Originally Posted by Dilettante

I know what you mean. Sometimes you just gotta blow off some steam



Are you you talking about this particular bill or about abortion law in general?

If the latter, then you're acting as if the primary question is already decided. The primary question is whether or not basic human rights extend to humans any time prior to birth. At present, there's considerable disagreement on that question in the United States.
That isn't really a medical question, since it deals with human rights.

And if that question is answered such that some pre-borns are recogized as having human rights, then the wellbeing of the mother naturally bows in importance to the life of the child, and her right to choose whether or not to give birth yields to the right of the child to live.

The court answered it one way in Roe v. Wade, but the population hasn't really come to any consensus. This latest ruling indicates that the court now entertains at least some measure of doubt as to the veracity of the previous ruling.