Contrary to the wailings of the supporters of legalized abortion infanticide, this decision does not overturn the ill-considered and flawed precedent established by Roe v. Wade. Rather, it reinforces that precedent by recognizing that the government does have a compelling interest in limiting late-term abortions, which Roe itself indicates can be banned. And this decision does not even go that far, merely allowing the restriction of a single method of abortion infanticide that kills a child that has effectively been delivered.

he Supreme Court upheld the nationwide ban on a controversial abortion procedure Wednesday, handing abortion opponents the long-awaited victory they expected from a more conservative bench.

The 5-4 ruling said the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act that Congress passed and President Bush signed into law in 2003 does not violate a woman's constitutional right to an abortion.

The opponents of the act "have not demonstrated that the Act would be unconstitutional in a large fraction of relevant cases," Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote in the majority opinion.

The decision pitted the court's conservatives against its liberals, with President Bush's two appointees, Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito, siding with the majority.

Justices Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia also were in the majority.

It was the first time the court banned a specific procedure in a case over how — not whether — to perform an abortion.

Roe v. Wade allowed for regulation of second and third trimester abortions -- and a ban on the latter. How can the supporters of Roe complain?

Posted by: Greg at 11:53 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 262 words, total size 2 kb.