[EternalVigilance]

As anyone with even a passing knowledge of the law knows, the fact that Law A does not apply to a particular act does not mean that such act cannot be proscribed by Law B or Law C or Law D. Exclusion of certain acts from coverage by a particular law does not create a “safe harbor” for the commission of such acts. Just about every federal law has limitations, exceptions and exclusions, and it is idiotic to read them as “legalizing” the acts that such law does not cover.

What a bunch of legalistic gobledygook. No wonder the "pro-life movement" has gotten nowhere in forty years.

What part of the following do you fail to understand?

"No person shall be deprived of life without due process of law."

"No State shall deprive any person of life without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

If legislation does not conform to that absolute requirement, it is immoral and unconstitutional.

[AuH2ORepublican]

“If legislation does not conform to that absolute requirement, it is immoral and unconstitutional.”
____________

And thus you prefer to vote down laws banning abortion after 20 weeks of gestation and preserving the statis-quo ante, which is abortion-on-demand at any point prior to birth. Brilliant!