Justice Alito points out, in his draft, "an unbroken tradition of prohibiting #abortion on pain of criminal punishment persisted from the earliest days of the common law until 1973."
Speaking in my capacity as a historian, I would assess that thesis as "egregiously wrong" (to use Alito's words) or utterly full of shit (to use my own).
Abortions really only became illegal on a wide scale in the 1800s. Doctors started to understand human gestation better. Toss in professional competition with abortion providers as the medical profession is trying to standardize, mix it with some good old-fashioned misogyny, and there you go.
Anti-choice laws have some to do with the dangers of the procedure, but mostly to do with controlling women's bodies.
@PAxelWrites The years ahead may well prove otherwise, but I still believe that right now—even after three Trump appointees—the two worst and most outrageous hacks on the US Supreme Court were appointees of Bush I and Bush II. (Related to this, I think the generally prevailing conviction, that both Bushes represent the good old days of decency, demonstrates how far most of the culture is from understanding why all this is happening.)
Let's add that these religious bigots were all either appointed by POTUS's that lost the popular vote, confirmed by a Senate representing a minority of the populace, or are documented sex abusers.
Plus they don't know their holy book that underpins their reasoning, which they pretend isn't relevant. The bible is pro-abortion.
@PAxelWrites thank you for bringing some facts to the conversation.
Alito is also wrong about the common law era. As I remember from researching the topic years ago, it was called a misprision by Black. The context was murky, but it seemed to indicate a misunderstanding\mistake.
As conservatives are wont to do, he's misstating facts intentionally to fit a preordained narrative.