That’s not how this works. Roe v Wade isn’t a law that’s either valid or not, and if its "overturned" that doesn’t mean nobody could cite it. The right to medical privacy would still be there unless the supremes wrote a decision literally saying that the concept of medical privacy was incorrectly inferred from the constitution. And if they’re willing to do that, and states are willing to ban HRT, then it doesn’t matter if they ban abortion or HRT first.

A court decision only has power as precedent in other court cases. And all that means is if a court ignores it you might be able to convince a higher court that they shouldn’t have and that they should grant an appeal. It prevents the government from making laws only to the extent that a legislator doesn’t want to start a court case.

Really the argument is that a court system willing to ban abortion would also be willing to restrict other rights. But abortion doesn’t really function as much of a foot in the door here, it’s just the thing they’re loudest about. If they win they’d have time to do other things, I guess.