(CNSNews.com) - For the second time in two days, conservatives lost an important cultural battle in federal court Wednesday. U.S. District Court Judge Robert Jones ruled that the U.S. Justice Department lacks the authority to overturn an Oregon law that allows physician assisted suicides. A day earlier, the U.S. Supreme Court overturned a federal ban on "virtual" child pornography.

The Oregon law is the only one of its kind in America. And Wednesday's ruling by Jones, to keep the law in place, has angered many conservative groups.

In his ruling, Jones said Attorney General John Ashcroft attempted to "stifle an ongoing, earnest and profound debate in the various states concerning physician-assisted suicide," with a directive issued back in November declaring that assisted suicide was not a "legitimate medical practice."

"The citizens of Oregon, through their democratic initiative process, have chosen to resolve the moral, legal and ethical debate on physician-assisted suicide for themselves by voting, not once, but twice in favor of the Oregon act," said Jones in his decision.

The Justice Department in Washington did not return calls Wednesday seeking comment.

Ashcroft's policy had reversed a 1998 decision by then-Attorney General Janet Reno not to take action against doctors aiding in suicides. Ashcroft has backing from the Bush White House.

"The president believes we must value life and promote a culture that respects the sanctity of life at all stages," White House spokesman Jimmy Orr told CNSNews.com last November.

"[Bush] has consistently said that he opposes physician-assisted suicide. The president believes it is the proper role of the federal government to regulate and control substances such as narcotics and other dangerous drugs," Orr added.

Oregon became the only state to allow physician-assisted suicide when it implemented the Death with Dignity Act in 1998. Under certain circumstances doctors can provide, but not administer, a lethal dose of drugs to a state resident who is terminally ill.

The conservative group, Concerned Women for America, was among those lashing out at Jones for his verdict.

"Judge Jones ignored centuries of ethical guidelines that physicians should heal, not kill. This lone judge claims that doctors in Oregon can ignore federal law by killing their patients with powerful drugs. This decision must be appealed," said Wendy Wright, senior policy director for CWA.

The National Right To Life Committee expressed a similar sentiment.

"The American people do not want their federal government to facilitate euthanasia, as the lower court ruling requires. We are confident that the U.S. Supreme Court, on appeal, will ultimately uphold the position of Attorney General Ashcroft and the Bush administration, that federally controlled drugs should be used to cure and relieve pain, not to kill," said Burke Balch, director of the committee's department of medical ethics.

The Family Research Council said the Oregon law is wrong.

"A license to cure isn't a license to kill. Medicine by definition is the art of treating and curing. Drugs are for curing, not killing. Writing prescriptions for deadly doses of drugs is not and never has been within the usual course of professional practice," said Jan LaRue of the Family Research Council.

But the Washington D.C.-based Death with Dignity National Center applauded Jones's ruling.

"We are gratified and relieved that the people of Oregon will continue to have the humane option of hastened death that has been implemented so safely for four years under the state's Death With Dignity law," said Estelle Rogers, executive director of Death with Dignity National Center.

Rogers also said Jones rejected Ashcroft's attempt to "act as a national medical board."

Tuesday's U.S. Supreme Court ruling, overturning the federal ban on "virtual" or computer generated child pornography, was also a stinging defeat for conservatives. However, Rep. Mark Foley (R-Fla.), the co-chairman of the Congressional Missing and Exploited Children's Caucus, said he will work with Ashcroft to develop new legislation that will withstand the high court's scrutiny.