Setting aside whether they do or don’t care – Harris won’t be able to put “Roe vs. Wade” into law, because what that decision did was make the State’s intervention unconstitutional. By overturning Roe vs. Wade the SC made it a legislative matter, rather than one so fundamental to integrity of personal being that it was protected from the State’s intervention. Not absolutely, but strongly. Harris won’t be able to just write something up and sign.
Take Canada for instance, there was a Charter reading on the laws Canada tried to put in around abortion and the courts struck them all down, because the Charter doesn’t allow the State to invade someone’s body and take control of it. That decision was final and irrevocable. There is no law in the land to supercede it because the Charter controls precisely the relationship between State and individual. That’s what it is there for: to protect each individual from the State.
The US Supreme Court decided to undermine its own judicial power to protect US individuals against the State when those judges determined that they don’t have standing to decide what they “believed” should be a legislative matter. This is a bad thing. Courts usually aren’t allowed to retry decisions and substitute their own, except for precise and fairly exceptional circumstances. Plus, the three appointees did it against their reassurances to the nomination committee that Roe vs. Wade was “settled law.” I suppose those judges were perfidious and misrepresented themselves to the committee. So, I don’t know, but if Harris gets in she should probably slap them right down, boot them off the court and throw their decision out.