I don't support abortion, but neither do I think that having the State play doctor by defining (and playing with) scientific terms is the best way to go about things. From the decision:

The disclosure actually mandated by § 7(1)(b), in concert with the definition in § 8(4), is "[t]hat the abortion will terminate the life of a whole, separate, unique, living human being," § 7(1)(b), and that "human being" in this case means "an individual living member of the species of Homo sapiens . . . during [its] embryonic [or] fetal age[]," § 8(4). The State's evidence suggests that the biological sense in which the embryo or fetus is whole, separate, unique and living should be clear in context to a physician, cf. Gonzales, 127 S. Ct. at 1627 ("[B]y common understanding and scientific terminology, a fetus is a living organism while within the womb, whether or not it is viable outside the womb."), and Planned Parenthood submitted no evidence to oppose that conclusion.

Note that the Court bases its opinion, in part, on the pure biology of the question. The funny thing is that they even admit that they're using a narrow definition outside the public perception:

The State's evidence suggests that the biological sense in which the embryo or fetus is whole, separate, unique and living should be clear in context to a physician (Emphasis added)

While this statement is scientifically true, even physicians disagree on whether this 'whole, separate, unique and living' is a "person" as the general public uses the term. Now, many abortion opponents believe that an embryo is a legal "person" from the moment of conception, and this legislation seems to compel physicians to esposue that principle through the use of particular language.

I understand the legislature's opposition to abortion, but this really does strike me as playing word games to prove a political point. This legislation seems to assume that women don't know that pregnancy leads to a baby, so we must compel physicians to use particular phrases, with a fairly good estimation of how the unscientific ear will interpret them.

In that sense, this ranks right up there with calling creationism a "theory."

"...a fetus is a living organism while within the womb, whether or not it is viable outside the womb."

To argue that point is about as scientific as to argue that Goofy can run off a cliff and not fall, as long as he doesn't look down.

Yeah, but conflating "living organism," "human being" and "person" (and, if you read some of the legislators' comments, they use the terms interchangeably) doesn't seem quite kosher to me. This is particularly true of the latter, since "person" carries a specific legal meaning, notably with Constitutional rights attached.

I have the same problem with fetal homicide laws.

I'm rather glad I don't have any problem applying homicide laws to the killing of unborn children. It makes it easier to face myself in the shaving mirror, knowing that I don't have to go through another day of contorting logic and redefining terms to dehumanize an unborn child in order to justify its killing.

Unfortunately, when there are political players using this debate to suggest the outlawing of contraception, and there are people who argue that pharmacists should be allowed to refuse service on personal moral grounds, I think that we do have to draw some lines.

No pharmacist should be required to violate their personal moral code. On the other hand, no pharmacist is entitled to a paid position and a state-issued license to perform services to the public that they're not, when it comes down to it, actually willing to perform.