To play the devil's advocate, the introductory sections of the bill make it clear that the bill constrains only a particular kind of procedure because it so close, technically to th ekilling of a born child. The routine induces vaginal birth and interrupts it with insertion of a sharp object into the brain case of the foetus just before it is delivered. I can understand that the difference between such a foetus and a delivered baby seems so marginal as to be a quibble.

The document also actually reaffirms the right to abortion defined by Roe v. Wade.

The moral whirlwind surrounding these issues has what I think is an interesting boundary condition: no-one who defends abortion would defend the right to terminate the life of a born child. Technically, doing so is an act of murder. The instant of parturition grants the child the Consittutional rights of personhood. (Parents sometimes take a while to catch up with this recognition, but that's understandable!) :)

I am not a medical expert, but if you have a viable if premature foetus on the border of being born, is there medical risk to the mother in putting it in an incubator rather than terminating it? AFAIK the threat to individual health is the continuation of the pregnancy, not the survival of the foetus into babyhood.

All this said, I am concerned about the right of the Federal government to pre-empt the choices of both mother and medical professional under any circumstances. I think it's a thorny and convoluted issue, though.

A