It used to be that after RvW, society granted the mother the unique right to kill the unborn child, based on her personhood/privacy/body arguments.  We are well past accepting that as a society, although people differ as to the timing of granting this right to kill, and many people disagree. Now there is a new set of human rights issues.  The new laws being pushed, create a situation where (anyone) killing a viable baby at term (or before) is okay because babies are no longer legally designated person with rights. This means that no one is ever legally accountable for 'murdering' a POC (product of conception) whether the mother wants the baby or not.  This begs the question of when exactly does a baby then become a 'legal person' in his/her's own right? (protected by law).  If not at birth, who then decides when?  These laws imply that "personhood" is not an 'inalienable' state of being born with rights because it is now up to the Government to bestow the privilege of when a baby is a legally protected person. If that is truly the case, which IS the logical conclusion of these laws, then logically the state can also grant who and when a birth mother can be recognized as a parent in her own right.  It may seem impossible to fathom the State stripping mothers of the right to parent, but the right to have a "safe and legal" abortion says nothing about the right to be recognized as a parent with rights.  As I said in another response in this thread, China has safe and legal abortions, but does not recognize any right to be a parent beyond one child (.e. forced abortion).