No. They ruled that the child is not a person, and therefore not protected by the Constitution. I posted the text from the Roe decision already on this thread. I can’t help it if you refuse to read it with understanding.
You. like them, twist the Constitution to say waht you wish it said.
Roe did not say the baby wasn’t a person. The Court said they had no scientific evidence telling them when life started. The Court specifically said that if there were ever scientific evidence showing THE STATES had a compelling interest in writing laws to protect that life.
You twist what the Court said like you twist what the Constitution says. That is typical of statists.
But you never answered the question. Why should a pre-born baby have special protections a one-hour-old baby doesn’t have or a twenty-year-old doesn’t have?