RBG believed Roe v. Wade was incorrectly argued, and that the basis for that argument made it easier to attack (which she was correct about in hindsight.) She absolutely believed in abortion as a fundamental right, however, but would have preferred precedent be based on the Equal Protection clause.
No... it's really not. She said the way it was argued (privacy) was not a solid legal ground, which is correct. Roe v Wade the case was not about abortion as a whole (which is still legal in the United States as a whole, since there's no law banning it). Roe v Wade was a case that said the Constitution has a right to privacy that includes abortion, which it does not.
Maybe in the future, someone will attempt to argue an equal rights case. Maybe not.
Either way, that case will not be Roe v Wade. Supporting abortion is not the same as supporting Roe v Wade. Two separate things when it comes to law.
