Because a law on medical procedures from before the practice of antiseptic medicine and drugs before they were regulated, impacting women who were treated like property and children at that time, back when the age of consent was like 10, reflect modern 'conservative' values.
Actually, antiseptic surgeries were invented, and widely used, decades before 1913, when this law was passed. Drugs were regulated under the Pure Food and Drug Act, which passed a decade before this law. Woman were just a few years away from voting at this time, and anyone who s–xually abused a child was given the death penalty. And even if any of this were not true, it would be totally irrelevant to this discussion and the merits of this law. Your avowed violation of the laws of logic and rational debate is not convincing a soul that baby murder should be permitted. If you would like to actually talk about *the law itself* instead of using these fallacies and historical lies, I'd be happy to do that...
