The recent supreme court appointments underline the idea that the constitution says what the court says. If they can reinterpret it for Roe they can reinterpret it for Loving.
Anything is "possible". My point is that there is a much more difficult case for reinterpretation of Loving.
On a practical level, I also think there is public support for gay an interracial marriage today in a way that there never was for Roe and later Casey. Most Americans cant even articulate what the abortion standards are.
I think your data more or less supports my conclusion.
The idea that the conservative supreme court is about to overturn Loving is absurd. 94% of the population supports it and Clarence Thomas is in an interracial marriage himself for heavens sake.
Time since decision is a factor as you mention, but the rates of change are an order of magnitude different. Support for gay marriage has increased about 40% in 20 years. Interracial marriage increased 90%! in 70 years. For abortion, "legal under any circumstances" has seen the biggest change and increased ~10% in 50 years. The pro-live/pro-choice chart is even more telling showing stagnation for the last 20 years.
Abortion is a complex decision tree with 100s of options and 71% of people fall between the extremes of no-exception legal or illegal [1], and dissatisfaction with current laws is at an all time high [2]. I just don't see the same motivation to overturn Loving and Obergefell which are binary issues the overwhelming majority are happy with.
