That's a problem. If you cannot properly elucidate why you feel a law should be enacted, you have little business making laws.
So, we are up to: a) Legislators cannot tell us why they want the law in place,
It isn't inability, it is unwillingness. You know as well as anyone that the abortion issue is as much a political litmus test to the political left as taxation is to the political right. It almost doesn't matter what your voting/legislative record is on other issues, or how well thought out or well considered your position is, if you oppose abortion in any way, you are going to be painted as a misogynist or a religious extremist by the hardline left. Trying to rehabilitate your image will be Sisyphean.
b) the law is polluted with religious and misogynist design,
Even a stopped clock is correct twice a day. Why do conservative homosexual vote for GOP Candidates?* In the end, they feel their goals as citizens of the USA are best served by the GOP, even as the majority of politicians in that party try to keep them as second-class citizens.
Is it an uncomfortable situation? Certainly. But politics, as has often been noted, makes for strange bedfellows.
c) the kids in question are not taken care of, and d) we are not of consensus that this is a question of fetal rights, such that the State has any role in this in the first place (and, at the moment, the "we" that says the government isn't involved includes the SCOTUS).
Careful- SCOTUS's ruling was
only covering the language of 14th Amendment. It is unclear- since no case has challenged it- whether such language in other statutes is affected at all. The SCOTUS (especially one dominated by conservatives) could conceivably distinguish between the language of the 14th and of fetal homicide statutes.
IOW, just like corporations are considered "persons" under the law in a limited sense, if a case came before them, SCOTUS could rule the laws unconstitutional, but could also consider them constitutional, defining fetuses as humans for the limited purposes of those statutes.
Why, exactly, are we even discussing putting such laws on the books?
They're on the books now; their existence is a complication in the issue.
Same philosophy here - no government *demands* that a child be born until *AFTER* you can prove they'll be properly cared for.
By that point, a life may have been extinguished.
* I could also point at violent biker gangs that do major toy drives, KKK groups that participate in environmental cleanup operations, and so forth.
