Then state how that can be accomplished, rather than merely brow beating with vague innuendo. How do you fashion the law to protect the concetion which for some reason unknown to your law does not implant? If you investigate such things, you commit the ultimate invasion of privacy, on the grounds of suspicion of guilt. Unless you can wrtie law which addresses such things successfully. So, tell me how you fashion such law to exist in a nation such as America?
That said, the position of people like Newt echoes that of overt pro-aborts, who always say, "Laws against abortion won't stop all abortions so why have those laws?"
A law against something - with corresponding legal penalties for doing that thing - stop more instances of that thing than would be stopped if the law was not in place at all.
That is the core cause-and effect premise, and it applies to protecting pre-born babies from their conception forward instead of taking a cheap way out and reserving protection for any later / post-conception stage.
Having laws that protect pre-born babies starting from conception forward will save a lot of them.
Regarding the implementation of that protection, there are many ways to get that rolling.
Key amongst them is banning the sale, distribution, and possession of chemical compounds which abort a newly-conceived pre-born baby at any point from that baby's conception forward.