It’s exactly what it means. This has to be potential common ground that can help the “pro life” crowd see that their argument is an oversimplification. But I also think it’s a fragile situation. This just passed. It still has to survive court scrutiny, spread, and last long enough for a majority to continue to see it as sensible. I think then in it can be part of an argument that mere conception isn’t when a person suddenly exists. (And I know that’s all about choosing to engage the discussion on the terms of the “pro life” crowd; the “pro choice” argument isn’t contingent on the personhood status of an embryo but, rather, the right of the mother to choose what happens to her own body. But the “pro life” crowd either doesn’t seem to grasp or doesn’t more highly value that logic, so something like IVF might be like getting them to compare a mother’s weight to that of a duck to “realize” what’s really important to them, that she’s not made of wood.)