Replies

I agree that PBA is a rare, if it happens at all, procedure. The reason I liked the ruling is not that it stops abortions, but it shows that this court could be receptive to rulings in favor of pro-lifers. I have always been bothered by the fact that PBA suddenly appeared on the political scene by the National Right to Life, just a few years ago, and it has given cover to pro-abortion politicians who want to portray themselves as “pro-life” because they are against this one procedure. Rudy Giuliani comes to mind. This ruling, sadly, actually doesn’t stop abortions, but by the panic on the left, it must mean something legally.

Agreed, although I have been surprised for years that more pro-aborts didn't go for this "cover" by agreeing to ban a patently grisly and barbaric procedure that is almost never performed, if at all. The fact so many steadfastly defended this indefensible procedure has spoken volumes to the average citizen, I think.

I do think it's really silly for pro-lifers to be fighting among themselves over what this ruling means. It means we finally won one, and the way the other side is acting they know it. Let's act like we know it too, and start planning the next one to win.