Americans have two ways to look at the U.S. Supreme Court's decision to uphold a federal law that bans a type of abortion known medically as intact dilation and extraction, and one way is more ominous than the other.

The less threatening interpretation -- if that can be said about a law that would send doctors to prison -- is that abortion remains legal in most cases and the constitutional principles that undergird it have been tweaked and not abandoned.

Right-to-lifers applied the name partial-birth abortion to intact D&E for dramatic, political effect, but the fact remains that it is a gruesome procedure. Indeed, it takes a strong stomach to read the descriptions offered in the majority opinion written by Justice Anthony M. Kennedy.

For that reason, some supporters of abortion rights, like this newspaper, have recognized that fighting this particular battle has been counterproductive in the overall effort to protect a woman's right to choose. While late-term partial-birth abortions remained legal, foes of abortion had an emotional rallying point that suggested all abortions were similar. In fact, 85 to 90 percent of abortions take place in the first trimester of pregnancy before the fetus is viable.

Our concern about upholding this law is not that it banned a procedure that troubled many Americans. It is that the court now has a majority that might be inclined to go further.

When the Senate passed the 2003 law that was approved by the court this week, President Bush made it clear what it meant for the anti-abortion cause -- he said it was "an important step toward building a culture of life in America." He used similar code language after the court ruling.

All sides immediately recognized that another step had been taken along the road to the ultimate showdown. Seven years ago, the court by another 5-4 margin found a similar law from Nebraska unconstitutional, but the difference this time is not to be found in Justice Kennedy's legal dance in the majority opinion. The difference is that one conservative woman, Sandra Day O'Connor, was no longer on the bench to provide her vote.

Instead, the new conservative men handpicked by President Bush -- Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito -- have set the court on a new course, one that threatens trouble for women who value the right to decide for themselves whether to bring a pregnancy to term.