[MHGinTN]

Sure it can, but it won't likely stop a serial killer with a paying client because there are ways for the serial killer to 'legally' get around the law. Now, if the ruling is the start of a sanity trend, well, then it could be a saving ruling, in the long run.

Let me illustrate why it will not stop a serial killer from doing the deed of offing the alive unborn. When a partial bireth abortion is scheduled, a cervical laminary is placed, to dilate the cervix for the planned procedure. One, two, or three days later, the kill is made, if the child does not spontaneously exit the uterus before the serial killer gets his or her hands on the alive little one while holding scissors and cannula. The way the law is written, this same serial killer can legally add one step to the placing of the laminary, injecting potassium chloride to the heart of the littel one, then deliver a dead child two or three days later. Or infuse a massive amount of saline into the amniotic fluid, to scald the little one to death while the cervix is being dilated. The serial killer isn't prohibited from killing the little one, just prohibited from killing the helpless child in that particular method explained in the bill.

[cornelis]

As I said to murron earlier, there ain’t no law to prevent you from committing infanticide or for that matter any -cide: just go ahead and do it, nothing to stop you. Bravo! But you can't get away with it. This is the situation for homicide in general. Homicide is not necessarily criminal. It is certain circumstances, procedures, conditions that make it criminal. Infanticide is a form of homicide: circumstances, procedures, or conditions must be stipulated to make the act criminal.

Another feature of this ruling is that it recognizes in part a state's privilege

[Lesforlife]

Precisely what the ruling states!