I think the point is that a change of this magnitude would have impacts long beyond the immediate motivation for doing it.
I.e., it can be and in this case I would say it is true that:
- Abortion is a primary motivator for those trying to make this happen, and
- If it was enacted many more issues would be affected in the future beyond abortion. As in, anything you want to change the constitution for, including changing this requirement.
One of them being true and important and relevant doesn't mean the other isn't also true and important and relevant.
|