They also argue, correctly, that this ruling saves no babies from abortion. As stated previously, a fetus can still be disarticulated. And that ``procedure'' is, arguably, equally brutal, though perhaps not as painful as collapsing the skull.

According to expert testimony, a fetus from 20 weeks' gestation forward may feel ``prolonged and excruciating'' pain during a PBA -- especially when the skull is crushed or punctured for ``evacuation'' of its brains. The other side did not rebut the claim.

Reality pop quiz: When rational people can dispassionately discuss whether it's better to dismember or collapse the skull of a pre-born baby, are they still allowed to call themselves rational?

The main argument from the pro-choice side, and the constitutional issue at stake, has been that the PBA is sometimes needed to protect the health of the mother. But in no single court case were doctors able to demonstrate that PBA was ever a medical necessity. Instead, all arguments were in the realm of the hypothetical.

Indeed, the majority of PBAs are performed on the healthy babies of healthy women. Meanwhile, other alternatives are available that are safe for the mother, if no less unpleasant for the fetus.

It is, of course, true that pro-lifers are celebrating this ruling and that they also hope eventually to see abortion regulation reverted to the states.

It is also true that many states now will pass PBA bans as well as ``informed consent'' laws that may require women to view a sonogram before consenting to abortion. Pro-lifers expect the informed consent laws to be challenged and hope for a favorable ruling.

Whatever legal battles lie ahead, Wednesday's high court decision seems a civilizing step forward, affirming as it does that the state has a substantial interest in protecting and preserving life.

As an operating principle -- and assuming it is not misapplied -- it would seem to beat the alternative.