Idawa: I have to admit, I've only given the decision a cursory review. I don't think the decision is as dire as J. Ginsberg writes in the dissent. This decision only makes it illegal to abort a fetus after it leaves the uterus, a Dr could still give an abortion to a women at the same point in pregnancy if it was an in-uterus abortion. This is a pretty narrow opening that I don't think anti-abortion lobbyist will be able to squeeze much into. Ginsberg, however, was more concerned about the language the majority did use. Although the law only outlaws this one procedure, the language used by the majority was about fetus right, right to life, etc ... with little acknowledgment of a woman's autonomy over her own destiny. It might be the opening of a door, but I think if the government were to try to outlaw all abortions, in effect the government mandating that women must bear their pregnancies, there would a backlash that would cripple the right wing.

DFO: I can see room for celebration here, even for pro-choicers. The Supreme Court has removed your albatross: partial-birth abortion. The extreme element of the pro-choice movement hung onto this dastardly practice as tightly as the extreme element of the gun lobby holds onto assault rifles. It's hard to believe any pro-choicer truly accepts working across-the-spectrum to reduce abortions when partial-birth abortion is on the table.

---

---