America Letter:With Democrats in control of both houses of Congress, President George Bush's approval ratings in the basement, and the Iraq war dragging down Republican prospects in 2008, these are grim days for the American right. However, a supreme court ruling last week gave an unexpected boost to conservatives. It was the most important victory for anti-abortion campaigners since the 1973 Roe v Wade ruling guaranteed abortion rights throughout the US.
By a vote of five to four, the justices upheld a law, passed when Congress was in Republican hands, that banned a procedure described by anti-abortion groups as partial-birth abortion. The procedure, which doctors call "intact dilation and extraction", involves partially removing the foetus from its mother's uterus before dismembering it.
Although the procedure is seldom used and doctors say that alternative methods are available, abortion rights campaigners fear that the supreme court decision could trigger new moves to ban abortion, both nationally and at state level.
Before last week, anti-abortion groups had experienced a succession of political setbacks, notably last November's rejection by South Dakota voters of an abortion ban approved by the state legislature.
Although it is unlikely to prevent any abortions, the supreme court's decision is significant insofar as it reflects an ideological shift in the court since Bush appointed conservatives John Roberts and Samuel Alito to replace the late William Rehnquist and Sandra Day O'Connor, who has retired.
By upholding a ban on "partial-birth abortion", regardless of any possible threat to the health of the mother, the court has departed from the balance it struck between pro- and anti- abortion rights groups in 1992, when it upheld Roe v Wade but ruled that abortion could be reasonably regulated.
Abortion rights campaigners were taken aback by the tone of Justice Anthony Kennedy's majority opinion, which echoed some of the views routinely expressed by anti-abortion groups. "Respect for human life finds an ultimate expression in the bond of love the mother has for her child . . . While we find no reliable data to measure the phenomenon, it seems unexceptionable to conclude some women come to regret their choice to abort the infant life they once created and sustained," Kennedy said.
The ruling has vindicated the "incremental" strategy of most anti-abortion campaigners in recent years, which has seen them push for more restrictions on abortion rather than focusing on a blanket ban.
In the short term the decision could prove useful to both political parties as it has reminded activists on each side of the issue of the power the next president will have to shape the supreme court as more justices retire.
At present there is a five-four majority on the court in favour of upholding Roe v Wade, but a Republican presidential victory in 2008 could see that balance change.
Presidential candidates in both parties reacted swiftly to the ruling, which Democrats condemned and Republicans generally praised.
Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York described the decision as "a dramatic departure from four decades of supreme court rulings that upheld a woman's right to choose and recognised the importance of women's health".
Barack Obama said it was an alarming retreat from earlier court judgments on abortion.
"I strongly disagree with today's supreme court ruling, which dramatically departs from previous precedents safeguarding the health of pregnant women," he said.
On the Republican side, John McCain said the court had upheld a long-overdue move to end an "unacceptable and unjustifiable" practice.
However, Republican front runner Rudy Giuliani, who has long supported abortion rights, praised the court for reaching "the right conclusion".
For the moment, candidates on both sides can look forward to increased campaign contributions from activists on either side of the abortion issue but they must be careful to avoid adopting positions that could prove burdensome in a general election. For Democrats, this means stressing their "right to choose" credentials while embracing measures that could make abortions rarer.
For Republicans, it could mean avoiding too close an embrace of social conservatives whose agenda many Americans see as too restrictive and intrusive and insufficiently sensitive to the complexity of human relationships.
