The constitutional criteria for protection is whether or not it is a person, not whether or not they can feel pain.
The legislation is immoral and unconstitutional.
“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.”
It’s a start. If the courts don’t throw it out, it’ll save some babies. That’s ultimately what we want. The governor was overridden with the slimmest margin. I morally and philosophically pure bill would have been defeated and babies would continue to die.
“The constitutional criteria for protection is whether or not it is a person, not whether or not they can feel pain.
The legislation is immoral and unconstitutional.”
True. But the status quo ante is even worse. I’ll take the baby steps.
The majority opinion held that "ethical and moral concerns", including an interest in fetal life, represented "substantial" state interests, which (assuming they do not impose an "undue" burden) could be a basis for legislation at all times during pregnancy, not just after viability. Thus, the Court clarified that the pre-viability/post-viability distinction was not implicated in Carhart.
Nothing here about personhood. Your judgment of the "immorality" of the law is uncalled for and unwarranted.