Partial births: limiting choice by 5 to 4

Here it comes: The attack on a woman's right to choose an abortion is no longer the stuff of theoretical debates. The U.S. Supreme Court has made it all too real with its ruling against a controversial and rare method of abortion.

The court's 5-4 ruling upholding a ban on a mid- to late-term abortion procedure is the beginning of the slippery slope of challenges to a woman's very personal decision on which she and her doctor agree. The court was not namby-pamby in its ruling. This the first time since the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision that the court did not provide an exception to protect a woman's health. The only exception is to save her life.

The practical effect of this 5-4 decision is to spur anti-abortion groups nationwide to push legislatures to tighten the rules on all kinds of abortions.

Justice Anthony Kennedy, speaking for the court, had some chilling things to say, particularly that the court "may use its voice and its regulatory authority" to dissuade women from ending pregnancies.

The impact of the ruling will be more pronounced nationally than in our state. Washington voters have said four times in nearly four decades they favor a woman's right to choose and they are unlikely to change their sentiments or support legislators who agree to limit this right, at least for the time being.

Strong Democratic majorities in both chambers make that true now. But the court leaves the future, even in Washington state, subject to subsequent attacks. If this court can go along with this, it can glide rather effortlessly into abolishing second-trimester abortion and requiring parental notifications, two areas where polling shows more public ambivalence.

The procedure involved, known medically as dilation and extraction, is not something anybody openly favors. But in certain cases — actually very few cases every year — it is a medical necessity, often involving severely damaged fetuses.

The most troubling part of the ruling is the notion that courts know better than doctors how to proceed. Doctors know best how to manage the limited number of cases in which this procedure makes sense.

The full impact of such rulings takes time to absorb. But make no mistake, this is a striking step backward for women's rights and women's health.