Virginia's 2003 law banning a particular form of late-term abortions has been held unconstitutional for the second time by a divided panel of the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

The same two judges who struck down the law in 2005, M. Blane Michael and Diana Gribbon Motz, ruled it unconstitutional again yesterday, while Judge Paul V. Niemeyer wrote another strong dissent.

Virginia's act is aimed at a little-used, late-term abortion procedure. Last year, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld a similar federal law and told the Richmond-based 4th Circuit to reconsider its 2005 ruling.

The state now has 14 days to ask for the entire 4th Circuit to hear the case or 90 days to ask the U.S. Supreme Court to consider an appeal.

Yesterday, Michael wrote that Virginia's law differs from the federal law because it does not protect doctors who intend to perform legal, standard second-trimester abortions that accidentally become the type barred by the law.

He wrote that the federal law does not prohibit doctors, through fear of criminal liability, from performing standard abortions.

"The Virginia Act is therefore unconstitutional because it imposes an undue burden on a woman's right to obtain an abortion," Michael concluded.

Niemeyer strongly disagreed, writing, "once again, the choice made by the majority to strike down Virginia's partial-birth infanticide statute is not compelled by the Constitution or by any Supreme Court case."

"The majority's selective use of statutory language and its rationalizations represent nothing less than a strong judicial will to overturn what the Virginia legislature has enacted for the benefit of Virginia's citizens," he wrote.

J. Tucker Martin, spokesman for Virginia Attorney General Bob McDonnell, said, "We are extremely disappointed with the divided decision. . . . We are reviewing the panel opinion at this time and considering all possible courses of action."

Olivia L. Gans, president of the Virginia Society for Human Life, said the organization strongly encourages McDonnell "to appeal this outrageous decision to the United States Supreme Court."

Stephanie Toti, a lawyer with the Center for Reproductive rights, said she was pleased with the ruling.

"I think that the court recognized that Virginia's statute was extreme and that it went far beyond what the Supreme Court said was constitutional," she said.

"Virginia's statute effectively would have banned . . . the most commonly performed second-trimester abortion procedures and would have severely limited women's access to second-trimester abortion services," she said.

Victoria Cobb, president of the Family Foundation, said, "It is disappointing that yet again just two people can thwart the will of the people, the action of a legislature, and simple justice for nearly born children."

"Considering that our law is substantially reflective of the federal law that was upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court, we hope that a higher court will reverse this panel's absurd ruling," she said.

Chris Freund, spokesman for the organization, said that politically, the decision, coupled with last week's California decision on same-sex marriages, will "rile up the base."

Del. Robert G. Marshall, R-Prince William, who wrote the law, said, "The judges must not have read the statute. It is an ideological decision that is not fact-based."

Marshall, a candidate for the Republican nomination for the U.S. Senate, said he hopes McDonnell will appeal.

Contact Frank Green at (804) 649-6340 or fgreen@timesdispatch.com.

Staff writer Tyler Whitley contributed to this report.