The dissenting Jutices - Breyer, Sotomayor and Kagan - emphasized the autonomy-based liberty aspect. Roe held, and Casey

[answerhappygod]

The dissenting Jutices - Breyer, Sotomayor and Kagan -emphasized the autonomy-based liberty aspect.
Roe held, and Casey reaffirmed, that in the first stages ofpregnancy, the government could not make that choice for women. Thegovernment could not control a woman’s body or the course of awoman’s life: It could not determine what the woman’s future wouldbe.The Court [in Roe and Casey] knew that Americans hold profoundlydifferent views about the “moral[ity]” of “terminating a pregnancy,even in its earliest stage.” And the Court recognized that theState has legitimate interests from the outset of the pregnancy inprotecting” the “life of the fetus that may become a child.” So theCourt struck a balance, as it often does when values and goalscompete. It held that the State could prohibit abortions afterfetal viability, so long as the ban contained exceptions tosafeguard a woman’s life or health. It held that even beforeviability, the State could regulate the abortion procedure inmultiple and meaningful ways. But until the viability line wascrossed, the Court held, a State could not impose a “substantialobstacle” on a woman’s “right to elect the procedure” as she (notthe government) thought proper, in light of all the circumstancesand complexities of her own life. ... Whatever the exact scope ofthe coming laws, one result of today’s decision is certain: thecurtailment of women’s rights, and of their status as free andequal citizens. Yesterday, the Constitution guaranteed that a womanconfronted with an unplanned pregnancy could (within reasonablelimits) make her own decision about whether to bear a child, withall the life-transforming consequences that act involves. And inthus safeguarding each woman’s reproductive freedom, theConstitution also protected “[t]he ability of women to participateequally in [this Nation’s] economic and social life.” Casey, 505 U.S., at 856. But no longer...
What, if anything, do they say about the moral status ofthe fetus?
a. In Roe v. Wade, which is now overturned, the court hadrecognized a State's interest in protecting the 'life of a fetusthat may become a child'" but the Roe court had struck a balance(by banning state intervention before viability of the fetus) --and this practice of striking a balance is what often happens "whengoals and values compete."
b. They don't make any reference to the moral status of thefetus.
c. Yesterday, the Constitution guaranteed that a womanconfronted with an unplanned pregnancy could (within reasonablelimits) make her own decision about whether to bear a child, withall the life-transforming consequences that act involves.