Again: Get a freaking c-section

The Gals at TGW (Tennessee Guerilla Women: "Alito's Supreme Court Upholds Abortion Ban")are miffed about today's Supreme Court ruling that upheld a ban on partial-birth abortion . . . a ban that had an exception for the life of the mother, but not for her "health." TGW cites the opinion of Justice Ginsberg (the only woman on the court!!):

"The decision departed from decades of precedent holding that 'abortion restrictions cannot be imposed absent an exception safeguarding a woman's health.'"

All I can say is that if a woman/mother's health is at risk, even moreso her life, and the baby's head is too large to remove (after cutting the body into pieces inside the woman's womb), why wouldn't you just get a c-section? Is killing the post-viable baby the objective?

UPDATE: I'm seeing references across the Tennessee Blog scene to eclampsia and preeclampsia and how the PBA ban represents a death sentence to pregnant women with these conditions. Not that I think that such an exception is necessary (like I've said, get a c-section for heaven's sake if you're that far along in a pregnancy and your life is threatened), but the PBA ban contains a "life of the mother exception." Read it for yourself.