Kansas governor signs abortion law

[spanone]

Gov. Sam Brownback tweeted that he was proud to sign the law.

(CNN)A new Kansas law banning a common second-term abortion procedure is the first of its kind in the United States.

The law, signed by Kansas Gov. Sam Brownback on Tuesday, bans what it describes as "dismemberment abortion" and defines as "knowingly dismembering a living unborn child and extracting such unborn child one piece at a time from the uterus."

Supporters of the measure described it as a groundbreaking step, while opponents warned it was dangerous and among the most restrictive abortion laws in the country.

The law does not spell out a specific time frame that limits when an abortion can occur, but it bans the dilation and evacuation abortion procedure commonly used during the second trimester of pregnancy. The law allows for the procedure if "necessary to protect the life or health of the mother," according to a statement on Brownback's website.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/04/07/politics/kansas-abortion-law/index.html

[guillaumeb]

1. The problem here is in the original ruling in Roe v Wade

Actual holding in Roe v Wade:

Holding and Rule (Blackmun)
1.Yes. State criminal abortion laws that except from criminality only life-saving procedures on the mother’s behalf, and that do not take into consideration the stage of pregnancy and other interests, are unconstitutional for violating the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
2.Yes. The Due Process Clause protects the right to privacy, including a woman’s right to terminate her pregnancy, against state action.
3.Yes. Though a state cannot completely deny a woman the right to terminate her pregnancy, it has legitimate interests in protecting both the pregnant woman’s health and the potentiality of human life at various stages of pregnancy.
4.No. The natural termination of Roe’s pregnancy did not render her suit moot.
5.Yes. The district court was correct in denying injunctive relief.

Number 2 acknowledges a right to privacy... against state action
Number 3 says a state cannot completely deny...
Number 3 acknowledges the legitimate interests in protecting...the potentiality of human life...

The "right" to an abortion is a heavily qualified right, and the SCOTUS, especially under John Roberts, has not been sympathetic to privacy issues for women. The privacy rights mentioned in part 2 of the ruling are basically undermined by part 3.

How, outside of another SCOTUS ruling that establishes the privacy right of the woman as the sole consideration, can we reconcile this conflict?