Um.... well captain obvious, have you stopped to consider that "these people" are actually correct?

Gavin Newsom’s Gun Stunt Is Inspired—and Doomed to Fail

Or, to put it a sharper point on it: Conservatives have deployed spurious constitutional logic to try to take away the rights of women and pregnant people, so Newsom has responded by trying to take away the rights of something conservatives actually care about: guns. This is coming out of California, but it reminds me of “the Chicago way” as described in the movie The Untouchables: “He sends one of yours to the hospital, you send one of his to the morgue.”

It’s a good stunt, and if we understand it as just that—a stunt—then we can appreciate what Newsom is doing. A stunt, however, is not a solution. People who think Newsom’s proposed legislation will box the Supreme Court either into striking down SB 8 or allowing bounty hunters to sue gun manufacturers simply aren’t paying attention to what this court is doing. These conservatives are not bound by logic. They are not servants of intellectual consistency.

The Supreme Court will dismiss the proposed California law before breakfast—on the very same day that they overturn Roe v. Wade, if necessary. For starters, conservatives on the court don’t actually believe that abortion is a fundamental right. They don’t think the court finally recognized women’s right to their own bodies in the 1970s; they believe the court invented that right in the 1970s. And they therefore believe those rights can be easily taken away, without upsetting the constitutional order.

By contrast, they believe gun rights were recognized and written down by the wealthy white men who were allowed to recognize things and write them down at this country’s founding. I’m not being glib or unfair when I say conservatives value gun rights more highly than they value women’s rights. I’m just telling you these people actually believe gun rights are in the Constitution and reproductive rights are not.

First, I am not in agreement that the Supreme Court will just toss this aside, but generally speaking the author here provides a general reasoning why they could or even why they should. The logic here is that there is neither a federal law that protects abortion rights (while there are several for guns) and quite honestly the 2nd Amendment "is" in the Bill of Rights, whereas there is no specific language in the Constitution anywhere that provides the right to an abortion.

To be even more crystal clear here about abortion and the idea of medical privacy we only need to look at 2021. The fact that the Government can mandate people take vaccines is proof positive that we have ZERO constitutional right to any medical privacy. We are at the whims and desires of the Government and have zero say in our own medical decisions. So let's not pretend that this right actually exists for anything "other" than the right to an abortion.

Gun rights are written into the Bill of Rights (Constitution) and they are also codified into Federal law. This person acknowledges this even as he mocks that reality.  Abortion rights are neither in the constitution nor are they codified into Federal law. They exist purely because of a Judicial decision and can likewise be taken away if a new Judicial decision supersedes them.