Light Fuse, Stand Back

Now this is news: The Supremes have upheld the fed'ral ban on partial-birth abortions:

The Supreme Court upheld the nationwide ban on a controversial abortion procedure Wednesday, handing abortion opponents the long-awaited victory they expected from a more conservative bench.

The 5-4 ruling said the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act that Congress passed and President Bush signed into law in 2003 does not violate a woman's constitutional right to an abortion.

The opponents of the act "have not demonstrated that the Act would be unconstitutional in a large fraction of relevant cases," Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote in the majority opinion.

The decision pitted the court's conservatives against its liberals, with President Bush's two appointees, Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito, siding with the majority.

Justices Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia also were in the majority.

It was the first time the court banned a specific procedure in a case over how _ not whether _ to perform an abortion.

This is excellent news, IMHO. I oppose abortion anyway, but this is a particularly gruesome and, from what I've read, medically unjustifiable form of it.

I'll be interested to read the decision.

UPDATE: Here it is. The fact background is mighty painful reading. Yips! to Kim Priestap at WizBang.

UPDATE DEUX: Skimming Kennedy's opinion, it looks like the Act in question is pretty narrow in scope and does not cover a great many second-trimester procedures. (I will spare you the distinction between what, er, makes the cut and what does not, but the legal definition includes "anatomical landmarks," a phrase new to me.)

UPDATE TROIS: I see now that while this opinion swats down the facial challenge to the ban, it specifically leaves open the ability of somebody to challenge it as applied. That'll be the next step, buh-leave me.

UPDATE QUART: Oooh. Get a couple pages into Ruth's dissent and you quickly recognize why the Supremes had no business getting mixed up with this entire wretched issue to begin with. She's also bewailing the lack of consideration of the woman's health in the Act, which is confusing considering its own plain language carves out an exception to the ban for cases in which the woman's life is in danger.

UPDATE CINQ: Yup. IMHO, this is more a political matter than anything else, as the practical effect of the ban would appear to be largely symbolic. And politics should be the provision of which branch of government? Anybody? Anybody? Bueller?