We really do have way more information and options now than we did when Roe v Wade was first implemented in the early 70s.

(The following is mainly addressed to these sorts of GenZ-ers, not necessarily you, Accio)

Just who is the "we" here, and in what sense does that "we" "have" any of these things?

I'm assuming that this "we" means, if not "humanity in general", at least "the western (and specifically American) public as a whole". And that "have" is shorthand for "have access to, as a result of these things (information/options) being known to exist".

So... is knowing that a given thing exists really the same as having access to it? You know that a million dollars exists, right? Does that mean you therefore have access to a million dollars? That you're a millionaire?

Closer to home, how about medical technology? If you know that a given treatment for cancer exists, but you can't afford it (and no one will waive the cost or fund it for you), do you nonetheless have access to that treatment? In what sense?

But how does this apply to contraception? It obviously isn't so expensive that only millionaires can afford it. Why doesn't its being known to exist effectively translate into access, then?

Because Roe v. Wade rests on the right to privacy. Ergo, overturning Roe means that there is no such right.

Griswold v. Connecticut also rests on the right to privacy (and originally established it; this is the precedent case for Roe). It found that government restrictions on married couples buying, and using, contraception are unconstitutional.

So if Griswold goes... governments will be free to restrict access to contraception even for married couples. Including (as with Connecticut at the time) prohibiting contraceptives altogether.

"Oh, but I'M not married, though! I don't even believe in marriage! So it wouldn't apply to ME." What makes you think that if contraception is outlawed for those having the most acceptable-- indeed, officially-approved and even REVERED!-- form of sex, an exception will somehow be carved out to accommodate YOUR fornicating ass?

"Oh, but no government would REALLY do THAT." Wanna bet? Lots of 'em are openly-- even loud-and-proudly-- anti-abortion, right? Well, for decades now, most who oppose abortion have also viewed contraception as a form of abortion. Sure, I understand that the GenZ-ers probably don't; so what? How many state legislatures and governorships do THEY control?

And this isn't even getting into the issue of reproductive coercion, where attempts to use birth control are deliberately sabotaged by people one knows (often on the "keep her barefoot and pregnant" model).

I wonder how much of this who-needs-abortion-anyway attitude among young people comes from: 1.] the trans war on human biology in general, and women's biology in particular; and 2.] GenZ hardly having any sex (so this is all just an abstraction for them).

Ironic that I, no longer in my reproductive prime, am more concerned about this than those who are (and will be for decades more). Both GenZ women under threat of forced pregnancy... and non-gay GenZ men under threat of shotgun marriages and being financially responsible for all the unwanted offspring they can't avoid conceiving.

But given where things are probably headed, I guess that they're gonna just have to be like the protagonist of "Citizen Kane": "he needs more than one lesson... and he's going to get more than one lesson."

TL;DR: if GenZ-ers (or anyone else) think that contraception means no longer needing abortion... think again.