The Supreme Court, in a 5-4 ruling, upheld a ban on partial birth abortions. Contrary to (crazy feminist) belief, the ban does not apply to miscarriages, nor to times when the woman’s life is in danger. Chief Justice Roberts, during oral arguments, put it best: it is safest, for the woman, to entirely deliver the baby and then kill it; does that mean there is a Constitutional right to infanticide, simply because it is the safest procedure for women?
Additional musings: Abortion advocates complain that this procedure is not used very often; that it is sometimes necessary for the life of the mother; that some women who get cancer during pregnancy will be forced to remain pregnant; and that this will force women to use less safe options.
These complaints are either irrelevant to the actual decision or groundless. Women are never “forced” to be pregnant, unless they were raped. As per CJ Roberts above, there is no Constitutional right to the safest medical procedure, especially if it happens to be the most barbaric. When the mother’s life is in danger, she has every right to seek an intact D&E: that is an explicit part of the statute at issue. Likewise, the statute does not regulate how a physician would remove a miscarried baby from the woman’s body: it only applies to partial delivery of a live fetus.
All of this begs the question: what is a woman doing getting an abortion at 20 weeks if it’s not for her own life or a health situation? We allow people to kill in self-defence, but we don’t extend that to running around the streets and killing at will. Likewise, there’s simply no need for a late-term abortion if there is no issue with the mother or the baby’s health.
On the concurring opinions: Scalia and Thomas indicated that they would overturn Roe in its entirety. Some people look at the unwillingness of Roberts, Kennedy, and Alito to join this concurrence as an indication that a challenge to Roe would lose, 7-2. For those who are familiar with Supreme Court jurisprudence, the Court is obligated to decide a case on the narrowest grounds possible and only overturn precedent when the case before it so mandates. We have an intact D&E case before the Court, not an outright challenge to abortion. The holding should be limited to intact D&E jurisprudence.