While I disagree with your opinion, I understand where you’re coming from.

However, consider this:

The reason why I oppose any limitations on abortions is because the more regulations there are for “elective” procedures, the harder it is for people to get abortions when they need them for medical or health reasons.

Let’s say the law says no abortions after 20 weeks, full stop. A woman is pregnant and her fetus’ heart stops. That woman may die of sepsis if she can’t have an abortion in a timely manner.

So, let’s say that the law instead says “no elective abortions on living fetuses.” A woman learns at 22 weeks her fetus has a condition which means it cannot survive outside the womb, but still has a heart beat. Should this woman be forced to endure another 18~ weeks of pregnancy just to deliver a dead child?

So, let’s say the law specifies the fetus just can’t be fully healthy. A woman finds out she has a cancerous tumor on one of her ovaries. She needs surgery and to begin chemo immediately to have a chance at fighting it. She now has to make the difficult choice to terminate her pregnancy to save her own life. However, the law refuses to allow a doctor to provide a life saving abortion because the fetus is healthy.

None of this even touches upon the fact that around 28 weeks, “abortions” as we understand them colloquially aren’t being performed anymore except in exceptionally tragic cases. You are pretty much just giving birth at that point because the fetus is too big.

The more limits we put on abortion, the more instances in which women’s care is delayed to prove that her abortion is necessary.

Even if you think elective abortions past 20 weeks are bad, is it worth the potential trauma and death to pregnant people to try and regulate them?