Last week's U.S. Supreme Court ruling to uphold a partial-birth abortion ban was perceived as an attack on women's rights by some and a step toward valuing the life of a child by others.

The court upheld the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003, which ruled abortions past the first trimester of pregnancy are "a gruesome and inhumane procedure that is never medically necessary."

"There's really no excuse for why partial-birth abortions should have been legal in the first place," said Molly Pappas, president of MSU's Students for Life. "It's a gruesome procedure and kills a child seconds from being born."

When a partial-birth abortion is performed, a doctor partially delivers a child so that its head remains inside the womb. An instrument is used to puncture the head, and its brain is removed.

Even women with pregnancy-related health issues are banned from getting this abortion, said Sarah Scranton, Planned Parenthood's executive director.

The Supreme Court's ruling shows utter disregard for women's health and safety when politicians, not doctors, make health care decisions for them, she said.

"It doesn't allow doctors to use their best judgment," Scranton said. "Now, they can't do what they think is the safest procedure for women."

By the second trimester, a fetus has brain waves, a heart beat, fingers and other essential organs needed to survive on its own, said Jessica Maschinski, a member of Students for Life.

"There is no excuse for abortion when it can live on its own," said Maschinski, a political theory and constitutional democracy junior.

Planned Parenthood still is evaluating the law and its potential impact on women, Scranton said.

"For now, we are going to work to provide the best safety and health care to women, and that is our priority," Scranton said.

The medical profession is going to need to figure out how to protect women's rights to the greatest degree possible, said Kary Moss, spokeswoman for the American Civil Liberties Union of Michigan.

"It is the first time the Supreme Court has issued a major decision that's adverse to women's reproductive rights, and we are very concerned about what this means for the future," Moss said.

In response to the Supreme Court's decision, Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., and Rep. Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y., launched a legislative effort to overturn the decision.

Their proposed Freedom of Choice Act would clarify the rights that women were provided after Roe v. Wade was heard and upheld by the Supreme Court in 1973. The case established that women have the right to an abortion without government interference. The act would strengthen this ruling.

The legislative effort to protect women's rights is supported by Planned Parenthood.

"Women in Michigan and around the country deserve the protection of federal law to preserve their ability to make personal health care decisions," Scranton said.

If a woman really wants a partial abortion, she'll find a way, even if it means doing it underground in a dangerous setting, said Emily Mixter, secretary of the MSU Democrats.

"It's a controversial procedure, but it's still taking rights away from women about their own bodies that should be between them and their doctors — not their government," she said.

Unwanted pregnancies are unfortunate and sad, especially when there are better alternatives, Maschinski said.

"There are thousands of parents waiting to adopt a child," Maschinski said. "And that way, every baby can be a wanted baby."