Just read a review of Dobbs v. Jackson Health (overturned Roe v Wade). Sorry but some reading is required.

It says "When the Supreme Court granted Mississippi's request to hear the abortion law case, it limited itself to one question: "Whether all pre-viability prohibitions on elective abortions are unconstitutional."

The notion of viability is crucial in abortion law. As Priscilla Smith, a supporter of abortion rights and director for the Program for the Study of Reproduction Justice at Yale Law School, told NPR late last year, 'The central tenet of Roe is the availability of abortions up to viability.'

Mississippi's petition to the Supreme Court called that standard 'unsatisfactory.' It also noted that fetal viability has changed over time, thanks to advances in obstetrics and medical technology.

'Tomorrow, development of an artificial womb will inevitably move the "viability" line to the moment of conception,' the state wrote in its petition."

One wonders how the speculatively said artificial womb will solve the problem of an embryo that is defective from said moment of conception. One in five pregnancies ends in miscarriage, with no intervention by hell-bound mothers or eeveyul abortionists, presumably due to an error in the DNA of the parents' respective egg or sperm or from the misalignment of a base pair in the resulting DNA molecule or from ... (insert a million other causes here).

When the amazing Zippy Womb eventually expels a defective fetus, will the manufacturer be prosecuted for homicide if not murder? Probably not, since the manufacturer will no doubt be part of a conglomerate formed from other giant corporations donating enough money to get their pet jurists elected to "business friendly" legislatures or appointed to high courts.

It's always about the money and the power and never about the fetus or the parents. Or in this context about the power to impose cruelty on the weak, because you can.

Dobbs v Jackson health article @ NPR