If a woman goes to an abortion clinic to abort her baby, should the government require the clinic to conform to hospital standards, and the abortionist be able to admit the woman — and possibly baby — to a hospital if the procedure gets botched? The Supreme Court will decide the question by June, as it agreed Friday to hear a case challenging Texas’ law that requires a reasonable standard of cleanliness and safety from abortionists. But pro-abortion advocates argue the law is too burdensome and would only leave 10 abortion clinics in the state. In 1973, it was through another abortion case from Texas that the Supreme Court declared babies not yet born were ineligible for legal protection. The case’s name? Roe v. Wade. In that decision, The Daily Signal notes the justices didn’t declare abortion an absolute right; states could impose regulations that “insure maximum safety for the patient,” they wrote. But this generation of pro-abortion activists wants their “right” to an abortion free from regulation (but Planned Parenthood sure likes those federal dollars). The fact that we’re even considering this question demonstrates that abortionists don’t have the best wishes of the mother in mind as they ply their bloody trade. Expect the Supreme Court’s decision, whichever way it goes, to make abortion one of the key issues in the 2016 presidential race.