Again, this move has the appearance of doing some good for some infants, but its result is to: (1) make others think pro-life things are being done, even though abortions are still happening, and (2) to actually do nothing, given the certainty of a “health of the mother” clause in anything that has a prayer of passing.
I know that "health of the mother" can be just about anything.
But what about language that restricts abortion to cases where the mother's life is clearly in danger? Ectopic pregnancy comes to mind. Also, because pregnancy weakens the immune system, a woman can develop a life-threatening infection during pregnancy. Hmm... what about language that clearly specifies risk to mother's life, and only in the case where the fetus is already dead or has no chance of survival? With the stipulation that reasonable attempts should be made to preserve the fetus' life where there is a chance of viability?
Bah, it's probably all just wishful thinking on my part. But if we keep pushing, we may get to a sane abortion policy, one which does NOT encourage women to use abortion as their primary/only form of birth control.
The Senate democrats would never allow specific definitions to be in any law that they would vote for...just my humble opinion.