A very good question, RM. I can't help you with that but it's certainly seems like something that will come up eventually. Looks to me like you're thinking a few steps ahead of an entire state. kudos.

That clause was put there with just that in mind, RM. This is how they work: incremental statutory change based on language filled with feints and attempting to lay the groundwork for the civil legislation of (some people's idea of) God's will.

That clause is there so that, once the law is upheld -- it won't be -- then they can move on to ban the Pill and the Patch and the Implant and the vaginal halo.

I believe, however, that an IUD blocks sperm, not implantation of the fertilized oocyte (or undifferentiated mass of cells, if you're on that side of the aisle).

Of course, that sort of legislative finding is unlikely to be at all binding... ever, in light of supreme court language to the effect that the beginning of life is a scientific/medical determination.

But it is another prick, hidden there against a future use. Good reading, RM.

What about the 60% of fertilzed eggs that are washed out of a woman's uterus? If those were actual lives, wouldn't it be the greatest health crisis of all time?

This is a real box for them, because if they start talking about life beginning when the embryo is planted into the uterine lining, then RU 486 isn't taking a life.

Also what the hell about IVF? Those eggs are destroyed or become non-viable after a time.

Yep, its a quandry.