The breach prompted immediate speculation about cracks in what has until now been a remarkably united movement.

In their ad, the leaders of the four anti-abortion groups say Mr Dobson was wrong to see last April's supreme court decision as a victory. The verdict banned a particular procedure for terminations later in pregnancy, which the anti-abortion movement has labeled "partial birth abortions".

The campaign against that particular procedure has been a rallying point in the anti-abortion movement. Last month's decision was also seen as an indication of a shift to the right on the supreme court following two appointments by President Bush. Opponents of abortion now believe it could soon be possible to overturn the decision legalizing abortion.

However, yesterday's ad argues that the ban on late abortions will not reduce terminations. Instead, the ad says the ban will simply encourage doctors to find other methods for such terminations.

"Dr Dobson, you mislead Christians claiming this ruling will 'protect children.' The court granted no authority to save the life of even a single child," the ad said. It also called on Mr Dobson to repent.

Kentucky's lawyers appealed to the Supreme Court. "The outcome ... has broad implications for the municipal bond market at large, far beyond Kentucky's borders," John R. Farris, Kentucky's secretary of finance, said in a written statement.

If the justices uphold the Kentucky court's ruling, states that exempt their bonds while taxing those from other states would either have to tax municipal bonds from all states equally or exempt all bonds in order to come into compliance, several legal experts said.

But based on a separate Supreme Court decision last month involving interstate commerce, which ruled in favor of local governments in New York, many observers think the Court is likely to overrule the Kentucky decision and maintain the status quo.

By exempting municipal bonds from state taxes, governments can offer in-state investors lower interest rates and as a result lower their cost of borrowing. Muni bonds, which are used to fund roads, schools and other public projects, are also exempt from federal taxes.

The bonds can be particularly appealing to investors from high-tax states such as California, New York and Massachusetts. There are hundreds of mutual funds comprised of muni bonds from single states, with over $160 billion in assets, bond analysts said.

State and local governments issued approximately $400 billion in municipal bonds in 2006, one bond analyst said.

Like Kentucky, more than 40 states exempt at least some of their in-state bonds from taxation, the National Association of State Treasurers said in a friend-of-the-court brief.

Kentucky's policy was challenged by George and Catherine Davis, who argued it is unconstitutional and requested a refund of the taxes they paid on out-of-state muni bonds.

If the Davises prevail at the high court, Kentucky and the other states could be forced to pay those refunds, said Alan Viard, a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute.

The case could also impact the Section 529 college savings plans offered by many states, said Leonard Weiser-Varon, a public finance expert at the Mintz Levin law firm in Boston.

Bond fund managers downplayed the issue. Tom Metzold, a vice president and portfolio manager at Eaton Vance Corp., said that a ruling against the states could result in a one-time reduction in the value of muni bonds. Otherwise, "it will be much ado about nothing," he said.

Ronald Fielding, who manages the municipal bond funds group at Oppenheimer Funds, estimated that investors who own bonds from high-tax states could see the value of their portfolios decline by 1.5 percent to 2 percent if the Supreme Court rules in favor of the Davises.

But many legal experts think the justices are likely to rule in favor of Kentucky instead. Last month, the justices found that local governments in New York could compel private trash haulers to use government-owned facilities, even if it would be cheaper to dispose of it at out-of-state dumps.

Gregory Germain, an associate professor at the Syracuse University College of Law, said that ruling carved out "a very broad exemption" to the commerce clause for laws that may discriminate against interstate commerce but favor a government entity.

The case is Kentucky v. Davis, 06-666. It won't be argued until the Court's next term, which begins in October.

At issue in the case is how the General Assembly passed the law and whether it was constitutional.

North Carolina law requires votes on separate days for laws that lead to higher taxes or borrow against the state's credit.

Attorneys for the state have argued that the lottery law does neither and that both chambers' votes were legal. (In April 2005, the House approved the lottery bill by a vote of 61-59. In August of the same year, the Senate needed a tie-breaking vote from Lt. Gov. Beverly Perdue for the measure to pass 25-24.)

The bigger question, however, for appeals court judges Tuesday was what happens if the lottery, which recently reached the $1 billion sales mark, is ruled unconstitutional -- specifically, what would happen to all the money already rewarded.

Attorneys for the plaintiff, however, said they were only seeking to change the future of the lottery law and wasn't interested in lottery winnings since the lottery launched in March 2006.

Today's action by the California Supreme Court is a victory for our state because potentially life-saving science can continue without a shadow of legal doubt. This decision reaffirms voters' will to keep California on the forefront of embryonic stem cell research. California's leadership gives the best promise of finding a cure for deadly and debilitating diseases.

The research program, known as Proposition 71, was approved in a 2004 state referendum by a 59 percent margin.

The lawsuit against the program was brought by the California Family Bioethics Council and two anti-tax organizations - the People's Advocate and the National Tax Limitation Foundation. The trial court determined that the stem cell program was being administered with sufficient state control and did not violate ballot initiative or conflicts of interest rules.

State Police began investigating the case after receiving information from the Washington County attorney's office indicating that the settlement money may have been improperly used.

State Police Senior Investigator Thomas Aiken said the client had been hurt in a car crash, but had been on Medicaid. The county had placed a lien against the check, but never received the money despite the check being cashed in December.

"They were owed compensation (by the client) but they never got it," Aiken said. "The bulk of it (the check) was supposed to go to the county, with whatever was left over going to the client."

Washington County Attorney Roger Wickes was not available Wednesday morning.

The arrest is the latest legal problem for Oswald, who was Washington County public defender for 3.5 years until resigning in August 2005, days before he was arrested on a bad check charge. That charge was later dropped.

He was arrested last summer on a charge he burglarized a female acquaintance's home in Kingsbury, but said recently that the felony charge in that case was dropped. He also was ordered to spend 15 days in Washington County Jail last month for not paying $11,000 in child support.

Oswald was free on bail Wednesday but could not be reached for comment Wednesday. The phone number listed for his law office was disconnected as of Wednesday morning.

Currently only Massachusetts recognizes full same-sex marriage. Last month, New York Gov. Eliot Spitzer (D) introduced a bill that would legalize gay marriage in that state.

Federal prosecutors plan to retry Brown and the others on the counts that were overturned.