I just want to suggest ... that this is probably not going to survive constitutional scrutiny.
Number one, whenever we define a previable fetus as a person that is protected by the equal protection clause or the other elements in the Constitution, what we're really saying is, in fact, that they are persons that are entitled to the kinds of protections that would be provided to a child, a 9-month-old child that was delivered to term.
I mean, it it would essentially bar abortions, because the equal protection clause does not allow somebody to kill a child, and if this is a child, then this would be an anti-abortion statute. For that purpose, I think it would probably be found unconstitutional.
The logic in his statement is clear. The only reason he is giving for not wanting to give personhood status to the unborn is that it would end abortions. Nothing about whether an unborn human is a person. Nothing about whether an unborn human should be a person. Nothing about morals or ethics. It is all based on what he says the Constitution says about personhood. And the Constitution says nothing at all about what defines personhood so his premise is without merit. That is the most vacuous argument that could be made.