I had predicted (of course I'm sure many had) that this was coming, since the bench changes during the Bush Administration. While I see the reasoning behind this ruling, I have to say I don't know....

Its not that I'm against this procedure which when one explores what it entails, can't help but be a little bit repulsed, at least one an a visceral emotional level. But emotions do not make the foundations of laws and policies, so i can't help but also feel that this is another stop toward the destruction of the right to abortion. I just think in addition to further late-term bans, they just encourage early term post-sexual drugs, such as the morning-after pill, and make them OTC. I think this would be both ethical and practical.

At 12 weeks, does the fetus have a nervous system? If he (or it?) doesn't, then the ban against this procedure is only on the "visceral emotional level", as Thehuman08 says, and it shouldn't be considered more gruesome than any other kind of abortion procedure.

I must admit that though I'm not quite a pro-life, I don't care much for abortions after 12 weeks, except if pregnancy threatens the mother's life or health or in case of fetal defect. In all other cases, the woman has had enough time to decide whether she wants to keep the baby. Besides, there's also that thing called contraception...

What does he mean a 'large fraction'? Unconstitutional is unconstitutional. It doesn't matter how small of a number of people it will affect.

Don't like the idea of any abortion at all, but still feel that it is a woman's right to decide what to do with her body. The law(s) against late abortions make sense because it is questionable when the fetus is actually a "body". And a line has to be drawn somewhere on how long they should take to decide to terminate.

This is something that the authors of our Constitution really considered occuring. In the pursuit of life, liberty and happiness... that could be loosely applied to mother or child within the womb.