In her dissent on the Indiana law, Justice Ruth Vader Ginsburg wrote: “(A) woman who exercises her constitutionally protected right to terminate a pregnancy is not a ‘mother,’” she wrote, according to LifeNews.

OK. I think I’ve got it. Because the tiny human being inside the not-a-mother (who can be a man or a woman because they say so) isn’t “human” therefore the product of conception is only a “potential human” so therefore the woman (who can be a man or a woman because they say so) is only a “potential mother.” Got it?

And these people consider themselves pro-science?