Very helpful--thank you.

In defending the revoking of Roe, Alito claimed abortion was a special case because of the "potential life" involved. States should have the right to determine how to "protect" "potential life."

The word "potential" seems fraught.. A woman who smokes, drinks, or takes drugs while having heterosexual sex runs the risk of endangering a potential life. So in theory, Dobbs would give a state government the authority to control the behavior of any woman who might become pregnant.

But wait, there's more.

What about barrier methods of birth control? Aren't they inhibiting a "potential life"?

But wait, there's more.

What about a man who "spills his seed on the ground"? Isn't onanism a thwarting of potential life?

But wait....

What if someone (e.g. an in-law) breaks up a couple's relationship before they have the ability to conceive?

It should be clear that Alito's purpose is not to allow states to protect "potential life" but to grant them control over the lives of their citizens. And once authoritarianism begins to take hold, it will brook all resistance to its lust for power. And if you don't believe it, ask Clarence Thomas.