SAN FRANCISCO, may 16 (reuters) - a federal appeals court on thursday reversed a key ruling in the u.s. abortion debate, saying that "wanted"-style posters branding individual abortion doctors as "baby butchers" were illegal threats not protected free speech. In a 6 to 5 vote, a sharply divided 9th circuit court of appeals overturned its own prior ruling in the case, which sets new limits on how far activists may go in their battle to stop abortion in the united states. But the ruling ordered a lower court to reconsider a $109 million judgment awarded to four doctors who sued the activists, saying the sum could be excessive in light of earlier rulings on the size of punitive damage awards. The case involved lists of abortion providers with titles such as the "deadly dozen" and the "nuremberg files" which were circulated by the american coalition of life activists (acla) on posters and on the internet. The anti-abortion activists identified individual doctors as "guilty" and "baby butchers," and urged activists to block them from performing more abortions "through activities within acla guidelines." Three of the doctors named on the lists were murdered, while others took to wearing bulletproof vests, living behind drawn curtains and under the protection of u.s. marshals. Planned parenthood, which charged that the lists advocated "justifiable homicide" of the doctors they named, said the posters were part of a broader campaign of violence and intimidation which included five murders, nine attempted murders, five bombings and 30 cases of arson at abortion clinics from 1992 to 1994. Pro-abortion forces elated The 9th circuit -- which reheard the case with all of its 11 judges after a three-judge panel ruled in favor of the acla last year -- said thursday it agreed that the posters could be construed as "true threats" against the lives of abortion providers and were thus illegal. "There is substantial evidence that these posters were prepared and disseminated to intimidate physicians from providing reproductive health services," the court majority said in an opinion by justice pamela rymer. "Violence is not a protected value. nor is a true threat of violence with intent to intimate." The court's decision was hailed by planned parenthood, which said the court had recognized the acla campaign as "nothing other than an attempt to intimidate doctors and clinicians into abandoning women." "This is a victory for women and health care providers throughout the nation," gloria feldt, president of planned parenthood federation of america, said in a statement. A lawyer for the activists said the ruling was a disappointment and would definitely be appealed to the u.s. supreme court. "It is a terrible blow to the first amendment liberties to members of the pro-life movement," christopher ferrera of the american catholic lawyers association said. The case has been one of the most controversial in the u.s. struggle over abortion, a topic which has engendered some of the bitterest political and religious discussions of the past two decades. The plaintiffs, led by planned parenthood, took the anti-abortion activists to court, charging them with violating federal racketeering laws and the freedom of access to clinic entrances act passed after the 1993 murder of one florida abortion provider. 'Orchestrated campaign' In 1999, a portland, oregon jury awarded the plaintiffs a $109 million verdict. but that decision was later thrown out by a three-judge panel of the ninth circuit, which ruled that the first amendment protected the site unless it expressed an explicit threat of violence. At an "en banc" hearing before all the circuit judges in december, a lawyer for the activists said that his clients advocated only legal means of protest on the internet and were not responsible if others took the law into their own hands. "By the standard of american political protests, these postings were in fact tame," ferrara of the american catholic lawyers association argued. But maria vullo, representing the doctors, told the justices that the case was not about political protest but "a carefully orchestrated campaign of terror by these defendants" that "ratified" acts of violence. Despite the majority ruling in favor of the doctors, the 9th circuit remained sharply divided on the issue. In one of two dissenting opinions, judge stephen reinhardt wrote that the anti-abortion posters were properly regarded as "political speech" in the public arena rather than private threats, adding that the majority decision to bar them could significantly weaken the first amendment protections guaranteed by the u.s. constitution. "Political speech, ugly and frightening as it may sometimes be, lies at the heart of our democratic process. private threats delivered one-on-one do not. the majority's unwillingness to recognize the difference is extremely troublesome," he wrote.