Debate over abortion doesn’t cool, it just simmers. Now it’s boiling again, with the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent decision to uphold a ban on so-called “partial birth” abortions, and a controversial bill coming before Maine lawmakers to allocate public funding for abortions.

In preserving the ban on “intact dilation and extraction,” the Supreme Court deviated from its historical stances, but sided with most of Congress, most Americans and this newspaper, in believing this form of abortion is grotesque and unneeded, except in cases of life and death.

This sentiment is represented strongly in Lewiston-Auburn.

L-A in 1999 overwhelmingly voted to ban “partial birth” abortions, 7,337 to 4,408, in a referendum criticized for relying on vague political descriptors. The ballot question used the phrase “specific abortion procedure,” which was criticized as a steamcloud that obscured the heated issue. The ban, however, was defeated statewide.

Debate on abortion is tortuously multi-layered, spanning politics, ethics, morality, religion and medicine. Passions inflame from this spectrum each time a legislative or judicial body addresses the issue’s margins, as with the Supreme Court’s unexpected ruling.

And is expected to occur this week, when Sen. Beth Edmonds introduces legislation to fund abortions, unrelated to rape, incest, or lifesaving, through MaineCare. The Freeport Democrat, and Senate president, says the bill is a matter of equality.

MaineCare covers ancillary abortion services, such as family planning and contraception, it covers prenatal care, and covers children after birth, and should, as well, cover abortions, the senator says. A public hearing on LD 1309 is scheduled for Thursday morning, April 26, with protests of the bill expected.

Litigation is promised if the bill fails. Shanna Bellows, the director of the Maine Civil Liberties Union, said abortion funding has been challenged and deemed constitutional by other states, and the MCLU is prepared to make this case in Maine. In the state’s tough funding environment, the bill seems headed for defeat, and the issue to the courtroom.

So it will continue. Divisiveness causes abortion to lack what all important issues need most: sensible dialogue leading to comprehensive resolutions that dissipate a contentious atmosphere. Yet sides in this debate are deeply entrenched, which makes such hopes Pollyannaish.

Instead, lawmakers and jurists thicken the clouds, like the Supreme Court’s decision last week. In upholding the ban, against expectations and precedent, the justices in our nation’s capital sparked well-worn rhetoric anew.

This week, it’s the turn of our lawmakers in Augusta.