Dobbs ruling shows you how these Judges think more than anything else

The court is divided into three differing views

The conservative originalists -  While not all of the conservatives call themselves originalists, I would suspect that most of them are defined that way by a lot of observers. In order of originalistic tendencies I am referring to Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, Comey, and Kavanaugh. If you read their rulings on Dobbs it was 100% about the constitution, the rule of law, and pretty much zero about anything else. Dobbs reverses both Roe and Casey because they were poorly thought out decisions, not because of the underlying concept of abortion. In fact, they wrote almost nothing about abortion, the effects of the decision, and stayed completely out of the political ramifications of the decision for all practical purposes. In fact, they probably annoyingly avoided the political ramifications for many people.

The incrementalist - Chief Justice Roberts is now the sole member of this group. There was a time when others may have fallen into this category, but not anymore. For Roberts, there was literally no argument with the five originalists in regards to Roe and Casey being flawed decisions. He literally did nothing to debate or undercut the opinion of any of the originalists. He agreed that the 15 week law in question should be allowed to stand. But what he suggested outright was that he would have stopped short of completely overturning Roe and Casey, likely making Dobbs a sort of Casey II, whereas Casey clarified Roe, Dobbs would further clarify Casey. In other words, lets get rid of the vague "undue burden" test that Casey established and replace it with something that does not eliminate the courts from stepping in again and again, but makes the legal questions at least somewhat more obvious. 

The political liberals - Obviously, this would include Breyer, Sotomayer, and Kagan. In direct contrast to the originalists, the liberals were light on the constitutional principles involved and heavy on the political ramifications.  Generally when you see a dissent, the dissent attempts to show how the majority got the rule of law wrong. That didn't happen here. They provided pretty much no real legal defense of Roe or Casey as a matter of constitutional law or argued with the actual reasoning of the majority opinion. What they did was largely give a history lesson on the rulings repeating what are generally non-constitutional reasoning for why Roe and Casey did what Roe and Casey did. Their argument with the majority wasn't even so much about stares decises as it was about their own personal feelings about abortion rights and how important they see them. It tugged at the heartstrings of what "could" happen when evil people running bad states try to do something that they personally feel is wrong or even immoral. They obviously feel compelled as members of the USSC to displace those bad views with their good view and prevent them from happening. Now this has been, is, and likely always will be an effective means to appeal to those who see the court as another political wing of the Government and reject the concept that they play some form of umpire or referee.