You said, "If you hope the SCOTUS eventually gets rid of 'Choice'"
Just a technical point: While I may technically have a free will choice of whether to punch someone in the face, it is not considered to be a natural right or legal right to harm another person, so we do not usually call legal prohibitions against harm to another as "elimination of choice." For example, we don't refer to the government as "getting rid of the choice to burgle" when the government makes burglary illegal. Why not? Because there is a non-consenting victim in a burglary. I don't have a legitimate legal "choice" to injure another person. We might use those terms ("choice") when it comes to, say, elimination of marijuana or prostitution, because there is no non-consenting victim in those so-called crimes. They are "victimless acts." The only reason we use "choice" in the abortion debate now is because the term was adopted by one side to dehumanize the object of the process, to put it in the category of a victimless act. But, in the case of abortion, everyone agrees that "the science is settled" that a new biologically human life form is created at conception, with unique DNA that has never existed before in any other human. That new human being has not consented to be placed where it was, and has not consented to be killed/aborted. So, I don't believe there is any "choice" which needs to be "gotten rid of" when it comes to abortion. We just need to stop the harming of innocent human beings, which is (or should be) the primary job of government. (Also, SCOTUS would never get rid of abortion. Only state legislatures can do that.)
You asked, "Should government completely ban federal/state capital punishment?"
I think it should be banned in almost every case. We can discuss special cases, but if they are allowed, I think they should be rare enough that there would be a national discussion about it before it happened. But, capital punishment is far easier to justify than abortion, as long as you have a robust justice system, because the convicted felon is not an innocent party, and knew his/her actions would risk the punishment.
You asked, Should the government completely take away the ability for people to sign DNR?
No. DNR's are voluntary. There are no non-consenting victims.
You asked, Should there be a federal tax to help fund orphanages and foster parents?
Not sure there is a reason to raise it to the national level; the states should handle things like that. Such things should be funded. We can discuss whether it is optimal whether to fund them by mandatory taxation or voluntary contributions or both. I donate to homes for pregnant women and new mothers. Many prolifers do. Do you? Or, do you think you don't have to help with those things because you support abortion and pay taxes? I do worry that tax supported programs make people think that they are relieved of the moral obligation to help.