I think that's true (though I'm no expert), but it isn't really a constitutional argument

[FBaggins]

There isn’t a requirement that states conform to the current consensus when setting policy. Ruling on that basis comes to close to “legislating from the bench”.

The issue in this case appears to come down to whether you think of the issue as primarily a medical procedure or in some way “speech”.

They might kill this one by saying that there’s enough speech involved that strict scrutiny should be applied - and then punt the case back to the lower courts to take a first whack at that.