Without a doubt, anti-abortion advocates will see the soon-to-be-signed ban against partial-birth abortions as a great victory.

But the ban should be seen by everyone else as a proper and humane regulation a long time in coming.

The law targets a procedure, used in an estimated 2,200 of the 1.3 million abortions performed annually, where the fetus is partially delivered so its skull can be pierced and its brains suctioned out.

But let us not justify banning the procedure on the basis of its grisly imagery; there are more thoughtful reasons to support the ban.

The term “partial-birth” is accurate given the maturity of the fetus at the time the procedure is typically performed. Fetuses as early as 20 weeks old can take breaths outside of the womb.

They may also be neurologically developed enough to experience pain, according to the Medical Research Council.

That is why this procedure is particularly objectionable — a potentially viable fetus is inches from delivery before it is killed.

This same law has been passed several times before, only to be struck down because it did not allow exceptions for a mother’s health (the law does, however, allow the procedure when the mother’s life is at risk).

This is for good reason — such an exception would create an unlimited loophole in which depression and high blood pressure would be valid health reasons for performing partial-birth abortions.

Furthermore, numerous medical authorities have testified to Congress that the procedure is never the only option that preserves a mother’s health when terminating a pregnancy.

Nor are partial-birth abortions reserved for extreme cases. David Brown, the Washington Post’s medical reporter in 1996, discovered that “a large number, possibly even a majority of these procedures were done on normal fetuses” and that cases which posed a risk to the mother’s life were “extremely rare.”

Not surprisingly, many opponents of this ban do not spend time defending it on medical grounds, but instead, focus on the political implications.

Sen. Tom Harkin, who added an affirmation of the Roe v. Wade decision to the Senate’s version of the bill, fumed, “I see where this is going. A couple of votes here or there in the next election, and you can kiss Roe v. Wade goodbye.”

It is troubling — but not unexpected — that anti-abortion activists are already using this bill as a stepping stone to subvert abortion rights entirely.

But we cannot allow the prospect of a slippery slope to prevent us from taking a sane stand against an inhumane procedure.