Doesn't this provision sort of invalidate the main thrust of the bill? What am I missing?
Not everyone supports that particular aspect, but it is done for a reason. A doctor who sets up shop to make money from murdering babies is the real target here. The poor, scared desperate woman who is trying to make the "smart choice" by killing her child, is someone who could be sent to prison for 20 years under other forms of this type of law, but North Dakota is choosing not to be punitive toward her, and is trying to see her as a sort of victim as well. It's the medical establishment that is the easier, and more fruitful, target.
As I say, not everyone would agree with the strategy, but one can see why is would be chosen to garner easier political support.
Not exactly; there have been cases where pregnant women have been assaulted, lost their babies, and were then unable to prosecute for murder because it wasn’t a “child”. Libs hate these laws because they acknowledge that there is in fact “life”, but it may pass “constitutional muster” if it doesn’t infringe on “Our God-Given Right To Murder Children” /s.