51.   In July, a five-judge appeals panel approved the law, upholding an earlier lower-court decision.

52.   In other words, the members of the appeals panel would exercise their own judgment about whether a particular service was medically necessary.

53.   In the first tests in court, two federal appeals panels ruled unanimously last year that the act violated the free speech protections of the First Amendment.

54.   In September, a few months after the appeals court decision, another appeals panel ruled quite differently in a similar case.

55.   In their decision Monday, the appeals panel said the judge needed to consider the entire law in reaching his decision.

56.   It could be several months before the appeals panel decides, but it not a debate that is likely to fade.

57.   It was reinstated by an appeals panel, but the full appeals court reversed it.

58.   Judge David Tatel, also of the appeals panel, suggested that it would be disruptive to stop the hearing when grand jury material might be disclosed.

59.   Last month, an appeals panel heard arguments about whether to reinstate the injunction pending trial and is expected to issued a ruling within several weeks.

60.   Last May, a unanimous three-judge appeals panel said the issues involved were too broad to be handled in a single case.