For those of you who believe this will be corrected "at the next level", don't be holding your breath. This sort of craziness is just the kind of thing that slips through the cracks, and is upheld on some technicality, as opposed to those who believe it should be struck down on Constitutional grounds.
The ruling is so plainly WRONG, even non-lawyers can detect the errors in judgment involved in arriving at this conclusion. But if the one-eyed logicians do manage to prevail, using the kinds of constructs ACLU is famous for, then the ruling takes on a life of its own.
While some judges would assert the uncontested right to end an unborn child's existence, they are absolutely paranoid that their cherished notions of legal reasoning should ever be tampered with.
Law is a strange thing. Especially when it is administered by strange people.
This is on the order of calling a dog's tail a leg, then asking how many legs a dog has.
The dog still only has four legs. Calling a tail a leg doesn't make it a leg.
Calling the international phone traffic surveillance unConstitional doesn't make it unConstitutional. Even if you do wear a black robe.
Nonsense. If anything, they will reverse this opinion on a technicality such as lack of "standing." Her opinion will then have no legal force and effect. It will be seen for the left-wing judicial activism that it is.