The National Review issued a stinging editorial on the reasoning of the four judges who voted to allow partial-birth abortion.

The liberal dissenters have not merely made a minor logical error here. Take their argument seriously for a moment. They claim that it is conceivable that in some cases, partial-birth abortion is the safest method of abortion, and therefore it has to be allowed. (And it has to be allowed whether or not the pregnancy itself threatens the motherís health.) They further claim that it should make no difference to anyone where the childís feet are positioned when he is aborted.
Letís apply this argument to infanticide. It is conceivable that in some cases removing the child from the womb completely before killing it is the safest option.
And surely it should make no difference to any rational person whether the infant was fully within the womb, partly inside it, or all the way out when his skull is crushed? Four justices on the Supreme Court have accepted all the premises for a constitutional right to infanticide. They lack only the nerve to take their reasoning to its logical conclusion.