In general, the current court punts a hell of a lot based on "We're going to let this stand because Congress hasn't specifically done something about it (which is convenient in this case because letting things stand in this case is good for Republican politics and we are Republican partisan activists and we trust that Republicans in Congress will block any legislation on this topic, so we get the result we desire by punting to Congress)."

But the draft ruling from Alito is pretty fucking crazy and goes really far. At the core of what he says here, in his view, if the Constitution doesn't explicitly protect a right, then the courts should look to the "Nation's history and traditions" (viewed through his lens presumably.)

This is a pretty radical break from the Constitution itself and casts the Constitution as an aberration. In reality, the Constitution was a radical break against "tradition and history" based on Enlightenment values and radical humanism. Historically, we allowed a lot of "traditional" bullshit to slide along, like states outlawing abortions, slavery, etc. despite the values that the Constitution was based on, and over time, we have been better aligning the overall legal system to the values of the constitution.

But Alito wants to put the Constitution on a shelf and allow "traditional" and "historical" approaches to be the norm only unless something explicit in the Constitution blocks the backward shit.

That applies to laws passed by Congress. He would happily overturn a federal law passed by Congress and singed by the President protecting access to abortion because of his test: 1) the Constitution does not explicitly protect that right and then 2) his personal "tradition and history" test says that old timey laws prohibited abortion, thus it's OK to prohibit abortion.

This ruling goes wildly beyond abortion and represents a truly radical break to hem in the Constitution itself as much as possible to impose old-timey "values".