If over turned by non-activists as such, abortion does not become illegal: the issue is returned to the states.
Roe is the only reason abortion is legal in WV at all. Our old law banning abortion was never repealed, merely deemed unconstitutional and unenforceable (at the state level as well as due to Roe). Then in 2018 we passed a constitutional amendment reading: “Nothing in this Constitution secures or protects a right to abortion or requires funding of abortion”, which is there specifically to circumvent the state Supreme Court ruling against said abortion law. It passed with 52% of the vote and I personally know several people who were misinformed (they thought that voting against the amendment was specifically voting for state funding of abortions through increased taxes - because that's the best way to sell it to people who have a strong opinion about how much they pay in taxes and what those taxes fund but not as strong a position regarding abortion).
And even though women are more than half the population, women ONLY make up 25 % of the Senate and 23 % of the House. So yea, this idea of women controlling much of anything right now is beyond absurd.
Largely because not enough women run. Women who run for office have a similar rate of success to men running under similar conditions. Now, if you're a Dem woman running against an incumbent GOP man in a deep red state, well, it's not your gender that's keeping you out of office.
Even then, it's worth noting that only 25% of Senate and 23% of the House are women because that's who was voted for, by a group of voters that is slight majority female.
I wonder, would you support a law akin that CA affirmative action bill regarding corporate boards (which if you read carefully mandates either firing men from those positions or having at least 3 women, regardless of the size of the board beforehand - adding a spot for a woman instead of replacing a man with a woman makes the board bigger requiring another spot for a woman until there are at least 3) that mandated that at least one US Senator from each state must be female?
Though this is STILL not represented in top schools, as top schools still often discriminate against women
Both of these are an example of a fallacy of composition used often in gender discussion where a tiny slice is cut such that that slice favors men and is then used to argue that men are favored more generally (same reason we went from talking about women in college to women in STEM, because looking at women in college started favoring women so there was a need to look at only the majors that strongly favor men). What's interesting is that in many of those same cases taking a slice from the bottom of the scale also favors men (for example men are overrepresented as billionaires but also as rough-sleeping homeless, the former being proof of patriarchy and the latter something to be quietly ignored).
Example: In California, when forming corporate boards, by law, they are required to engage in bigotry against men.
If you read that one carefully if you have a board larger than 3 people and aren't meeting the quota you either have to fire men or alternately expand the board to include at least three women. Why three? Because adding a spot for a woman to a board that was larger than three to begin with makes the board big enough to require an additional woman until three are required.