Mexico's largest leftist party vowed Monday to defend a landmark Mexico City abortion law with street protests and political pressure in the face of attempts by the conservative federal government to overturn it in court.

The Democratic Revolution Party, which holds power in the capital, called its supporters to block federal government offices later this week in defense of the law, which legalized abortions in the first 12 weeks of pregnancy.

Elsewhere in Mexico, abortion is only allowed in cases of rape, when the mother's life is in danger or if the fetus has severe fetal defects.

On Friday, the federal Attorney General's Office and National Human Right's Commission filed legal challenges with the Supreme Court, arguing the Mexico City law violates a constitutional clause that guarantees the right to life and that city lawmakers cannot legally approve measures related to health.

"It's a political maneuver to satisfy a certain public opinion over this law," said Mexico City's leftist mayor, Marcelo Ebrard. "But legally, it's got no base."

The law's approval by Mexico City's assembly was bitterly opposed by conservative politicians and the Roman Catholic Church. Mexican bishops even argued that lawmakers who voted for the bill were excommunicating themselves from the church.

About 90 percent of Mexicans say they are Roman Catholic, and President Felipe Calderon, of the conservative National Action Party, has spoken out publicly against abortion.

The abortion law is part of a package of socially liberal measures being passed by Mexico City's leftist assembly. Earlier this year, lawmakers approved gay civil unions, and they are debating a bill on euthanasia.

The only other Latin American countries that allow abortion are Cuba and Guyana.

Balletta and one of her daughter, Marina, were taken out the bedroom windows by authorities, but the police could not get to the other child, Talia Balletta. The victim had second- and third-degree burns over half her body and died several weeks later.

A Providence County Grand Jury indicted Balletta on eight counts, including one count each of murder, first degree arson and assault with the intent to commit murder, three counts of assault with a dangerous weapon and two counts of resisting arrest.

Prosecutors said Balletta assaulted two State Police troopers and a Providence Police officer as she resisted arrest, waving a knife at two and a broken shard of glass at the other.

Balletta showed signs of mental illness for at least a year before the fire, and "was unable to appreciate the wrongfulness of her behavior" because of her mental illness, psychiatrist Dr. Joseph V. Penn told the court during the trial.

British Prime Minister Tony Blair said Sunday in an op-ed published in the Sunday Times that the country has chosen to protect the civil liberties of foreign nationals over national security and therefore could not blame the government for last week's reported disappearance of three terror suspects. Pointing to a series of court rulings favoring foreign suspects, he wrote:

Over the past five or six years, we have decided as a country that except in the most limited of ways, the threat to our public safety does not justify changing radically the legal basis on which we confront this extremism.

Their right to traditional civil liberties comes first. I believe this is a dangerous misjudgment. This extremism, operating the world over, is not like anything we have faced before. It needs to be confronted with every means at our disposal. Tougher laws in themselves help, but just as crucial is the signal they send out: that Britain is an inhospitable place to practise this extremism.

The three terror suspects who disappeared had been subject to control orders under the Prevention of Terrorism Act and are believed to have been planning attacks on British or US troops. UK Home Secretary John Reid said judges and critics of the government were responsible for the lack of tougher rules to prevent disappearances and said he would introduce new anti-terror measures before he steps down from his post in June.

The injured client typically knows how prepared his lawyer is in handling his accident case. Does the lawyer know who he is when a client calls about his accident case? Does the lawyer come to a deposition having already interviewed the witnesses and with a written list of questions or topics to be covered? Has the injury attorney consulted with the expert witnesses such as doctors before trial? The answers to these sorts of questions show the person who is hurt in an automobile accident case that the lawyer representing him is prepared.

If you are not satisfied with the way your lawyer is preparing your injury case, you should ask for a sit down conference with them to figure out if they are the right person for the job. You always have an absolute right to change attorneys. The worst thing that could happen if you change attorneys is that the first attorney may ask for some compensation for his time spent on the matter. However, in Virginia (VA) the fired attorney is not entitled to ask for his percentage fee in the contract, under our Virginia (VA) ethics rules. Although I do not recommend changing attorneys unless absolutely necessary, if you get the sense that your attorney is not prepared or is not communicating appropriately with you about your lawsuit, then you should feel free to contact other injury attorneys to discuss the matter. If you call me about your desire to change lawyers, I will usually first recommend that you try to get straight with the old lawyer. However, if you do want to change I usually suggest that do so as soon as possible before your injury case has been moved forward in a way that may be hard for a better lawyer to undo.

The case looked much milder at the end than it did 15 months ago, when it appeared it might inflict a serious blow to a sport that was struggling to regain fans after a season-long lockout the year before. But the worst suspicions were not substantiated. There didn't seem to be mob ties or betting on hockey. No other hockey figures are being charged or will have to testify in a criminal trial.

"I'm sure everyone recalls the manner in which the case was initially announced and described," said Kevin Marino, the defense lawyer for Tocchet. "I think (Friday's) proceeding speaks for itself." It was two days after the 2006 Super Bowl when State Police Col. Rick Fuentes announced the charges against Tocchet, Trooper James Harney and a third man, James Ulmer.

Fuentes said that during a 40-day stretch that had just ended, they had handled bets totaling $1.7 million from a list of gamblers that included a movie star and other hockey figures.

Quickly, the prospect developed of a trial featuring a cavalcade of hockey players as witnesses. Even Gretzky, hockey's greatest player and a friend of Tocchet's, was caught on an investigative wiretap discussing how his wife could avoid being implicated.

It turned out Jones didn't have much to worry about. Authorities didn't charge her, or any other bettors, because placing bets - even with a bookmaker - is not illegal in New Jersey.