The Supreme Court Bans Some Abortions

The Supreme Court decided today in favor of a upholding a ban on intact dilation and extraction abortions, what is commonly referred to as "partial-birth abortion" by its opponents. This new law doesn't even include any exceptions to save the life of the mother. I've read a lot of reports, some on each side, arguing the safety "partial-birth" abortions. Some specialists and doctors have said that there are times when it is the safest option and others have said that there is never a time when it is safer than other methods of abortion. If there is a chance that it is sometimes the safest option, why not allow for it in extreme cases when it's necessary in order to preserve the life of the mother, rather than barring it completely? The penalty for a doctor found to have provided this form of abortion is up to two years in jail. If there is no time that it would be safer than other options, then having that as a "last-ditch option" wouldn't matter because there wouldn't be a time when a partial-birth abortion was necessary. If there is a chance that this is sometimes the safest, why not allow for extreme circumstances? If the doctors who say that there are times when this form of abortion is safest are wrong, then nothing is changed by banning them. Unfortunately, if the Supreme Court's majority (5 to 4) is wrong, then there are times when it would be safest and yet even in those times, it would be illegal to perform such an operation. Is this now going to become a "slippery slope" for states to fight for stricter abortion laws and for banning other types of abortions? Is it time that legislators, rather than doctors, decide what is best and safest in medical procedures?