issues regarding the baby's basic human right to life.

At the other end of the spectrum, the argument becomes complex. Since science has established humanity begins at conception, a baby's right to life begins there to. But a woman also has rights... Roe v Wade argued they also are "human rights" related to the "pursuit of happiness".

I think the viability argument is a pretty powerful argument (whether it prevails in court) as the upper limit regarding when elective abortions will not violate a baby's human right to life. The same cannot be said at the other end. But if I were to venture a guess, somewhere around 10 weeks will be the lower end where courts accept that both a woman's rights and baby's rights have been equally considered in law.

Killing the filibuster is about as dumb as dumb can be. On the eve of what is shaping up to be a huge Red wave, you are suggesting that the Senate should end the filibuster. If Republicans win the White House in 2024 and political maneuvers by Democrats will likely be revisted on them and it will be ugly. Democrats should be doing everything possible to reaffirm the filibuster, they are going to need it soon.

You ended with Democrats having more democratic positions, yet you are upset that unelected judges decided the people of the individual states should make the abortion laws for their state through the elected representatives in their state legislatures. Huh? What could be more democratic than to effectively put the abortion laws of each state up for a vote.