WASHINGTON -- Ohio has long been a prime test market for everything from soap to fast food, as well as a political bellwether.

But now the Buckeye State, hardly known as a trendsetter in social policy, stands at the national epicenter on three cutting-edge issues: late-term abortion, school vouchers and the question of whether public schools should teach an alternative to evolution.

That all three topics are reaching an apex now is partly rooted in the coincidence of dates from unrelated court cases and the need for new state science-teaching guidelines.

But a pattern also may be emerging of a state that's becoming an incubator for conservative social causes.

Some observers say GOP dominance -- Republicans have controlled every nonjudicial statewide office and the legislature for eight years -- is fostering an extremist approach that is turning Ohio into a right-wing bastion.

Others say Ohio's proclivity toward moderation, politically and socially, has resulted in a search for middle ground that could turn the state into a national policymaker.

"The same thing that made Ohio a good place to experiment with fast food . . . has made it a good place to experiment with these compromises on social policies,'' said John Green, director of the Ray C. Bliss Institute of Applied Politics at the University of Akron. "Ohio is a big, diverse state . . . and if it flies in Ohio, it will probably fly anywhere.''

The Bush administration hopes to make Ohio's ban on "partial-birth'' abortions a national model.

A month ago, the U.S. Department of Justice took the unusual step of filing a legal brief while the appeal of Ohio's law remains with the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. Traditionally, unless it is asked, an administration doesn't get involved until a case reaches the U.S. Supreme Court.

Ohio's school-voucher project is the first such initiative tested before the U.S. Supreme Court, which is weighing the plan's fate after oral arguments last month.

Some legislators, State Board of Education members and social activists have thrust Ohio into the spotlight on evolution with proposals to have science students taught the concept of "intelligent design'' along with evolution.

In analyzing the way all three issues have been pushed by mostly conservative Republican proponents, Green sees many signs of compromise among different factions.

Although Republicans dominate state government, the right wing in Ohio -- unlike in conservative states such as South Carolina -- doesn't rule the party's moderate wing. Instead, the two must cooperate in much the same way that Republicans and Democrats do in states where the parties share power.

Ohio's first attempt to ban "partial-birth'' abortions, shot down by a U.S. District Court in 1995, resembled a Nebraska law that was overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court.

So Ohio legislators reworked the law, passing a new version with modifications that included a health-of- the-mother exception in an attempt to satisfy Supreme Court guidelines.

Green said the changes underscore the pragmatic side of the Ohio GOP and anti-abortion activists.

In a similar moderate vein, the voucher project was presented as an experimental way to help poor children in Cleveland.

And supporters of "intelligent design'' are promoting the concept as an alternative but aren't trying to exclude evolution -- as Kansas did before the state restored evolution to the curriculum in the wake of national ridicule.

"What all these things have in common is that you have an inclusive, pragmatic (Republican) party, and within it, a minority has very intense views on social issues,'' Green said. "The two groups are trying to work with each other. This involves moderating on a series of these social issues.''

Moderate is not a word that Democratic consultant Dale Butland, who was a top aide for then-Sen. John Glenn, attaches to most of the proposals being advanced by the Republicans.

Butland sees the issues as mostly the work of the more conservative faction of the GOP, which has increased its power in the General Assembly, partly through the effects of term limits -- another conservative victory in Ohio -- pushing out longtime moderate Republicans.

"I do think it's no coincidence that these issues . . . have all bubbled to surface now in Ohio,'' he said. "That's a result not just of one-party government, but also of the ascendancy of a particular wing of the Republican Party in the legislature.''

Butland thinks much of the social agenda ultimately will be found unconstitutional.

Conservative activist David Zanotti, president of the advocacy group Ohio Roundtable, sees it differently, suggesting that Ohio is merely asserting its bellwether status on social issues.

That the state has approved school vouchers and late-term-abortion bans and is actively debating what to teach about evolution suggests that both the Ohio and the country are growing more conservative, Zanotti said.

"Ohio represents that sort of crossroads test market,'' he said. "That doesn't necessarily mean (Ohioans) will support every conservative candidate, but on substantive issues people are growing more conservative.''

On the other hand, Ohio might be less of a national trendsetter on social issues and more of an adapter, redoing and repackaging what's been tried elsewhere, said Herb Asher, an Ohio State University political- science professor emeritus.

Asher pointed out that Milwaukee was more of a voucher pioneer, that Nebraska first took a "partial-birth'' abortion case to the U.S. Supreme Court and that Kansas tackled evolution-only teaching before Ohio.

"We learn from other states -- their political experiences and court experiences,'' he said. "If you don't go first, you benefit from other states' mishaps. That doesn't suggest being in the vanguard.''