Protecting human life only in utero?!
It’s astonishing to me, for example, that the Alabama law actually exempts fetuses used in IVF procedures. They don’t need to be protected, it appears. “The egg in the lab doesn’t apply. It’s not in a woman. She’s not pregnant,” explained a state senator in the debate. This is an enormous gift to pro-choicers. It really does prove that for some, this is not about human life. It’s about controlling women’s bodies. If that is revealed in a post-Roe era, the momentum will be with legal abortion.
Andrew Sullivan. That’s news to me, and astonishing indeed.
It “does prove … that … this is … about controlling women’s bodies” not as a syllogism proves something conclusively, but in the sense that every bit of evidence in a trial proves or disproves something, incrementally. It also “proves” the danger of relying on legislative history for the meaning (or hidden meaning) of a law, as this one Alabama state senator may have been alone, as well as a fiend or fool.
Rod Dreher has a more charitable explanation for the IVF exception: Many anti-abortion Christians in Alabama (and elsewhere) are not willing to face up to the implications of their acceptance of IVF.