A serious setback.

Byline: The Register-Guard

Abortion rights supporters may be overreacting when they say Wednesday's Supreme Court decision upholding a federal ban on so-called "partial-birth" abortions is the beginning of the end for the court's 1973 Roe vs. Wade ruling.

But the pro-choice folks are only being realistic. Overturning the decision that affirmed a constitutional right to abortion for American women is the stated goal of the conservatives who were behind the law banning late-term abortions. For them, Wednesday's ruling was a huge - if limited - victory.

It doesn't take a secret decoder ring to read between the lines of President Bush's reaction to Wed- nesday's 5-4 ruling.

"We will continue to work for the day when every child is welcomed in life and protected in law," Bush said. Republican presidential candidate Sen. Sam Brownback of Kansas came right out and said that he "hope(s) that this decision signals the court's willingness to revisit and reverse" Roe vs. Wade.

In reality, Wednesday's ruling didn't directly attack the presumption of a constitutional right to abortion, despite Justice Clarence Thomas' separate opinion - supported only by Justice Antonin Scalia - that Roe "has no basis in the Constitution." Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Anthony Kennedy and Samuel Alito cited a 1992 ruling that upheld a constitutional right to abortion but allowed restrictions that didn't impose an undue burden on women.

But the high court majority took the unprecedented position of upholding a restriction on abortion that contained no exceptions to protect a woman's health. That has huge implications for future cases and ignores expert medical testimony that the banned procedure would be the safest option for some patients.

Almost as onerous as the court's dismissal of mainstream medical opinion was the paternalistic tone in portions of Justice Kennedy's majority opinion. He wrote that the late-term abortion ban was actually a good thing for women because it protected them from ending their pregnancies by a method they might not understand and would later regret.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg responded with a stinging dissent.

"The court deprives women of the right to make an autonomous choice, even at the expense of their own safety,'' Ginsburg said. "This way of thinking reflects ancient notions about women's place in the family and under the Constitution."

Still, it bears repeating that the partial-birth abortion ban affects only about 10 percent of the roughly 1.3 million abortions performed each year in the United States. The vast majority of abortions occur in the first trimester.

It's possible to view Wednesday's ruling more narrowly as a reflection of the continuing struggle in American society over abortion. A majority of the American public supports legal abortion, but the bulk of that support is for abortion with some restrictions.

In a nationwide poll for The Washington Post conducted in February, respondents were asked, "Do you think abortion should be legal in all cases, legal in most cases, illegal in most cases, or illegal in all cases?" Sixteen percent said "legal in all cases," while 12 percent said "illegal in all cases."

Most fell in between those extremes, with 39 percent responding "legal in most cases" and 31 percent saying "illegal in most cases."

Abortion rights supporters need to use Wednesday's ruling as a strategic opportunity to refocus their educational efforts and political organizing. A conservative Supreme Court with a majority of Catholic justices will remain a hostile arena in which to defend abortion rights.

The battle for hearts and minds will have to be won in Congress, before it reaches the Supreme Court.