'We believe it was worth it to pursue it because the basis for upholding the government's ban -- the interest in potential human life -- does not apply here. There is no potential for human life.'

The ruling by a three-judge panel of the 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals came in the case of a Navy sailor's wife whose fetus had a fatal birth defect. She had an abortion five months into her pregnancy, but coverage for the procedure was denied.

She filed a lawsuit claiming an armed forces health plan owed her $3,000 for the procedure. The government argued that refusing to cover such services "furthers the government's interest in protecting human life in general and promoting respect for life."

Not Judging 'Wisdom, Fairness or Logic'

In Thursday's 3-0 ruling, judges said they were not judging the "wisdom, fairness or logic" of congressional legislation that limited abortions under military medical plans.

Lawmakers served a legitimate governmental purpose by denying such benefits because of "an interest in potential life," Judge Richard C. Tallman wrote for the San Francisco-based court.

The court cited a 1980 Supreme Court decision in which the justices upheld Medicaid legislation forbidding payment for abortions unless the "the life of the mother would be endangered if the fetus were carried to term."

Some rape and incest victims also qualified for coverage under Medicaid, but such coverage is not available under the armed forces program.

'No Potential for Human Life'

Lisa Stone, executive director of the Northwest Women's Law Center, which represented the sailor's wife, said the case was a longshot because federal funds generally cannot pay for abortions except in limited circumstances.

"We believe it was worth it to pursue it because the basis for upholding the government's ban -- the interest in potential human life -- does not apply here," Stone said. "There is no potential for human life."

Stone said the center was considering its next move. Options include letting the decision stand, asking the court to rehear the case with 11 judges or seeking Supreme Court review.

The Justice Department, which defended the government's position in court, had no comment, according to spokesman Charles Miller.