Unquestionably, the viability of the fetus is far more important than its location in the body. Were states permitted to ban all procedures that kill the fetus, "it would authorize them to prohibit all abortions," Heller said.

As Justice Ginsberg concluded, the law is "out of the bounds this court has set for legitimate pre-viability regulation." Because it does not benefit the woman or the viable fetus, the law is both incompatible with court precedent and nonsensical.

Many people certainly consider second-trimester abortions to be troubling and gruesome. But just because the court invalidates the Nebraska statute does not necessarily mean that it believes all elective pre-viability abortions should be legal. If the court desires to change its stance on a woman's right to a second-trimester abortion, it should leave the door open for a future ruling on a more narrowly defined statute.

Certainly the wording of the Nebraska law, as demonstrated by the convoluted arguments of its attorney general, is too vague to allow the court to make a decision which would impede to such an extent upon its landmark abortion decision, Roe v. Wade.

Zachary R. Heineman, a Crimson editor, is a first-year in Thayer Hall.