I would have as well.
To do otherwise would be a violation of the oath.
The Constitution does not allow the killing of innocent persons, and it absolutely requires equal protection for all persons.
These sorts of bills miserably fail that first and most important test. They amount to nothing more than the codification of the killing of innocent persons.
The answer is that War, like Politics, is the art of the possible. You attack the enemy everywhere you can to get a win and to set up the next battle. If you can get a complete win then go for it - but do not make the perfect the enemy of the good.
In the present case you are saying that you would vote against protecting a 21-week old baby because you can't defend all children in the womb. That attitude ... is a lot of things, but at the very least it is self-defeating.
Take what you can get until Roe v Wade, Doe v Bolton, and PP v Casey is gone and get the rest later.
all or nothing means you get nothing.
you have to think this out to the logical extension.
At 20 weeks it is high risk so outlawed. (if the courts uphold it)
Then how can science reduce pregnancy rist to take that to 19? 18?
what if the fetus can be safely removed is a lesser risk than an abortion? Suddenly you start to shift the debate.
the science is the key, thumping religious posturing only ends up abdicating the field to the pro-abortion crowd.