Likely the only reason why the SC came down on this the way they did was because of the nebulous standing.
Generally, you can’t come to court without a realized injury. Meaning you’ve been actually hurt, not that you have the potential to be hurt. It’s the difference between arguing “This law may prevent me from getting a marriage certificate as a homosexual individual” and “I legally applied for a marriage license and was denied one”. Whether or not you think it’s a good idea, it reduces the case load of courts around the country.
The Mifepristone case was brought all the SC by a group of people who couldn’t show an actual injury. Their arguments all centered around “Some of the people we represent might be affected by the fact that Mifepristone is so flagrantly prescribed, and dealing with the fallout of an abortion goes against the beliefs of these specific people we represent”. And the SC rejected that on standing alone, because it would open the flood gates for all sorts of lawsuits. “My child is threatened by the manufacture of AR-15 rifles by X company because they’re used in school shootings!” etc.
That is the only reason why this case was decided the way it was. If you want to protect Women’s rights, you need to turn out in your local elections every chance you get.