Supporters of the ban welcomed the decision to outlaw what they have called a particularly heinous form of abortion, which is typically done during late-term pregnancies.,”

Both sides in the contentious abortion debate are reacting to the U.S. Supreme Court's 5-4 decision April 18 to uphold the 2003 Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act.

Supporters of the ban welcomed the decision to outlaw what they have called a particularly heinous form of abortion, which is typically done during late-term pregnancies. Opponents of the ban said the ban would lead to a slippery slope of taking away women's reproductive rights.

Both sides said they agreed the decision opens up the door to re-examine the 1973 landmark Roe v. Wade ruling, though it's unlikely the Supreme Court would revisit the case anytime soon.

Susan Armacost, legislative director of Wisconsin Right to Life, called the procedure "so horrendous that it's hard to fathom."

For abortion rights advocates, the decision sets a dangerous precedent.

"I do see the other side. I really do," said Emily Sandfort, a University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee sophomore and UWM co-chair of VOX: Voices for Planned Parenthood. "(But) I feel personally that once we take away (one type of) late-term abortions, that's when it's going to get harder for the average woman to get one."

The ban does not restrict any time period during which an abortion can be performed; it restricts a particular abortion procedure.

The ban prohibits use of the dilation and extraction method, or D&X, according to the Chicago Tribune. It is also known as intact dilation and evacuation, or intact D&E. The procedure involves partially removing a fetus, then destroying the skull. Standard dilation and evacuation remains an acceptable method under law.

"The Supreme Court noted that this procedure bears a resemblance to infanticide, and indeed if the baby were completely out of the mother's womb, this would be homicide," said Amanda McClone, president of Students for Life and a College of Arts & Sciences sophomore, in an e-mail.

But opponents of the ban argue the methods it prohibits are hardly used and are used only in instances when a woman's life or health is in serious danger.

The prohibited methods are generally used after 21 weeks of pregnancy. But abortions with other methods can still be performed after that point if a woman's life or health is jeopardized, according to Christopher Wolfe, political science professor.

The 2003 law allows an exception to the use of the prohibited abortion methods if a woman's life is in danger. The ban does not provide an exception if a woman's health is in danger, which would be "a hole you could drive a truck through" since "health" includes mental health, Wolfe said in an e-mail.

Upholding the ban, opponents say, restricts a procedure seen as safer than alternatives, and instead threatens reproductive rights.

"The critical effect is that it makes people take notice that the Supreme Court has shifted to the right and women's rights are not of essential importance to the Court," said Kelda Helen Roys, executive director of NARAL Pro-Choice Wisconsin.

Wolfe said it is hard to know exactly how many partial-birth abortions are performed each year; however, he said the estimate that between 2,000 and 5,000 abortions were performed annually using the now-prohibited procedure "seems likely."

The Supreme Court decision has renewed talk about the possibility of reconsidering Roe v. Wade.

"There's lots of cases on abortion that the Court could use to further erode Roe v. Wade or overturn it completely," Roys said. "The question is how fast that erosion is going to happen."

According to Armacost and Wolfe, any reconsideration of the historic case isn't going to happen anytime soon.

"The Court is not ready to overturn Roe v. Wade," Armacost said. "There aren't the votes."

Though Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote the majority decision in last week's case, Armacost predicted Kennedy wouldn't join conservatives on the Court in overturning Roe v. Wade.

Wolfe said it is unlikely that cases confronting Roe v. Wade head-on will surface during the next few years, or until a new appointment to the Court is made.

As the 2008 presidential election approaches, candidates have already been stumping for support with primaries less than a year away. Discussion of abortion has been largely absent from campaigns thus far, but both sides of the abortion debate say abortion will be an issue for voters at the polls.

"We have a half a million supporters in Wisconsin," Armacost said. "For them, (abortion) is the primary issue."

Roys said the 2008 election is even more important than the 2004 election because the next president could make new appointments to the Supreme Court. The four justices likely to uphold Roe v. Wade are older members of the Court, Roys said.

"The decision is certainly going to energize both sides," Roys said.

“