When it’s just you and one other person, an argument going in to debating over the meaning of individuals words usually is an avoidable dead end (like, if they insist on calling it to-mah-toe who cares, and if they insist on calling it “the Ukraine” it’s the “you aren’t actually getting anywhere” scenario you described), but when the whole argument is about how you each get to present this issue to a third party (i.e. voters) it’s a totally different situation and semantics is actually kind of the whole ball game.

Also, this isn’t just individual word choice, this is like a “theoretical degree in physics” level of misleading rephrase

The original language seeks to assure access to abortion through what is called viability, when the fetus is able to survive outside the womb. It states, “abortion may be prohibited after fetal viability,” but not in cases where a treating physician deems the procedure necessary to protect the life or health of the pregnant person.

LaRose’s summary turned that section on its head. It now says the amendment would “always allow an unborn child to be aborted at any stage of pregnancy, regardless of viability if, in the treating physician’s determination” the life and health exception applies.