So those of us who advocated against Alito and for a filibuster against his ascension to the Supreme Court have had one of our fears justified.
The anti-abortion crowd’s tactics are clear; nibble away at Roe v. Wade around the edges until it’s meaningless. If the health of the mother has no value, as today’s decision says, then what’s next? Will first-trimester abortions be outlawed?
In Justice Ginsburg’s dissent she notes several bits of language which indicate the lack of objectivity (dare I say “judicial restraint?”) on the part of the majority:

One wonders how long a line that saves no fetus from destruction will hold in face of the Court’s “moral concerns.” See supra, at 15; cf. ante, at 16 (noting that “[i]n this litigation” the Attorney General “does not dispute that the Act would impose an undue burden if it covered standard D&E”). The Court’s hostility to the right Roe and Casey secured is not concealed. Throughout, the opinion refers to obstetrician-gynecologists and surgeons who perform abortions not by the titles of their medical specialties, but by the pejorative label “abortion doctor.” Ante, at 14, 24, 25, 31, 33. A fetus is described as an “unborn child,” and as a “baby,” ante, at 3, 8; second-trimester, previability abortions are referred to as “late-term,” ante, at 26; and the reasoned medical judgments of highly trained doctors are dismissed as “preferences” motivated by “mere convenience,” ante, at 3, 37. Instead of the heightened scrutiny we have previously applied, the Court determines that a “rational” ground is enough to uphold the Act, ante, at 28, 37. And, most troubling, Casey’s principles, confirming the continuing vitality of “the essential holding of Roe,” are merely “assume[d]” for the moment, ante, at 15, 31, rather than “retained” or “reaffirmed,” Casey, 505 U. S., at 846. (My emphasis)

Yep. Whatever objectivity the Supreme Court once had no longer exists, not with Scalia and Alito there.