I agree with you and have long believed that the whole issue of "partial birth abortion" was nothing more than a fig leaf for politicians to appear somewhat moderate on abortion. As an example, even an abortion extremist like Rudy Giuliani flip flopped on the ban because he knows it accomplishes little or nothing.
However, while the ban has little practical effect it was a nice change to see the Court not expand the nonexistent right to abortion and impose a restriction no matter how modest.
I don't know exactly what Dobson said, but the decision was a public relations victory if nothing else.
It's a point you make on a blog, not in a newspaper ad.
Keyes:
“This reminds me of the careful logic that I’m told is often characteristic of serial killers, psychopaths who follow arcane rituals in order to distinguish their killings from anything so profane as ordinary murder. In like fashion, Kennedy makes clear that the abortionists who rip the child limb from limb while it is still within the womb are doctors helping a woman to exercise her “right to choose” — while those who mangle the child when it has emerged past a certain point are violators, subject to the restrictive force of law. Though the child is in principle the same person in both situations, the Court’s glassy-eyed observance of its own fanatically arcane and ritualistic logic is supposed to establish some invisible line of demarcation separating one act of murder from the next.
This decision is not a harbinger of hope for an end to the Court-imposed reign of terror in the womb. It is evidence of a legal elite gone mad, hopelessly lost in the maze of its own psychopathic logic. We might think them pathetic if we did not have to live in a nation whose conscience is compromised and confused by the holocaust their insanity has unleashed.”