Supreme Court upholds ban on partial birth abortions

For those opposed to legal abortions, Wednesday was a rare day for celebration.

The U.S. Supreme Court, in a 5-4 vote, upheld the 2003 Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act.

The court said the act does not violate the constitutional right to abortion.

It was just the sort of victory the anti-abortion lobby had been waiting for since the election of President George W. Bush and a Republican Congress. Bushs two appointees, Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito, were key to the victory when they voted to uphold the ban along with Justices Clarence Thomas, Justice Antonin Scalia and Justice Anthony Kennedy.

The legislation in question defines partial birth abortion as any abortion in which part of the babys body, such as the entire head or, in case of breech baby, the lower body up to the navel, is delivered outside the womans body before the abortion is performed.

Partial birth abortions arent all that common. They are typically reserved for the second trimester of pregnancy and 90 percent of the estimated 1 million abortions annually in the U.S. are performed in the first trimester.

Interestingly, the legislation contains the finding that partial-birth abortion is ‘a disfavored procedure that is not only unnecessary to preserve the health of the mother, but in fact poses serious risks to the long-term health of women and in some circumstances, their lives.

But despite that finding, Congress included an exemption to the act for cases in which the mothers life is endangered.

A legal maneuver, no doubt, meant to stave off any court looking for a loophole.

Still, six federal courts have already ruled the ban is unconstitutional.

But the last word thought otherwise.

What makes this ruling so significant is the court upheld, for the first time, a ban on an abortion method, instead of deciding the legality of abortion overall.

That opens up a whole new front of attack for abortion foes. Instead of trying to outlaw abortion entirely, the courts vote shows they can be successful at chipping away and narrowing the legal window for the procedures.