Yes, it does. Roe v. Wade held that kind of privacy was within the protected areas of the very same right following Griswold v. Connecticut on the right to rubbers. The right for people to decide things for themselves without government interference was not interfered with in this country until the late 19th century. People always have a right to continue managing their own bodies and the state has no authority to intervene except late in the pregnancy. The court found that it was the state that did not logically have the power to make these laws. There have been numerous follow up cases that make it one of the most followed precedents there is. Logically you would have to remove that right by constitutional amendment, not politically packing the court.
I know what Roe held. The point is that reasonable people can disagree, including some hypothetical future SCOTUS.
Reasonable people can disagree, but the facts are clear that Roe v. Wade sets forth its logic and you said that it cannot logically get where to it ended up. Yes it can do so using logic and law, that is how it got there. Yes, you can logically go somewhere else, but you must apply a different historical view and a different view of what the law is.