[Conservativegreatgrandma]

But this forces one to define at what point does an unborn child NOT deserve protection. This means the unborn child is a person, at least at a certain point. ISuppose it's not ok to kill a child after six months gestation (or whatever the laws says) what about 5 months 29 days? How about 5 months 28 days, 27 days, etc.?

This ruling is going to open a whole new debate. Thank you, God.

[ShandaLear]

Even Roe v. Wade says this, it just hasn’t been interpretted or applied in the way the decision was written. Don’t get me wrong, I don’t agree with the decision at all and am vehently pro-life. Just making a point about what it actually says.

[VirginiaConstitutionalist]

Actually it does nothing of the sort. They can still kill babies right up to the day of delivery, they just can’t do it using that specific procedure.

[Neidermeyer]

But this forces one to define at what point does an unborn child NOT deserve protection.
*******************************
Negative.. you can still kill a baby as it is being born full term , you just can’t do it by suctioning the brains out, you will have to inject it with poison, decapitate it or use some other similar method.. ultimately this means nothing except that we needs stronger margins of victory than 5-4 ...

[Sandy]

This means the unborn child is a person, at least at a certain point.

No it doesn't mean that at all. It just means abortion commerce can be federally regulated as long as a woman's right to abortion is not unduly burdened (but we already knew that), and this law creates no such burden (the Court's saying as much is what's new here). In other words, the fact that the law won't stop a single abortion is pretty much why it was upheld. If the law actually interfered with women's abortion rights, it would have been struck down.