Roe v. Wade constructed a balancing act whereby early-term abortions were protected from state regulation, but recognized that the states had a legitimate interest in protecting the lives of viable fetuses. Now, that didn't compel a state to enact laws to protect viable fetuses, but that's a far cry from the new breed of state laws that forbid the protection of such viable lives.
The whole point of Roe v. Wade was to acknowledge the woman's liberty interest, her meaningful ability to exercise a right to "choose" whether to reproduce. But the new breed of laws perverts that intent by explicitly favoring the woman's liberty over an infant's right to life even as it is traveling down the birth canal. It seems to me that what is needed is for the SCOTUS to confirm that the premise underlying Roe cuts both ways: A woman must have the reasonable ability to choose whether to reproduce. But at the same time, a fetus that has attained viability must have the reasonable ability to choose to be born and survive.
