> we want the government not to be involved in these types of decisions. We want the decision to be made by the mothers and their providers, and, and this is why, Julie, that legislators, most of whom are men, by the way, shouldn’t be telling a woman what she should and shouldn’t be doing with her body

If the government is not involved, there's nobody to check the viability. There's nobody to ensure that viable infants aren't killed just because the mother and her provider decided it's the best thing to do. There's an ideological position that is based on "men can't tell women what to do" - and this position is not conditioned on "only in the case when we're talking about non-viable fetus" - it applies to all cases.

Also note that opinion is not the opinion of the author of the original law. It's another person trying to defend the law - but there's no guarantee that the letter of the law would match every tidbit of this interview, and there are multiple indications - including ones I quoted - that the intent of the law is to remove any limitations, not conditioned on non-viability of the fetus. Again, I am not saying the author of the law was dreaming about killing as many infants as possible - their motivations were probably closer to the ideology I quoted above - but the consequence of unconditional withdrawal of the state from the picture would be that it is not possible to enforce any conditions, whatever rhetoric the supporters used at the time.