There is no structural difference between banning partial birth abortion, and banning all abortion — just a matter of degree.The point of the Congressional ban was to draw a line between abortion and infanticide, and SCOTUS explicitly recognized this intent in its decision in Gonzales v. Carhart:
Congress determined that the abortion methods it proscribed had a “disturbing similarity to the killing of a newborn infant,” Congressional Findings (14)(L), in notes following 18 U. S. C. §1531 (2000 ed., Supp. IV), p. 769, and thus it was concerned with “draw[ing] a bright line that clearly distinguishes abortion and infanticide.” Congressional Findings(14)(G), ibid. The Court has in the past confirmed the validity of drawing boundaries to prevent certain practices that extinguish life and are close to actions that are condemned. Glucksberg found reasonable the State’s “fear that permitting assisted suicide will start it down the path to voluntary and perhaps even involuntary euthanasia.” 521 U. S., at 732–735, and n. 23.Emphasis added.
Thanks. I agree regarding the effect and purpose of the law, and why it was considered constitutional.
My point was that there is no structural difference from the point of view of federalism. There is no “federal” issue with a federal ban on infanticide that doesn’t exist with regarding to abortion.