I don't have any particularly intelligent analysis of the SCOTUS's upholding the constitutionality of a partial birth abortion ban, so I won't offer any.
However, I have a question for women's groups. Groups like NOW support the federal government's constitutional right to ban breast implants,and in fact call for such a ban on the NOW web site. Simultaneously, they oppose the federal government's constitutional right to ban partial birth abortions.
My question is: How can you reconcile these two views? Aren't these two procedures similar enough (both are elective medical procedures that are invasive of a woman's body) to be Constitutionally identical? I understand that from a social conservative's point of view that the abortion procedure might warrant more legal attention if you believe there is a second life (ie the fetus) involved here. But how do you justify that the feds should have more power to regulate and ban boob jobs than they have to ban one type of abortion? And please, don't justify it because you think abortion is serious but breast implants are frivolous Those are legislative and political arguments about what should and should not be done with the fed's power, not Constitutional arguments about what that power actually is.
The women's groups' application of their "its our body" and "pro-choice" positions have always struck me as incredibly selective. It's a woman's choice to weigh the risks and benefits of an abortion, but apparently it's the government's choice to weight the risks and benefits of breast implants. I wrote more about this selective libertarianism when I made a plea for applying the privacy and choice logic of abortion supporters to all aspects of government regulation. I criticized NOW for another instance of selective libertarianism associated with government and women's bodies when NOW supported having the government limit a woman's choice to use Vioxx to relieve pain.