highly UNlikely

My memory of it is vague. But it seems to me legal scholars have observed that in the event Roe v. Wade were overturned; that one reversal would NOT render abortion illegal throughout the U.S.
Instead, according to my memory of that article (read perhaps years ago) it would simply send the dispute back to the States.
There, it seems some States would outlaw it. Others might not.
In that case, the "blue" States would probably benefit economically from the "red" State hypocrites; seeking legal, safe OB/GYN procedures unavailable in "red" States.

And EXACTLY how many previous US Supreme Court decisions have been "overturned" by the US Supreme Court in the past?

(The US Supreme Court simply isn't going to overturn it's own decision, no matter which justices are sitting at the bench. It just ISN'T going to happen.)

I'm not so sure about the next one.
But this is what ask.com says:
That's almost once per year.
I'm skeptical about that. But settle it with the Masons.
Many legal scholars seem to think, whether or not the result of Roe v. Wade is right, the legal process by which it was decided was flawed.

Possibly so.
But apart from stare decisis, there's a tradition in the U.S. that law with this many decades of tenure be treated as "settled law".
There are exceptions. But generally the doctrine of "settled law" applies.

C.J. Robers is said to be a conservative.
We may soon find out whether he's a social conservative (& overturn Roe v. Wade), or a legal conservative and let it stand.

I don't think I really buy into this. I certainly see where you are coming from, but it is an ethical issue, and ethics are gender neutral. It becomes a male issue for many reasons. Men are still required in order to conceive a child, so depending on the relationship with the mother, they may warrant some say, and in many cases it may be a male doctor who either has to perform the abortion, or present it as an option. Furthermore, I don't think anyone would argue that it becomes an issue where a man has input in the case where the mother's life is in jeopardy. I for one know that if the woman who I love were going to die in birth, I'd want her to have an abortion.

Oh, I'd just like to see the exact cases whereby the US Supreme Court essentially throw out an earlier US Supreme Court ruling...none of which these citations provide.

And we aren't taking about lower court rulings being thrown out by the US Supreme Court either, right?

(I could be wrong, but I don't recall hearing the highest court in the land ever, essentially and officially, "correcting itself.")

I don't know of 200 of them - I know they reversed their own ruling on whether it was cruel and unusual punishment to impose a death penalty on a crime committed by somebody under 18.

Good question.
That would not meet my definition of of reversing "itself".

I recall a case related to the U.S. Pledge of Allegiance.
Even before a Presidential Decree and an act of Congress added the words "under god" to it, I believe a religious group, Jehovah's Witnesses perhaps, submitted objection about it. I believe the ruling was reversed in fairly short order, a few years, if I recall correctly.

But bd, you seem to be surprised that SCOTUS has this power.
I agree, due to the doctrine of "finality" (& or related ...) SCOTUS rulings should be final.
BUT !!!
They should be decided wisely in the first place.
They are not always.
Their own authority to reverse their earlier ruling is one of the remedies for that.

Oh ye of little historical insight.

Plessy v Ferguesson 1897 established the basis of separate but equal. Brown v Board of Education 1954 overturned the decision.

The misguided myth that because Roe v Wade is a well established rule of law is just that a myth. Roe decided in 1973 is only 34 years old, Plessy was 57 when it was finally overturned. Furthermore, the basic premise of Roe remains, that under liberty a woman has the right to choose, however, Roe also established the three trimester clarification which stated that in the first trimester the decision was between the mother and doctor and the government should have no interferrence, in the second trimester the government was allowed to restrict certain procedures and in the third trimester the government had to weigh the potential life of the fetus and could restrict the availability of abortions or only allow abortions to save the life or maternal health. In 1989, Webster v Reproductive Health Services for the most part scrapped the trimester theory established in Roe and replaced it with viability following 20 weeks. Interestingly enough, Webster also upheld the establish of life at conception.

So it would seem that there is a possibility that the Court could overturn Roe v Wade, which would return the decision to the states and the people where it belongs.

dmk

issues of civil rights should NEVER be left "to the people"

that is the reason we are a constiutional democratic republic

we don't put the rights of others up to public vote