The 2-1 decision by a panel of the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals affirms the same court's 2005 ruling striking down the law. The Supreme Court had ordered the appeals court to take another look at Virginia's statute after the ruling on the federal ban.

The appeals court cited a key difference between the federal and state bans on the procedure that abortion opponents call "partial-birth abortion." The federal law protects doctors who set out to perform a legal abortion that by accident becomes the banned procedure. The Virginia statute provides no such protection.

The state has two weeks to ask the full federal appeals court to review the ruling, or 90 days to appeal to the Supreme Court. The attorney general's office "is reviewing all possible courses of action," spokesman J. Tucker Martin said.

The state law is unconstitutional "because it imposes an undue burden on a woman's right to obtain an abortion," Judge M. Blane Michael wrote in the majority opinion, joined by Judge Diana Gribbon-Motz.

Berry is the second U.S. inmate executed since the Supreme Court upheld Kentucky's lethal injection procedure in April. His appeals were denied by the high court and he was put to death by injection at 6:15 p.m. CDT Wednesday.

Berry confessed that he abducted Mary Bounds in 1987 as she left church choir practice in Houston, Miss., then beat her to death and dumped her body on a rural road.

Courts rejected arguments from Berry's attorneys that he was mentally retarded.

Corrections Commissioner Chris Epps says Berry told him he had no remorse and that "he felt he had served 21 years and that's enough."

The jurors, who took feverish notes during opening statements, sat motionless while the video played. Their eyes fixed on a 4-by-4-foot monitor just outside the jury box. In the courtroom, the lights were dimmed and blinds drawn across windows. There were several other monitors in the room, including one facing the crowded gallery.

A grim, intent Kelly watched the whole video on a small monitor placed on the defense table, only occasionally averting his eyes. At times, the 41-year-old rocked in his chair or rested his chin in his hand.

Before putting the tape into a videocassette player, a prosecutor walked across the stately courtroom, held it out for the defense team to see and entered it into the record as "People's Exhibit No. 1."

The roughly 27-minute homemade video shows a man having sex with a young female, who is naked for most of the recording — except for a necklace with a cross dangling from it.

The 2-1 decision by a panel of the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals affirms the same court's 2005 ruling striking down the law. The Supreme Court had ordered the appeals court to take another look at Virginia's statute after the ruling on the federal ban.

The appeals court cited a key difference between the federal and state bans on the procedure that abortion opponents call "partial-birth abortion." The federal law protects doctors who set out to perform a legal abortion that by accident becomes the banned procedure. The Virginia statute provides no such protection.

The state has two weeks to ask the full federal appeals court to review the ruling, or 90 days to appeal to the Supreme Court. The attorney general's office "is reviewing all possible courses of action," spokesman J. Tucker Martin said.

The state law is unconstitutional "because it imposes an undue burden on a woman's right to obtain an abortion," Judge M. Blane Michael wrote in the majority opinion, joined by Judge Diana Gribbon-Motz.

Judith Leekin agreed to forfeit the subsidy money as she pleaded guilty to federal fraud charges Tuesday. She did not make any admissions in a separate abuse case in Florida.

She is accused of beating and starving the children in her Florida home. They moved to that state in 1998.

The 63-year-old Leekin also admitted she sent officials a phony report card documenting a child's progress.  She could face up to eight years in prison on the federal mail and wire fraud charges.

The court, in a 7-2 decision, upheld a law aimed at cracking down on the flourishing online exchange of illicit images of children.

Joan Bertin, executive director of the National Coalition Against Censorship, said Justice Antonin Scalia's narrow reading of the law in his majority opinion should result in "considerably less damage than it might otherwise have done." But Bertin said aggressive prosecutors still could try to punish people for innocent activity and put them "through a terrible ordeal."

The ruling upheld part of a 2003 law that also prohibits possession of child pornography. It replaced an earlier law the court had struck down as unconstitutional.

The new law sets a five-year mandatory prison term for promoting, or pandering, child pornography. It does not require that someone actually possesses child pornography.

Opponents have said the law could apply to movies like "Traffic" or "Titanic" that depict adolescent sex or the marketing of other material that may not be pornography.

Scalia, in his opinion for the court, said the law takes a reasonable approach to the issue by applying it to situations where the purveyor of the material believes or wants a listener to believe that he has actual child pornography.

First Amendment protections do not apply to "offers to provide or requests to obtain child pornography," Scalia said.

Likewise, he said, the law does not cover "the sorts of sex scenes found in R-rated movies."

Justice David Souter, joined by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, dissented. Souter said promotion of images that are not real children engaging in pornography still could be the basis for prosecution under the law. Possession of those images, on the other hand, may not be prosecuted, he said.

"I believe that maintaining the First Amendment protection of expression we have previously held to cover fake child pornography requires a limit to the law's criminalization of pandering proposals," Souter said.

Scalia said the law would not apply to a situation in which both sender and recipient were talking about virtual images, not real pictures.

Jay Sekulow, a conservative public interest lawyer who filed a brief on behalf of members of Congress in favor of the law, said the decision reflects the importance of trying to cut down on child pornography on the Internet.

"The court understood, perhaps for the first time, how difficult and troubling the proliferation of online pornography is," said Sekulow, of the American Center for Law and Justice.