Are those state leaders representing the opinion of the majority of their state though i.e are they doing their job, by only caring about what the people in their state want?
If they are then what they are doing is right for the people who vote for them so to call them "extremists" just because they're following what the majority of their state wants is You putting Your views over the people in Their state who will be directly effected.
The US isn't a Democracy, so the individual states are free to make laws the people who live there want and if, as Roe vs Wade, the federal Gov tells people "even if the majority off your state opposes this law, tough!" it's understandable that once the control drops back to those individual states, people will be happy to pass a law the majority want.
They're not representing the majority, they're pandering to a small but very loud, idiotic part of their voter base (and the very wealthy donors) that likes their women beholden to the menfolk, and pregnant or dead, or would if you take the leaked opinion from one of the unqualified Judges Mitch and Trump pushed through, remove any of the rights that were given after the constitution was written (except the second, can't touch that*), as they were not mentioned in the original document.
They're putting in place laws that would make it illegal for a woman to have an abortion when the only other possible outcome is that both the mother and the clump of cells dies (they're putting in place laws that ban abortions for ectopic pregnancies, a medical situation where you either remove the featus, or the mother dies in agony and at least ones of these nuts has gone on the record to say it's better that the mother dies than the procedure takes place.).
They're putting in laws that would class it an abortion to take the morning after pill, and trying to ban contraceptives in some cases.
These laws are going to kill a lot of women, and end up with many more in prison for miscarriages, either because they believe some poor woman who has just had one of the worst experiences of her life has deliberately done it, or done something to cause it by "not being careful enough".
The US is already basically the worst place in the western world to have a baby in terms of safe pregnancy and birth, and oddly enough the "baby comes first" states are usually the worst in the US giving death rates among pregnant woman, and their babies that are worse than some "third world" countries.
Even amongst Republican voters only about 30% want a ban on abortion, even less want a full on ban where there is no exception to save the life of the mother - which I believe takes it back way beyond what it was in the 60's, and takes it beyond what Ireland had before they finally saw sense (after a very high profile case where a woman died because none of the doctors wanted to risk the investigation that would follow, even though there was no other way to save her and they knew it).
It's like the "CRT" outrage where they're deliberately misleading the voters about what it is to get an excuse to ban any book they don't like. CRT is a very specific elective course that is taught to people in university to help understand the history of certain laws and statistics**, but they've manufactured enough of an outrage that they're using it to ban books that mention anything about slavery where the slaves were anything but happy and grateful for their position in life, and banning books about the civil rights movement in the 60's..
*And don't forget the line about a lack of "domestically available babies for Adoption" (I may have the wording slightly wrong), like the woman is litterally just a walking womb to provide nice American babies to feed the appetite for adoptable babies, which ignores the huge number of babies and children who are in the US system wanting homes but aren't pretty/healthy enough to be adopted.
**For example there is one state where the statistics from one period have to be explicitly looked at with the knowledge that the guy that ran the statistics bureau was a racist pratt and put in place policies/criteria for collecting information that has to be allowed for and understood if you're going to do any comparison with what are meant to be the same sort of stats in another state, or that same state 30 years later, other examples include understanding how certain laws were introduced specifically to target minorities, or the situation around things like the civil rights act etc. Basically CRT is literally "degree" level stuff, but instead it's being used by people that don't want their children to learn that the "war for states rights" was a war to try and ensure that states had the right to maintain slavery, and that the slaves were not in fact joyful at their lives and may not have appreciated the "nice and generous master" whipping and raping them.
/cloudfront-us-east-2.images.arcpublishing.com/reuters/M5BTJ4IJVNPUXBPQYVCU2AZXII.jpg)
