If you want us to treat babies as human, that means their mother needs to be a mature adult, with a fully grown pelvis and fused growth plates. That means their mother needs a couple quick check ups during the pregnancy, to make sure the baby is basically healthy and pointing the right way. The mother needs someone to be with her during labor, to make sure nothing tears or bleeds when it shouldn't, and that the baby can breathe and suckle properly. The mother and baby need a safe place to live for the first year or two, and ideally should be able to breast feed for that first year or two. They should have enough money to live on, and if the mother needs to work to support them, the baby should have a safe place to stay when she works. Safe means the baby gets fed regularly, gets talked to, gets cuddled, and can be taken to the doctor if it gets an odd fever or rash.
Opposing health reform on the grounds that it *might* allow more women to abort their babies, when you're not campaigning for any of the other critical changes involved in treating babies as human? This is morally objectionable. Not a little immoral. This is vile, because you're campaigning for death, sometimes of the mother, sometimes of the baby, and in the worst cases... both. The US's infant and maternal mortality rates are dreadful, even without taking abortion into account.
Can we please try treating babies as fully human, before you start playing games with what choices their mother makes?