You gave us a king. He was very bad. The theocrat who followed was worse.1
Worse yet was the pretense earlier this week that theocracy had nothing to do with what was at issue. Not in the precincts. Not among the rightly disgraced. Not in the legislatures and governors' mansions. Not in ignoring part of the Constitution we are all expounding… and that that is precisely what we are doing is pretty definitively demonstrated by the diversity of arguments not just that are made, but that are taken seriously by enough people to be taken seriously as arguments.
The fundamental logic problem with the debate, at least in terms of the "viability is not a Constitutional measure" prong being proposed by theocrats (and their allies), is this: If "viability" is too much a moving target for law and its limited competence to accurately reflect reality, then what is the basis? I think there's little doubt that "upon live birth" is an acceptable outer limit of the conversation; but how far prior to that point can we go without playing unacceptable hidden-agenda games?
Not nearly as far as the existence of the current argument implies. Not nearly as far as any tunnel-visioned reference to "advances in medical care" that fail to, well, acknowledge advances in medical understanding at the core of those advances in medical care implies. I will, however, refrain from puns about "bad faith" after this closing bit of snark.