Column/Legend
1 - Prefix  - L-Life,  H-Homosexual Behavior/Perversion, R-Religion/Legal Persecution/ACLU, E-Education, M-Media Bias, O-Other
2-7 - Yr, Mo, Dy
8 - L -Letter to Editor, C-Commentary, O-Op-Ed, M-Metro

Hotlink Index of this weeks's family values related news:  [Life]   [Homosexual Behavior/Perversion]   [Religion/Religious Persecution]   [Education]   [Media]   [Other]

LIFE
L050223        Court to mull assisted suicide
L050223        Schiavo case at impasse
L050223Va   Stem-cell research bill sent to governor
L050224        Cell sell
L050225        Judge extends feeding-tube stay
L050226      Court gives date to pull Schiavo's feeding tube
L050226C     Protection for all
L050226L     Speak up, Congress

HOMOSEXUAL BEHAVIOR/PERVERSION
H050221       INDIANA   Lesbian ordered to pay child support
H050222       Marriage amendments move slowly
H050222       MONTANA   House dumps bill to protect gays
H050224       Gay-rights leader calls to 'redouble' efforts against HIV
H050225       NEW YORK   Same-sex 'marriage' ruled illegal
H050226       HIV rate doubles for blacks

RELIGION/RELIGIOUS PERSECUTION
R050221       Democrats cautioned on faith
R050222C    Sinking judicial agenda
R050222Va  Virginia Senate panel kills House prayer measure
R050223Md PG clergy lobbying against slots plan
R050225      Specter partly blames GOP

EDUCATION
E050224Md  Signatures collected against sex curriculum

MEDIA
M050221      'Frontline' show swears profanity is necessary
M050224      13 and counting

OTHER
O050224       TENNESSEE   Teacher pleads to sex charges
O050224C    Restore America's legacy
O050226Md Md. House narrowly approves slots
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

PINELLAS PARK, Fla. (AP) -- A judge gave Terri Schiavo's husband permission to remove the brain-damaged woman's feeding tube in three weeks, handing him a victory in his effort to carry out what he says were his wife's wishes not to be kept alive artificially.
    The ruling by Pinellas Circuit Court Judge George Greer will allow the husband, Michael Schiavo, to order the tube removed at 1 p.m. March 18. In the meantime, the woman's parents, who want her kept alive, are expected to ask another court to block the order from taking effect.
    The judge wrote that he was no longer comfortable granting delays in the family feud, which has been going on for nearly seven years and has been waged in every level of Florida's court system. He said the case must end.
    "The court is no longer comfortable granting stays simply upon the filings of new motions," Judge Greer wrote. "There will always be "new' issues."
    The decision came on the 15th anniversary of Mrs. Schiavo's collapse, when a chemical imbalance brought on by an eating disorder caused her heart to stop beating. The feeding tube keeps the 41-year-old woman alive.
    "It's a relief, a temporary relief," Mrs. Schiavo's father, Bob Schindler, said outside the hospice where his daughter now lives. "I don't see it as a victory. The victory is when we take Terri home and we get her therapy."
    The judge made his decision after pleadings from the parents that they need more time to pursue additional medical tests that might prove their daughter has more mental capabilities than previously thought.
    George Felos, Mr. Schiavo's attorney, applauded Judge Greer's decision.
    "I am very pleased that the court has recognized there must be a finality to this process," Mr. Felos said. "I am hopeful and confident that the appellate court will also agree that Terri's wishes not to be kept alive artificially must now be enforced."
    State officials also are trying to intervene in the case. Attorneys for the Schindlers said the state wants a 60-day stay to investigate accusations that she is being mistreated by being denied appropriate medical care and rehabilitation.
    The Schindlers and their son-in-law have fought each other in court since the late 1990s on whether Mrs. Schiavo should live or die. The two sides have battled through scores of opinions and rulings and tens of thousands of pages of filings.
    The feud has taken on elements of a soap opera, with accusations that it began as a fight over more than $1 million awarded to Mrs. Schiavo in a medical malpractice case that her husband stood to inherit. Mr. Schiavo also has been accused by his in-laws of having a conflict of interest in wanting his wife dead because he has started a new family with another woman.
    A handful of people protested outside the office of Mr. Schiavo's lawyer, part of a coordinated effort that has included petition drives, e-mail and telephone calls to Gov. Jeb Bush and state lawmakers.
    "I am here because Terri deserves the right to live," said Mary LaFrancis, 70, a retired nurse who drove from Iowa to join in the protests.
    In Tallahassee, the family's supporters kept up pressure on Mr. Bush and lawmakers to act. A petition from the Fort Lauderdale-based Center for Reclaiming America purporting to bear 100,000 signatures collected online was delivered to the governor's office.
    A spokeswoman for Mr. Bush said the governor will continue to look for ways to keep Mrs. Schiavo alive.
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

H050226   HIV rate doubles for blacks

BOSTON (AP) -- The HIV infection rate has doubled among blacks in the United States over a decade while holding steady among whites -- stark evidence of a widening racial gap in the epidemic, government scientists said yesterday.
    Other troubling statistics indicate that almost half of all infected people in the United States who should be receiving HIV drugs are not getting them.
    The findings were released in Boston at the 12th annual Retrovirus Conference, the world's chief scientific gathering on the disease.
 Will Congress Pass Medical Liability Reform?
President Bush agrees the only way to stop this crisis is for Congress to pass common-sense medical liability reform now!
Save the U.S. Healthcare System.
Click here.
    "It's incredibly disappointing," said Terje Anderson, director of the National Association of People With AIDS. "We just have a burgeoning epidemic in the African-American community that is not being dealt with effectively."
    Researchers and AIDS-prevention advocates attributed the high rate among blacks to such factors as drug addiction, poverty and poor access to health care.
    The HIV rates were derived from the widely used National Health and Nutrition Examinations Surveys, which analyze a representative sample of U.S. households and contain the most complete HIV data in the country. Researchers at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention compared data collected from 1988 to 1994 with figures from 1999 to 2002.
    The surveys look only at young and middle-aged adults who live in households, excluding groups such as soldiers, prisoners and homeless. Thus, health officials think the numbers probably underestimate true HIV tallies in this country.
    Still, they show a striking rise in the prevalence of the AIDS virus from 1 percent to 2 percent of blacks. White rates held steady at 0.2 percent. Largely because of the increase among blacks, the overall U.S. rate rose slightly from 0.3 percent to 0.4 percent.
    Smaller studies had shown rising infection rates among blacks in recent years, but this study takes a longer and more complete look at changes in the general population.
    "I think it's very concerning," said Dr. Susan Buchbinder, who leads HIV research for the city of San Francisco. "I think what we need to look at is how we can reduce those rates and get more people into treatment."
    She recommended a stronger focus on treating drug addiction.
    The lead CDC researcher, Geraldine McQuillan, said she was encouraged to see the HIV rate among younger blacks holding steady at just less than 1.5 percent.
    "It tells me we're making some headway," she said.
    Other national data and published reports studied by the CDC showed that 480,000 HIV-infected people ages 15 to 49 should have been getting antiviral drugs in 2003, yet only 268,000, or 56 percent, were given such medication.
    Researcher Eyasu Teshale of the CDC said the gap represents "a substantial unmet health care need."
    Treatment is widely viewed as a central component in prevention. Powerful AIDS drugs that came into wide use in the mid-1990s can knock down levels of the virus in the body, reducing the chances that the patient will infect others.
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

R050225   Specter partly blames GOP
 

By Charles Hurt
THE WASHINGTON TIMES

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter said yesterday that Republicans are partly to blame for the escalating standoff over several of President Bush's judicial nominations.
    "Both parties are at fault," the Pennsylvania Republican said at a Capitol Hill press conference.
    "During the last six years of President Clinton, when Republicans took control of the Senate in 1995, we slow-walked his nominees," said Mr. Specter, who has been on the Judiciary Committee for 25 years. "A lot of them didn't get hearings, and we exacerbated the problem."
    Such conciliatory motions by Mr. Specter worry some conservatives in legal circles that he is implicitly conceding that the whole debate over judicial filibusters is just a partisan political spat over minor excesses in the Democratic use of the filibuster.
    But those conservatives, who long have been wary of the liberal Mr. Specter, say the debate is actually a matter of constitutional principle. Filibusters against judicial nominees should never occur, they say, and when they do, they should be struck down swiftly and without apology.
    "We are concerned by the chairman's assertion that under some circumstances, judicial filibusters are justified and legitimate," said Sean Rushton, executive director of Committee for Justice, a conservative group that supports Mr. Bush's nominees.
    "Our position has been that the judicial filibusters have no historical analogy and conflict with the Constitution's principle of 'advise and consent' and separation of powers," he said.
    So far, 10 of Mr. Bush's 44 nominees to the federal appeals court have been filibustered by a Senate minority of Democrats, bringing the approval rate of Mr. Bush's nominees to the lowest of any modern president, according to a recent study by the conservative American Enterprise Institute.
    Earlier this month, Mr. Bush resubmitted those filibustered nominees, drawing ire from Democrats and promises of continued filibusters.
    Mr. Specter says he is determined to negotiate with Democrats and declined to endorse the so-called "nuclear option" favored by some Republicans to overrule on filibusters against judicial nominees and force them through to at least a final floor vote.
    "I prefer not to come to that bridge, and I'm certainly not going to jump off a bridge until I come to it," he said when asked whether he supports the option. "I'm going to exercise every last ounce of my energy to solve this problem without the nuclear option."
    Mr. Specter's remarks were met with approval from top Democrats on the panel.
    "He outlined the bipartisan progress that we are making together on several efforts, including asbestos litigation and hearings the committee will hold on privacy and identity theft issues," said Sen. Patrick J. Leahy of Vermont, the committee's ranking Democrat.
    But Mr. Leahy didn't offer much optimism for compromise on the stuck nominees.
    "The conflict between the White House and the Senate over controversial judicial nominees is unnecessary, and it would serve the country far better to have nominees who do not divide the Senate and the American people," he said.
    "I have been urging the president to work with the Senate for some time. The chairman was correct to recognize the role the Constitution envisions for the Senate in the lifetime appointment of federal judges," he said.
    Mr. Specter ascended to the committee chairmanship over strong objections from conservatives who worry about his pro-choice stance and other views that are more liberal than the Republican Party mainstream.
    Earlier this month, he raised eyebrows when he became the only Republican in the Senate to vote for an amendment to a bill to limit class-action lawsuits, which conservatives said would have watered down the bill to the point of uselessness.
    Had the amendment passed, the Class Action Fairness Act likely would have failed for a fourth time.
    Mr. Specter defended his support for amending the Class Action bill yesterday and noted that he voted for the final bill even though the amendment failed.
    At yesterday's press conference in the Capitol, Mr. Specter acknowledged that he faces much scrutiny from conservatives.
    "To say that every move I make is under a microscope would be to understate the issue," he said to laughter.
    Mr. Specter, who appeared strong and alert after his first bout of chemotherapy for Hodgkin's disease less than a week ago, drew praise from Sen. Charles E. Schumer, New York Democrat and one of the most vocal members of the Judiciary Committee.
    "You have a long history of fairness when it comes to approaching the judicial nominations process," Mr. Schumer wrote in a letter yesterday to Mr. Specter. "You have always approached individual nominees, and the process itself, with a desire to give every nominee a fair shot, but also to protect the prerogatives of the Senate."
    In the letter, he implored Mr. Specter to put together a "small, bipartisan group" of senators that "should meet with the president sometime in the next few weeks and eventually even make joint recommendations to the president of nominees that are highly qualified and could get broad, bipartisan support in the Senate."
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

H050225   NEW YORK   Same-sex 'marriage' ruled illegal
    ITHACA -- A fourth New York judge has ruled that same-sex "marriage" is not legal in the state.
    On June 25, homosexual couples sued the city of Ithaca and the state, saying it was illegal to deny them marriage licenses when a 2002 New York statute outlaws discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.
    State Supreme Court Justice Robert Mulvey rejected their argument Wednesday, saying it is up to the Legislature, not the courts, to change the law. "Social perceptions of same-sex civil contracts may change over time," he wrote. "If that day comes, it is within the province of the Legislature to so act."
    The couples' attorney said they would appeal. A judge in New York City recently ruled in favor of same-sex "marriage," but three other upstate judges have ruled against it.
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

L050225   Judge extends feeding-tube stay

From combined dispatches
    CLEARWATER, Fla. -- A judge yesterday extended a stay keeping Terri Schiavo's feeding tube in place, saying he needed time to decide whether her parents can prevent her husband from removing the tube and starving his brain-damaged wife to death.
    Pinellas Circuit Court Judge George Greer extended until 5 p.m. tomorrow an emergency stay that was to expire yesterday afternoon.
    Judge Greer said he needs to decide whether her parents, Robert and Mary Schindler, can have more time to determine whether Mrs. Schiavo has greater mental capabilities than previously thought.
    The Schindlers also are seeking to have their son-in-law, Michael Schiavo, removed as their daughter's legal guardian.
    "We are really elated," Mr. Schindler said. "Forty-eight hours to us right now seems like six years."
    The Schindlers have been in a long, bitter struggle with Mr. Schiavo, to keep their daughter alive. Mrs. Schiavo collapsed 15 years ago tomorrow, when a chemical imbalance caused her heart to stop beating and cut off oxygen to her brain.
    On Tuesday, an appeals court allowed the expiration of a stay that had been the last obstacle keeping Mr. Schiavo from removing his wife's feeding tube. Judge Greer, however, issued his emergency stay later that day.
    Lawyer George Felos, who represents Mr. Schiavo, criticized Judge Greer's stay.
    "We have seen a continuing revolving door of new, frivolous motions. That is abuse of the judicial system. There will always be another motion," said Mr. Felos, a pioneer in right-to-die litigation and a euthanasia advocate.
    The Florida Department of Children & Families moved to intervene in the case yesterday, hours after Gov. Jeb Bush told reporters he was seeking a way to keep Mrs. Schiavo alive.
    "I can assure you, I will do whatever I can within the means, within the laws, of our state to protect this woman's life," Mr. Bush said, adding that he has received thousands of e-mails and telephone calls from the Schindlers' supporters.
    The Rev. Rob Johansen, a Michigan priest working with the Schindlers, said, "Mary told me that the DCF attorney indicated that their intent to intervene and investigate was based on 'abuse.'Â "
    Judge Greer denied the DCF lawyer an opportunity to speak at the afternoon hearing, saying he had the papers on his desk but wasn't sure they had been filed properly.
    The agency's filing remained sealed, and department spokesman Bill Spann said he could not comment on what role the agency sought.
    But Mr. Spann said the law allows the agency to investigate accusations of abuse against elderly, disabled or otherwise vulnerable adults, to determine whether protective action is warranted.
    Abuse charges already have been made in the case, based partly on bone scans showing Mrs. Schiavo suffered fractures and statements she made to family and friends that she was unhappy in her marriage.
    The charges have been rejected without investigation, and Mr. Schiavo has denied harming his wife.
    Father Johansen said it was not clear whether the DCF lawyer's words in court "referred to the allegations that Terri's condition is a result of Michael's abuse of Terri, or to his actions as Terri's guardian."
    Nevertheless, Mr. Schindler said he and his wife were "very, very thankful that DCF has picked this up." Their attorney David Gibbs said the Schindlers had not solicited the action and that it came as a surprise to them.
    Mr. Felos criticized the DCF move as groundless, saying it "reeks of the intervention of politics into the case and is an affront to the court."
    Some doctors have testified that Mrs. Schiavo is in a persistent vegetative state with no hope for recovery, but the Schindlers have countered with other medical opinions that she might improve with rehabilitation.
    Patients in Mrs. Schiavo's state have severe brain damage but demonstrate intermittent awareness of their environment. They cannot communicate, follow simple instructions or feed themselves but usually breathe on their own, as Mrs. Schiavo does.
    Studies suggest they may retain some degree of cognitive function. Mrs. Schiavo, 41, appears to cry, laugh and react to her family. Her husband has refused for years to allow any rehabilitation efforts.
    The Schindlers accuse their son-in-law of standing to gain from his wife's death, both financially and personally. They have offered to take care of her if Mr. Schiavo, who has had two children with another woman in recent years, would divorce her.
    Mr. Schiavo once stood to inherit hundreds of thousands of dollars from a medical trust fund if his wife died, but most of that money has been spent on attorneys' fees.
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

H050224   Gay-rights leader calls to 'redouble' efforts against HIV
 

By Joyce Howard Price
THE WASHINGTON TIMES

The possibility of a new superstrain of the virus that causes AIDS "should reinvigorate prevention efforts," the leader of the largest homosexual-rights lobbying group in the United States said yesterday.
    "We must redouble our prevention efforts ... there must be both an individual component and a strong government component," said Winnie Stachelberg, vice president of the Human Rights Campaign.
    The former, she said, should be reflected in increased "personal responsibility" to reduce the risk of HIV infection through sexual promiscuity accompanied by drug use. Ms. Stachelberg said the government component should be education that addresses "both condom use and abstinence, not either-or."
    New York City health officials said Feb. 11 that they had detected what could be a rare, highly dangerous strain of HIV that was resistant to most drugs. This potential strain, which was diagnosed in a homosexual man, had advanced to AIDS in three months.
    The infected man told health officials that he had engaged in sex with hundreds of men in recent weeks while taking crystal methamphetamine. Initially, health authorities said that the man could be plagued with a "supervirus" and that they were trying to track down his sex partners to determine whether they, too, were battling a more potent strain of HIV.
    Noel Alicea, spokesman for the Gay Men's Health Crisis (GMHC) in New York, said there is not enough information available to say whether this superstrain exists, but that his organization continues to "provide outreach" at homosexual bars and bath houses.
    "We tell them to take measures to protect themselves, and we hand out condoms," he said.
    Some scientists denounced New York Department of Health officials for making the quick assertion because they said it was not clear whether the man had contracted a worse strain of HIV or whether his immune system had been weakened by drug use or genetics.
    Two New York doctors, David D. Ho and Martin Markowitz, are to discuss the case today at a session of the 12th Conference on Retroviruses and Opportunistic Infections in Boston. About 4,000 of the world's AIDS specialists are meeting there.
    "Regardless of whether this virus is a superstrain ... more prevention is what we need," Ms. Stachelberg said.
    In a new statement on its Web site, GMHC said: "The rise in new [HIV] infections in New York City among gay men and, in particular, gay men of color, has been a serious and paramount concern throughout our work."
    But "HIV prevention efforts in the U.S. are seriously underfunded and increasingly censored" in that they are "increasingly based on scientifically discredited abstinence-only approaches."
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

O050224   TENNESSEE   Teacher pleads to sex charges
    MCMINNVILLE — A physical education teacher pleaded not guilty yesterday to dozens of charges accusing her of having sex with a 13-year-old boy who was a student at her elementary school.
    Pamela Turner, 27, did not attend the arraignment and remains free on $50,000 bond.
    Her attorney, Peter Strianse, entered not guilty pleas to 15 counts of sexual battery by an authority figure and 13 counts of statutory rape at a court hearing before Circuit Judge Larry B. Stanley Jr.
    District Attorney Dale Potter said he and Mr. Strianse discussed a plea deal, and the judge set a May 25 deadline for an agreement. Judge Stanley also set a Nov. 15 trial date.
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

M050224   13 and counting
    We have 13 days to go before CBS News anchorman Dan Rather abandons his chair in the wake of an ill-fated attempt to build a "60 Minutes" story around forged memos that questioned President Bush's Vietnam-era National Guard service.
    The drama goes on, however.
    Although CBS conducted an internal investigation, the network neglected to mention in its public report that it hired a private investigator named Erik T. Rigler, a former FBI agent and Navy pilot, to track down the source of the troublesome documents, wrote Joe Hagan of the New York Observer yesterday.
    "Though CBS had promised transparency in investigating the memo scandal, of a half-dozen CBS News producers who spoke to The Observer, only one had even heard a rumor that the network had hired the private investigator," Mr. Hagan wrote, noting that Mr. Rather "has been officially muzzled."
    Meanwhile, Mr. Rather might have to be extracted from his chair with a forklift.
    After the newscast ends, he will star in an hourlong vanity showcase called "Dan Rather: A Reporter Remembers." Mr. Rather will answer questions posed by someone off-camera.
    "It's uncertain, at this point, to determine how tough or detailed the 'interview' will be," noted the Rocky Mountain News yesterday.
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

L050224   Cell sell
    New Jersey will be an epicenter of debate on embryonic stem-cell research this fall.
    Acting Gov. Richard J. Codey, a Democrat, wants the state to spend $150 million in borrowed funds on stem-cell research — an idea supported by 47 percent of residents, according to a recent Quinnipiac University poll.
    "New Jersey voters overwhelmingly support stem-cell research but backing declines sharply when an expensive price tag is put on the program," poll assistant director Clay F. Richards said.
    Mr. Codey's plan is a "gross betrayal of the public trust and a shameful waste of taxpayer money," said Marie Tasy of New Jersey Right to Life, according to yesterday's Trenton Times.
    "Not only is this an affront to millions of New Jerseyans who have ethical and moral problems with this mad science research, but it is something taxpayers should not fund," agreed Steve Lonegan, the mayor of Bogota and a Republican gubernatorial candidate.
    Meanwhile, state Sen. Barbara Buono, Metuchen Democrat, said she was "delighted to see that the state is ready to strengthen its commitment to this potentially lifesaving research.
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

L050223   Court to mull assisted suicide
 

By Guy Taylor
THE WASHINGTON TIMES

The Supreme Court yesterday announced that it will hear a Bush administration challenge to an Oregon law that allows doctors in that state to help terminally ill patients commit suicide.
    More than 170 people have legally committed assisted suicide in Oregon since the state passed its "Death With Dignity Act" in 1998. Oregon is the only state with such a law.
    In agreeing to hear the administration's challenge to the law, the justices said they will review a lower court ruling that bars the federal government from pressing criminal charges against doctors who prescribe overdoses to help people die more quickly.
    Oral arguments in the case are scheduled for the high court's next term, which begins in October.
    Although the justices agreed to take on the sensitive assisted suicide issue, they effectively sidestepped a politically explosive one yesterday by refusing to reopen the landmark Roe v. Wade case, which legalized abortion in 1973.
    The justices rejected the challenge to Roe v. Wade brought by Norma McCorvey, the Texas woman once known as "Jane Roe," who had appealed to the high court to overturn the ruling.
    Despite winning the right for women to choose abortion more than 30 years ago, Ms. McCorvey is now a vocal opponent of the procedure. In 1992, the last time the Supreme Court reviewed Roe v. Wade, the justices upheld the fundamental constitutional right of women to choose.
    At the time, three of the high court's standing members — Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist and Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas — sought to have the ruling overturned. The justices offered no comment yesterday when issuing their refusal to review the case again.
    In other action yesterday, the Supreme Court declined to review several other cases, three of which carry First Amendment implications:
    •The justices declined to review the constitutionality of a 1998 Alabama law banning the sale of sex toys. The American Civil Liberties Union, arguing on behalf of merchants and sex toy users, sought to have the law overturned on the grounds that an earlier Supreme Court ruling protects sex toy users from the intrusion of state laws in the privacy of their homes.
    •The justices declined to weigh in on a Florida city's zoning law that attempted to bar churches and synagogues from locating in a downtown business district. The city law has been unenforceable since a lower federal court ruled it discriminatory. The case involves two synagogues that preferred downtown locations close to members' homes because Orthodox Jewish tradition bars driving on the Sabbath and Jewish high holidays.
    •The justices declined to review a National Park Service policy that asks visitors not to walk near Utah's Rainbow Bridge, the world's largest natural bridge, out of respect for American Indian religion. Several Indian groups, including Navajos and Hopi Indians, consider the bridge a sacred site.
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

L050223   Schiavo case at impasse

DUNEDIN, Fla. (AP) -- The case of a severely brain-damaged woman remained locked in a legal stalemate yesterday after an appeals court cleared the way for her husband to remove her feeding tube only to see a judge promptly block the removal for at least another day.
    The 2nd District Court of Appeal offered no specific instructions in a one-page mandate issued in the case of Terri Schiavo, who was left brain damaged 15 years ago. That meant her husband, Michael Schiavo, could order his wife's tube be removed.
    But Pinellas Circuit Court Judge George Greer issued an emergency stay about an hour later blocking removal of the feeding tube until 5 p.m. today. Judge Greer, who has been overseeing the long-standing dispute, scheduled a hearing on the case for today.
    "The family is profoundly grateful," said David Gibbs III, an attorney for Mrs. Schiavo's parents. "They believed God answered their prayers. Their daughter is alive another day."
    The parents, Bob and Mary Schindler, sought the stay in hopes of keeping their daughter alive long enough for them to file additional legal pleadings. They are trying to oust their son-in-law as her guardian and seeking medical tests that might back their assertion that their daughter has some mental capabilities.
    It likely would take several days for Mrs. Schiavo to die if the tube is pulled.
    The appeals court's mandate allowed Mr. Schiavo to act under previous court rulings in the years-long, emotional legal battle.
    The court consistently has upheld lower court rulings that Mrs. Schiavo had expressed wishes not to be kept alive artificially, although she left no written directive.
    In October 2003, she went without food or water for six days before Gov. Jeb Bush pushed through legislation letting him order the tube be reinserted. The Florida Supreme Court later struck down his action as unconstitutional.
    The courts also sided with Mr. Schiavo when he had the tube removed for two days in 2001.
    George Felos, Mr. Schiavo's attorney, said, "As soon as he's legally authorized, he will discontinue artificial life support."
    Mrs. Schiavo suffered severe brain damage in 1990 when a chemical imbalance thought to have been brought on by an eating disorder caused her heart to stop beating and cut off oxygen to her brain.
    Although she breathes on her own, she relies on the feeding tube to survive. Doctors have ruled that she is in a persistent vegetative state with no hope for recovery.
    Still, her parents, who visit her nearly every day, report their daughter has laughed, cried, smiled and responded to their voices. Video showing the dark-haired woman appearing to interact with her family has been televised nationally, but the court-appointed doctor has said the noises and facial expressions are reflexes.
    The attorney for the parents also said he is preparing a motion to ask the U.S. Supreme Court to consider the family's claim that Mrs. Schiavo should be spared based on statements by Pope John Paul II that people in vegetative states have a right to nutrition and hydration. They say Mrs. Schiavo, as a practicing Roman Catholic, would have obeyed the pope and would not choose to have her tube removed.
    Both sides accused each other of being motivated by greed over a $1 million medical malpractice award from doctors who failed to diagnose the chemical imbalance. The Schindlers argue that Mr. Schiavo should divorce their daughter.
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

H050222   Marriage amendments move slowly
 

By Cheryl Wetzstein
THE WASHINGTON TIMES

Legislative votes on amendments to uphold traditional marriage are moving forward in Tennessee, but have been postponed in Wisconsin and Massachusetts.
    This means that only one state — Kansas — is likely to have a public vote on a marriage amendment this year. That vote is scheduled for April 5.
    In Tennessee, a marriage constitutional amendment appears to be on its way to a second approval by lawmakers.
    Last year, lawmakers passed the amendment by a simple majority. This time, they need a two-thirds majority to put the amendment before Tennessee voters in 2006.

    Recently, both House and Senate panels passed the amendment with little dissent, and Tennessee House Speaker Jimmy Naifeh, a Democrat, said he wouldn't fight the amendment.
    It has overwhelming support, he told the Associated Press, "so I'm not going to stand in the way and get run over by that train."
    Wisconsin and Massachusetts also have two-session processes to send amendments to voters, and last year lawmakers in both states gave initial approval to marriage amendments. However, legislative leaders now say they don't plan on holding their second votes until later in the year.
    "It could come up as late as fall," Massachusetts Senate Minority Leader Brian Lees, a Republican, told the Boston Globe earlier this month.
    "Extra time" is needed, Republican amendment supporters in Wisconsin recently told the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. The delay means Wisconsin lawmakers will miss today's deadline to pass their marriage amendment in time for a public vote April 5.
    Seventeen states have defined marriage as the union between one man and one woman in their constitutions. Such definitions are intended to clarify for judges that same-sex couples are not permitted to "marry" in those states.
    Thirteen marriage amendments occurred after the landmark November 2003 "Goodridge" decision, in which the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court found the right to same-sex "marriage" in the state Constitution.
    Although Massachusetts is the only U.S. state that allows its resident homosexual couples to "marry," lawsuits seeking similar marriage rights are under way in California, Connecticut, Maryland, New Jersey, New York and Washington state.
    To date, homosexual plaintiffs have won lower-court decisions in Washington and New York City, but lost in New Jersey and upstate New York. In Indiana and Florida, homosexual couples have decided to drop their marriage lawsuits after adverse court rulings.
    Meanwhile:
    •In addition to Tennessee, Massachusetts and Wisconsin, at least 11 other states " Alabama, California, Indiana, Iowa, New Jersey, New Mexico, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Virginia and Washington " have active marriage amendment bills. Virginia passed its marriage amendment this year, but needs a second legislative approval next year to get it to voters in 2006.
    •Conservative groups in Florida and Arizona have announced plans to conduct petition drives to get marriage amendments on their 2006 ballots.
    •Bills to legalize same-sex "marriage" have been introduced by Democratic lawmakers in California, Rhode Island and Connecticut.
    •Lawsuits challenging state marriage amendments have been filed in Georgia, Kentucky, Nebraska, Oklahoma and Oregon.
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

H050222   MONTANA   House dumps bill to protect gays
    HELENA " The Montana House yesterday killed a bill that would have extended the state's hate-crimes law to protect homosexuals.
    The bill would have made it a crime to target people based on such factors as age, economic condition, disability, sex or sexual orientation. It was rejected on a 54-46 vote.
    State law already outlaws intimidating or harassing someone because of race, religion, color, creed or national origin. Offenses carry a minimum two-year prison term.
    Debate focused mainly on whether the law should cover crimes against homosexuals.
    Similar bills have failed in each of the six preceding legislative sessions. A similar bill in the state Senate has been stalled in committee since January.
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

M050221   'Frontline' show swears profanity is necessary
 

By Jennifer Harper
THE WASHINGTON TIMES

Once upon a time, John Wayne and a handsome actor named Ronald Reagan gave America an idea of the warrior's life through G-rated films with nary a curse or expletive.
    Such things don't cut it anymore, at least according to "Frontline," the weekly public affairs series from WGBH, a Public Broadcasting Service (PBS) affiliate in Boston.
    In the name of editorial freedom, "Frontline" producers are asking other PBS affiliates across the country to air a salty version of a new 90-minute documentary on the daily challenges of the U.S. Army's 8th Cavalry Regiment in Baghdad — swear words and all.
    PBS, however, has chosen to deliver an edited version of "A Company of Soldiers," without profanity, to its affiliates. It's scheduled to air at 9 p.m. tomorrow.
    "The language of these soldiers is sprinkled with expletives, especially at their moments of greatest fear and stress. As we edited the program, we were judicious, but came to believe that some of that language was an integral part of our journalistic mission: to give viewers a realistic portrait of our soldiers at war," wrote "Frontline" producers David Fanning, Michael Sullivan and Louis Wiley in a memo on Thursday.
    The document was obtained by the Poynter Institute, a Florida-based media research group, and published on its Web site on Thursday.
    "We feel strongly that the language of war should not be sanitized and that there is nothing indecent about its use in this context," the producers noted.
    In past years, "Frontline" producers have created two versions of programs that contained questionable language — one with swear words and the other edited for stations "for whom such language has always been a matter of local sensitivity."
    This time, a cautious PBS will "hard feed" only the sanitized version to its 349 affiliates. The original version, however, will be made available to affiliates via a secondary feed, but that delivery system is difficult for affiliates to use.
    "Frontline" producers say the program should not have been edited before being sent out to other stations. They even assert that their attorneys have given the program a clean bill of health.
    "The expletives in 'A Company of Soldiers' do not violate the Federal Communications Commission's indecency rule. They have concluded that the uses of the F-word and others in this film do not cross the FCC's guidance against 'gratuitous' use. They are not meant to 'titillate' or 'pander' to the audience," the memo states.
    But PBS is out to make its own point and has asked affiliates who show the unedited version to sign a waiver.
    The organization also has formed a new Editorial Standards Review Committee, which includes former CNN anchor Bernard Shaw and Tom Rosenstiel of the District-based Project for Excellence in Journalism. The group met for the first time last Monday.
    "The media environment has changed significantly since the last comprehensive review of our policies, most notably with the explosive growth of the Internet as a media outlet unto itself. Our goal in this process is to ensure that PBS' editorial policies and practices remain up-to-date and effective," said PBS chief Pat Mitchell.
    However, she won't be around long to oversee it. Miss Mitchell announced last week that she would leave PBS when her contract expires next year.
    Meanwhile, the "Frontline" producers said they still hope that affiliates will get gutsy and air the unedited version.
    "Frontline believes this is the moment for public television to stand firm and broadcast 'A Company of Soldiers' intact, as it was intended. We believe what is at issue is not the particulars of this case, but the principle of editorial independence. Because overreaching by the FCC is at its heart a First Amendment issue, all programs are at risk, whether art, science, history, culture or public affairs."
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

R050221   Democrats cautioned on faith
 

By Audrey Hudson
THE WASHINGTON TIMES

Democrats who invoke God's name on the campaign trail will be seen as politicians pandering for votes, says failed vice presidential candidate John Edwards.
    The North Carolina Democrat said he wanted more opportunities to discuss his relationship with God while campaigning with presidential running mate Sen. John Kerry, Massachusetts Democrat.
    "It's everything to me," Mr. Edwards said of his faith and family yesterday on ABC's "This Week."
    Faith and values ranked as the number one reason among voters in the Nov. 2 election for voting Republican. But as the Democratic Party embarks on an new identity search, he warned that God talk is not the solution.
    "I don't believe the answer for us going forward is to invoke the Lord's name 55 times in a speech. First of all, I think it looks political. It looks like you're just moving around for politics' sake. I think people want to know who you are and what you're made of," Mr. Edwards said.
    The one-term senator said faith in God guides his politics, adding, "My relationship with the Lord is enormously important to me, not just then, but all the time."
    "The most important thing for me is to make clear what it is I believe in, what my convictions are, and what my core set of principles are going forward," he said.
    Mr. Edwards declined to say whether he will seek the presidency in 2008, saying it will depend on the health of his wife, Elizabeth, who has breast cancer.
    "I'll decide what's the right thing to do based on what's going on with my own family," he said.
    However, Mr. Edwards said the next president should have "strength, [a] clear idea of who you are, clear idea of where you believe the country needs to go, and how to get there" and noted that Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, New York Democrat, possesses those qualities.
    Mrs. Clinton's fan club on yesterday's Sunday talk shows didn't stop with Democratic endorsements. Former Republican presidential hopeful Sen. John McCain of Arizona told NBC's "Meet the Press" that the former first lady would make a good commander in chief.
    "I am sure that Senator Clinton would make a good president," Mr. McCain said. "I happen to be a Republican and would support, obviously, a Republican nominee, but I have no doubt that Senator Clinton would make a good president."
    Mrs. Clinton responded that she "absolutely" thought Mr. McCain would make a good president, prompting host Tim Russert to suggest a "fusion ticket."
    "We're both in trouble," Mr. McCain responded, laughing.
    Earlier this month, a CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll showed 40 percent support among Democrats for Mrs. Clinton, 25 percent for Massachusetts Democratic Sen. John Kerry and 18 percent for Mr. Edwards.
    Democrats are speculating that Mrs. Clinton is repositioning herself as a centrist rather than a far-left candidate and point to legislation that she is co-sponsoring with conservative Republicans such as Sen. Lindsey Graham, South Carolina Republican, to give military reservists 100 percent government health care coverage.
    "Senator Clinton and I represent different spectrums of political ideology on many occasions, but we have [guardsmen] and reservists ... who are making up about 40 percent of this operation," Mr. Graham said yesterday on CBS' "Face the Nation," referring to the Iraq war.
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

H050221   INDIANA   Lesbian ordered to pay child support
    INDIANAPOLIS — A lesbian who split with her partner after adopting the woman's children must pay child support, the Indiana Court of Appeals has ruled.
    The woman adopted her partner's children in 1997. A few years after their breakup, she tried to vacate the adoption. Around the same time, the children's mother filed for child support.
    A three-judge panel ruled Wednesday that the woman who adopted the children must contribute to the cost of raising them.
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

L050226C   Protection for all
 

By Terence P. Jeffrey

Terri Schiavo, a mentally disabled woman fed through a tube, has been set up by state courts to be starved and dehydrated to death. Florida lawmakers should carefully examine the 2000 Census to see why the U.S. Constitution has required them to keep fighting for her life.
    In 2003, a Florida judge decided Terri's estranged husband (who has two children by another woman) could disconnect her tube and kill her by starvation and dehydration. Gov. Jeb Bush persuaded Florida's legislature to enact a law allowing him to restore Terri's tube. But the law was narrowly cast: It applied only to Terri, retroactively reversing the judge's decision to authorize her killing.
    The Florida Supreme Court overturned Terri's Law, saying the governor and legislature had no authority to reverse a final judicial determination under existing state laws. Last month, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear Mr. Bush's appeal.
    But the truth is Terri's Law did not go far enough. Gov. Bush and the Florida legislature should act to protect not just one person from starvation and dehydration but every other person in the state. As the 2000 census illustrates, this is their constitutional duty.
    Under the 14th Amendment, the Constitution requires the census to count "the whole number of persons in each state." Accordingly, the 2000 Census counted 88,828 "persons" living in nursing homes in Florida, 3,538 living in "hospitals/wards and hospices for the chronically ill" and 4,233 living in psychiatric hospitals or wards. Nationwide, it counted 1,720,500 persons living in nursing homes.
    There was no degree of disability, incapacitation or illness that disqualified counting someone as a "person" under the Census Bureau's 14th Amendment mandate to count "the whole number of persons." The 14th Amendment says Terri Schiavo and other disabled people are indisputably "persons."
    Even judges who wrongly deny unborn babies are persons cannot deny the personhood of the 41-year-old Mrs. Schiavo. Every member of the U.S. House of Representatives is elected from a district drawn a certain way because all disabled persons such as Mrs. Schiavo were counted just like any other person under 14th Amendment's plain meaning.
    This presents what should be an insurmountable constitutional obstacle for those who want state governments — either through their courts or legislatures — to legalize killing innocent persons such as Mrs. Schiavo, no matter the means. The 14th Amendment that made Terri a "person" for census purposes and apportioning Congress says, "No State shall... deprive any person of life, liberty or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
    The rights of the Terri Schiavos are equal to every other person in Florida to state protection from homicidal acts. Florida may no more legalize killing mentally disabled persons than it can legalize killing persons with brown hair.
    America has seen antecedents to this type of moral crisis. There is an ineradicable force in the fallen nature of man that will always drive some to trample the God-given rights of others. We have a Constitution to stop them. That is especially the reason for the 14th Amendment.
    When the Constitution was originally ratified, it did not command the census to count all persons. It commanded that it count "the whole Number of free Persons" and only "three fifths of all other Persons."
    The "other persons," of course, were African-American slaves. Many Southerners preferred counting slaves as persons in apportioning their state's congressional representation, but not for apportioning federal taxes among the states by population. Many Northerners, who rightly viewed slavery as a gross violation of human rights, nonetheless wanted slaves counted as persons for apportioning taxes but not congressional seats. Northerners and Southerners compromised and wrote language that pretended slaves were not full persons.
    This failure to recognize and protect the full humanity of all persons was the original sin of the Republic. It led to years of turmoil, a bloody Civil War and, finally, a 13th Amendment to abolish slavery and a 14th Amendment to ensure all states give all persons equal protection of the law — and that all persons are counted in the census.
    All along, the Declaration of Independence had stated the truth: God endows all men with certain inalienable rights, including life and liberty.
    Florida lawmakers must protect the Terri Schiavos and all other persons from death by starvation and dehydration. It is their constitutional duty.

    Terence P. Jeffrey is a nationally syndicated columnist.
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

R050222C   Sinking judicial agenda
 

By Bruce Fein

President George W. Bush's judicial agenda is sinking because of his refusal to expend political capital and to risk legislative crumbs to crush the Democrat filibustering of his intellectually gifted nominees.
    Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist's probable retirement in June makes the president's persistent inactivity over judicial filibusters alarming. His pledge to appoint justices in the mold of Associate Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas will be thwarted if 60 votes are required to obtain a floor vote on Supreme Court nominees. Democrats successfully employed the filibuster during Mr. Bush's first term to stymie confirmation votes on 10 talented appellate court nominees without provoking the president to twist arms in the Senate to overcome the obstructionist tactic. That same unmasterly inactivity has marked the beginning of Mr. Bush's second term.
    He has studiously refrained from interceding with irresolute Republican senators to declare judicial filibusters an unconstitutional encroachment on the president's power to appoint under Article II, section 2, with simple majority approval in the Senate. (Legislative filibusters affect only the exclusive legislative powers of Congress. They are undisturbing to the Constitution's separation of powers). In contrast, Democrats have vocally committed to invoking the filibuster to block any Bush nominee bearing Scalia-Thomas trappings.
    At present, the Senate sports 55 Republicans, 44 Democrats, and 1 independent. By himself, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, Tennessee Republican, has been unable by exhortation or cajolery to assemble 51 votes to declare judicial filibusters unconstitutional and thus unenforceable.
    About 10 Republicans are loath to risk the threatened venom of their Democrat colleagues by destroying the last Democratic Party dike against the 2004 elections. A modicum of bipartisanship and comity is pivotal to moving forward on any senator's agenda. The reluctant Republicans insist the Supreme Court and subordinate federal tribunals are worth sacrificing to maintain Senate harmony and fraternity on other matters.
    President Bush seems to agree. During his confirmation hearing, Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez declared the Justice Department would remain aloof from judicial filibusters.
    The president himself has resisted working hand-in-glove with Mr. Frist to confront wavering Republicans or Red State Democrats with carrots and sticks depending on their votes in favor or against filibustering knavery. Mr. Bush apparently reasons that steamrolling Democrats over the federal judiciary would forfeit needed bipartisan support for pioneering Social Security change, tort reform, energy legislation, a Clean Sky program, and companion mundane laws; that the appointment of judges is too marginal to the nation's destiny to gamble his legislative ambitions; and that the president has no constitutional business tampering with an internal Senate rule.
    But the Constitution withholds any official role for the president in proposing amendments or legislation. Yet Mr. Bush has openly urged Congress to adopt amendments dealing with same-sex "marriage," flag desecration, and victims' rights. He routinely prepares legislation for introduction by friendly senators or representatives. Moreover, the judicial filibuster directly encroaches on the express appointment power of the president by tightly circumscribing the universe of confirmable nominees. That makes a president's intervention with the Senate over filibustering judges more constitutionally compelling than over amendments or legislation.
    In addition, federal judges serve for life. Their influence over constitutional doctrines that defeat popular majorities is incalculable " for example, executive detention of suspected enemy combatants, police searches and seizures, church-state relations, abortion, illegal aliens, environmental protection, affirmative action, discrimination based on gender or sexual orientation, campaign finance laws, political association, and protection of private property.
    President Franklin D. Roosevelt appointed New Dealer William O. Douglas to the Supreme Court in 1939. His freestyle approach to constitutional interpretation, epitomized by his "penumbras and emanations" creed in Griswold vs. Connecticut (1965), was still a strong influence when he retired in 1975 during the Ford administration. Indeed, Griswold was the foundation of the outlandish 1973 Roe vs. Wade abortion decree.
    Judicial philosophy is decisive in the great majority of nontrivial cases. The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court relied on language in the Massachusetts Constitution indistinguishable from that in the U.S. Constitution or sister state constitutions in discovering a right to same-sex "marriage."
    In addressing the constitutional rights of Guantanamo Bay detainees in light of the Supreme Court's decision in Rasul vs. Bush, two federal district judges in the District of Columbia reached opposite conclusions. The Supreme Court recognized a constitutional right to homosexual sodomy in Lawrence vs. Texas (2003). The precedent was interpreted by a federal judge in United States vs. Extreme Associates, Inc. (Jan. 20, 2005) to end the public morality justification for infringing on private adult sexual conduct, including buying obscenity. In contrast, a Utah federal district judge concurrently held Lawrence cast no shadow over polygamy laws.
    President Bush's greatest second-term accomplishment would be to pack the federal judiciary from top to bottom with Scalia-Thomas clones. He promised no less in decisively defeating Sen. John Kerry, Massachusetts Democrat.
    In contrast, his legislative initiatives will either take long years before enactment, like Social Security reform, or are trivial compared to shaping the constitutional philosophy of the Supreme Court and lower courts for the indefinite future, like damage caps in medical malpractice litigation.
    Mr. Bush should cross the Rubicon and fight to end judicial filibusters with every weapon in his political arsenal.

    Bruce Fein is a constitutional lawyer and international consultant with Bruce Fein & Associates and the Lichfield Group.
 
 
 

Personalize Your News with The Insider

Subscribe to the daily or weekly printed edition
 
 

 Reprints and Permissions
Copyright 2005 News World Communications, Inc.
 vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

L050226L   Speak up, Congress
    Paul Greenberg's column "Democrats for life?" (Commentary, Thursday) exposes the divide between party leaders, who are tired of losing elections, and rank-and-file Democrats, who tend to support abortion on demand. Mr. Greenberg has done a masterful job analyzing this issue and its implications for Democrats in future elections. Cleveland about a newborn whose life was saved by heroic efforts by doctors and nurses who diagnosed the infant's problem and drove more than 60 miles to the only hospital in the area with the expertise to save the infant's life. The child's father recorded the entire saga on his video camera, and it was proudly aired on the 11 o'clock news as a story with a happy ending.
    But although my liberal-dominated, pro-Democrat local TV station saw this miraculous, lifesaving event as newsworthy, no news coverage is given to the daily carnage that occurs here in local abortion clinics. It seems that educating viewers about the tragedy of abortion would only drive more voters into the pro-life camp, and the liberal media wouldn't want that.
    The Supreme Court affirmed legalized abortion in Roe v. Wade in 1973, and since the landmark ruling, liberals, primarily Democrats, have bulldozed their way through to add such things as "partial-birth" abortion to their menu of death.
    An issue of this importance should have required an amendment to the Constitution, which, in my opinion, would have failed.
    With its ruling, the Supreme Court liberalized laws on abortion in 46 states. If our democracy has a flaw, then allowing the judiciary to override the legislatures of 46 states is it. Congress is the voice of the people, and it's time that voice was heard.

    RICHARD W. RESSLER
    North Olmsted, Ohio \
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

O050224C   Restore America's legacy
 

By Gary J. Andres

President Bush's re-election and continued Republican control of Congress offer conservatives a unique opportunity to reshape certain government institutions and policies previously dominated by the cultural left. Beyond the obvious menu of low taxes, a strong defense, tort reform and free trade, conservatives can potentially reshape areas of government previously strangled by the political hegemony of liberal thinkers, bureaucrats and activists.
    Despite these promising circumstances, conservatives must not allow past prejudices and timidity to quench their appetite for reform. Embracing and participating in these changes is a key step toward improving American culture.
    One institution undergoing a remarkable transformation is the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA). The NEA was described a decade ago by the Boston Globe's Jeff Jacoby as a place that "pollutes American culture." Congress was ready to pull the plug on the NEA in 1995, a process, according to Mr. Jacoby, that was tantamount to "the draining of Washington's most fetid cultural swamps." Former House Majority Leader Dick Armey once called it the "single most deplorable black mark on the arts in America."
    Beyond the valid philosophical questions about taxpayers subsidizing art, the 40-year-old agency ignited additional outrage by funding obscene and objectionable projects over the past decade. Andres Serrano's "Piss Christ" (photographs of a crucifix submerged in urine) was just one of several now infamous examples of theNEA confusing liberal self-indulgence with art. Critics like Mr. Jacoby noted that the NEA neither regretted nor apologized for funding this garbage, but embraced it, saying art should "challenge our most sacred values."
    What a difference a decade makes. Last year President Bush requested an $18 million increase in the NEA's budget for FY05, the largest proposed boost in more than 20 years (FY'06 funding is requested at last year's level). Why should a conservative Republican president continue to support funding for an agency that once encouraged people to walk across an American flag as part of an "art" exhibit?
    Dana Gioia, the NEA's chairman for the past two years, deserves great credit for jumping into the "cultural swamp" with both feet and arms and then flexing muscular conservative leadership. While the arts community traditionally celebrates edgy postmodernism, including the worship of cultural relativism, Mr. Gioia challenges this worldview. He is systematically confronting some of the most sacredly held icons of the post-modern world and providing the agency with new credibility in the process.
    Rejecting the nihilism so common in today's popular culture, Mr. Gioia believes art and literature can teach us about universal values like beauty, honor, courage and truth. In a cultural climate where "personal choice" is the only absolute, and the only end self-satisfaction, Mr. Gioia believes the great art and literature of Western civilization provide a lush foil to the arid chaos of relativism.
    After the bruising the agency took during the culture wars in the 1990s, it fell into a period of benign silence, desperate to avoid new controversy. "Gioia has moved the NEA from a kind of 'do no harm' neutrality to positively supporting projects that say certain things are more virtuous than others, that reject the post-modern world view," a supporter on Capitol Hill told me.
     One of NEA's latest initiatives, American Masterpieces: Three Centuries of Artistic Genius, is a terrific example of the new breeze at the agency. Instead of funding "social pathology dressed up as art," as Roger Kimball wrote in the National Review Online last January, Mr. Gioia's project introduces "Americans to the best of their cultural and artistic legacy," according to the NEA. And Robert Mapplethorpe need not apply.
    Yet the changes at the NEA require fertilizing to expand and flourish. Mr. Gioia needs some help in this gardening endeavor. Conservatives have traditionally ceded this cultural battlefield to the left. And those involved have eschewed participating with the NEA. "After everything that happened over the past decade, it has not been a place conservatives have felt comfortable," a former administration official told me.
    World views matter in politics, society and art. Through Mr. Gioia's leadership, NEA is beginning to shine as a beacon of reform. By sending a strong message that art projects and education celebrating our most sacred values help improve American cultural life, he is warming the pool for conservative participation. Gioia's actions say that the NEA is no longer a "swamp." In effect, he's beckoning to conservatives: "Come on in; the water's fine."
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

O050226Md    Md. House narrowly approves slots
 

By Robert Redding Jr.
THE WASHINGTON TIMES

ANNAPOLIS -- The House yesterday narrowly passed a slot-machine gambling bill, and House Speaker Michael E. Busch said that Senate President Thomas V. Mike Miller Jr. and Gov. Robert L. Ehrlich Jr. would have to accept his chamber's version or else have no slots legislation this year.
    In a 71-66 roll-call vote, the House mustered just enough votes to approve a bill that would authorize 9,500 slot machines in Anne Arundel, Frederick and Harford counties, and at Rocky Gap State Park in Allegany County.
    Delegates applauded and cheered after the vote -- the first time the House decided on the legislation since Mr. Ehrlich first introduced it in 2003.
    "I believe, with the closeness of this vote, obviously, the governor and the president of the Senate are either going to have to accept this bill or I don't believe there will be any expansion of gambling in the state of Maryland," said Mr. Busch, Anne Arundel County Democrat.
    Mr. Busch said he will not appoint a conference committee to reconcile differences between the House bill and the Senate's version, which calls for 15,500 slot machines to be placed in seven locations that could include Prince George's County and Baltimore.
    "I see no reason to have the formality of a conference committee," said the House speaker, who has opposed legalizing slot-machine gambling. "If there were 80 to 85 votes [for the House bill], it would be different."
    Mr. Miller, a longtime supporter of slots legislation, accused Mr. Busch of "holding these votes in his pocket," noting that four delegates did not vote yesterday.
    "I know a couple of members were absent that committed to vote for the bill, so there is certainly a lot of wiggle room," said Mr. Miller, Prince George's County Democrat. "No one has a monopoly on ideas -- the speaker, the governor, myself -- no one has ever ever said 'my way or the highway' and been successful as long as I have been here."
    Mr. Ehrlich, a Republican, echoed Mr. Miller's comments, criticizing Mr. Busch's maneuver.
    "That is really is not the way the process is supposed to work," he said.
    Mr. Ehrlich said he was pleased with the House vote, but he refused to say whether he would sign into law the House version of the slots bill. He has sought to use slots to attract gamblers to racetracks -- Pimlico in Baltimore, in particular -- to revive the state's horse-racing industry. Pimlico is home of the annual Preakness Stakes, the second jewel in horse racing's annual Triple Crown series.
    Slots-related revenue -- estimated at $800 million a year -- is to be used for school construction and education.
    "There are a lot of good things in this bill," the governor said of the House legislation. "The fact it passed today is a big deal. It is a monumental day here, but we obviously have some issues left to discuss."
    Usually, the House and the Senate appoint negotiators to work out differences between the chambers' legislation, producing a single bill that both chambers then vote on. If both chambers approve the compromise bill, it is sent to the governor to be signed into law or vetoed.
    If the House declines to appoint a conference committee, the Senate would be forced to vote on the House's bill.
    "I see no grounds for any kind of tampering with the bill," said Mr. Busch, who voted against the legislation. "I believe that it is in such a posture that, if it changes in any dramatic fashion, I think you lose votes."
    The House has been adamant about keeping slots out of Prince George's County and Baltimore.
    After two hours of floor debate yesterday, Mr. Busch told his fellow delegates that they would have to "live with consequences" of their decision on legalizing slot-machine gambling.
    Delegate Eric M. Bromwell, who introduced the House bill, noted that Maryland's neighbors are using slots to siphon revenue out of the state.
    "Delaware, Pennsylvania and West Virginia are taking our money, our racing industry, and they are taking our children's education. But with this bill we will take it back," the Baltimore County Democrat said.
    But Delegate Joanne C. Benson, Prince George's County Democrat, likened slots to "crack cocaine."
    "It starts in [four] locations and it ends up in everyone's back yard," she said.
    The House bill would set up 3,500 machines in Anne Arundel County, 2,500 in Frederick and Harford counties, and 1,000 at Rocky Gap. All of the state's slots-related revenue would be used for school construction, not instruction.
    The Senate version would establish 15,500 at four tracks and three off-track venues -- the exact location of which would be determined by a commission appointed by the governor and legislative leaders. It also calls for $150 million from slots revenue be spent on school construction each year for eight years.
    Mr. Ehrlich has earmarked $100 million of slots revenue for school construction.
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

E050224Md   Signatures collected against sex curriculum
 

By Jon Ward
THE WASHINGTON TIMES

Catholic parishes, with encouragement from the Archdiocese of Washington, are in the midst of a petition drive against new sex-education classes in Montgomery County public schools.
    "The curriculum is obviously not reflective of our values," said Michael Caruso, the archdiocese's assistant superintendent for secondary schools.
    Catholic officials, pastors and lay persons said the curriculum condones sexual experimentation and teaches that homosexuality is not a choice, without including religious and moral viewpoints on such subjects.
    "My main concern is that the kids who go through the program may experience the ill effects of experimenting with homosexual behaviors," said Ellen Castellano, a parishioner at St. John Neumann Catholic Church in Gaithersburg. "It paints way too rosy a picture of homosexuality without including all the facts, especially the medical consequences associated with homosexual behavior."
    Mrs. Castellano, a parent of seven children in public schools and a member of Citizens for Responsible Curriculum, said more than 2,000 signatures have been collected on the petition,which also asks the county's board of education to seek more public input. The group will present the signatures to board members in March or April.
    "Chastity would be something we would want included in a curriculum, and that has been written out of the program," said the Rev. Mike Fisher, pastor of St. John Neumann.
    "It is undermining the role which parents and churches have," said the Rev. Tom Kalita, pastor of St. Peter's Catholic Church in Olney. "It's telling youngsters that there are no values that are objective. There is no objective right or wrong."
    The archdiocese sent a letter in December to its 39 Montgomery County parishes stating which parts of the curriculum contradict Catholic teachings.
    "Since homosexual relations can never generate new life and the God-given complementarity of man and woman is not present, the union is incomplete and cannot lead to fulfillment," the letter stated. "At the same time, our faith recognizes some people feel an attraction for their same gender. We are called to treat them with respect, compassion and sensitivity, to avoid unjust discrimination against them and to understand their call to chastity."
    The letter also urged parents to learn more and to become involved in their children's schooling.
    The archdiocese has been reluctant to issue a public statement or take public action against the curriculum.
    "If we weighed in on the curriculum, I'm afraid it would just be a blip, and then it would be forgotten," said Susan Gibbs, the archdiocese spokeswoman. "The real change comes from people getting engaged in what's being taught."
    Most of the county's 200,000 Catholics send their children to public schools, Miss Gibbs said.
    Groups such as TeachtheFacts.org (TTF), a parent organization in favor of the curriculum, also was collecting petition signatures to send to the board.
    Moral and religious objections to homosexuality have been a central point of disagreement in the 4-month-old debate over the curriculum, which will be tested in six schools in April and May. The board will vote on the curriculum this summer.
    The six pilot schools have not been named.
    Advocates of the curriculum say it simply acknowledges that homosexuality exists, and gives teenagers all the facts about sex and sexual orientation. They also say the curriculum encourages children to accept others.
    "The curriculum doesn't tell any child about what their values should be, except for one, and that is the golden rule," said Maryam Balbed, a mother of two public school students and TTF co-founder. "If there are any values in this curriculum, it's summed up in one rule: Accept others."
    Curriculum opponents see it differently.
    For example, the eighth-grade "Family Life and Human Sexuality" course discusses "how you develop your sexual identity," which includes a student's sexual orientation and "gender identity," which is "a person's internal sense of knowing whether he or she is male or female."
    Critics say the passage encourages children to consider whether they are homosexual or "transgendered," a term that has been approved for teacher reference.
    Mrs. Balbed and Jim Kennedy, another parent and TTF co-founder, say the passage instructs students only about what already exists.
    "It has to do with how one incorporates sexuality into [his or her] overall identity," Mrs. Balbed said.
    Mr. Caruso is also the Catholic representative on the citizens advisory committee that crafted the curriculum. He has not voted for the curriculum, and he said the committee has a bias in favor of homosexuality. The committee chairman has denied this charge.
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

R050223Md   PG clergy lobbying against slots plan
 

By Robert Redding Jr.
THE WASHINGTON TIMES

ANNAPOLIS -- Church leaders in Prince George's County have mobilized a considerable lobbying campaign against legislation that could establish slot-machine gambling in the county and the state.
    "We have put the call out to every pastor to fax, e-mail and call members of the [county] delegation to Annapolis to express their vehement opposition to any further form of gambling to be introduced into the state of Maryland," said the Rev. Jonathan L. Weaver, president of the 200-member-church Collective Banking Group of Prince George's County.
    The county has become a battleground on the slots gambling issue. Gov. Robert L. Ehrlich Jr., a Republican, has proposed placing some machines at the Rosecroft harness-racing track in Fort Washington, but the Democrat-controlled Senate has approved a plan that could exclude Prince George's County.
    Yesterday, a House Ways and Means Committee subcommittee kept the county out of its slots plan. The House version calls for authorizing 9,500 machines in only Anne Arundel, Dorchester, Frederick and Harford counties -- down from the 15,500 machines at seven sites sought by Mr. Ehrlich and the Senate.
    House Speaker Michael E. Busch, Anne Arundel County Democrat, told the Associated Press that the changes were needed to get the bill out of the Ways and Means Committee, where it has died the past two years. The full committee is expected to vote on the bill this week.
    The Prince George's delegation has been united in its opposition to slot machine gambling, driven in part by churches big and small across the county.
    Mr. Weaver, pastor of Greater Mount Nebo African Methodist Episcopal Church in Bowie, said he has told his church's 2,000 members to contact their representatives in the General Assembly to voice their opposition to slots.
    "We have to make the time so the delegates will hear our voices," he said. "This will cause harm to our families and communities. This is not a Democrat or Republican issue."
    Mr. Weaver, who has traveled three times this year to Annapolis to lobby lawmakers, is scheduled to make his fourth trip today to announce a "Stop Slots Sabbath" campaign, sponsored by the anti-slots group Stop Slots Maryland.
    Meanwhile, the Rev. Vandy Kennedy, pastor of Walker Mill Baptist Church in Capitol Heights, has preached as many as a dozen sermons on the ills of gambling, including one titled "You Can't Gamble with God."
    "Anybody that votes for gambling demoralizes their congregation, and that's the bottom line," said Mr. Kennedy, whose church boasts 200 members. "How are you going to rob God's house to finance Satan's house?"
    The Rev. Diane Johnson, pastor of Jerusalem AME Church in Clinton, said, "Ministers are leaders in the community, and ministers advocate for the greater good.
    "And for myself, I believe that slots are not for the greater good of the community," said Miss Johnson, who also serves as financial secretary for the Collective Banking Group of Prince George's County.
    The gambling legislation aims to generate funds for education initiatives with revenue from slots licenses and profits. Mr. Ehrlich has predicted the plan could generate as much as $800 million a year for schools and has earmarked $100 million of slots revenue for school construction.
    The Senate version would require that $150 million from slots revenue be spent on public school construction each year for eight years. The House version would direct nearly all of the state's slots revenue to school construction, instead of classroom instruction.
    "Politically, they are using education to push the agenda, and that is not right," said the Rev. Don Massey, pastor of Progressive Church in Temple Hills. "How are they going to promote the well-being of somebody at the expense of another group of people?"
    Senate President Thomas V. Mike Miller Jr., Prince George's County Democrat, has predicted that the Democrat-controlled General Assembly this year will pass a slots gambling bill.
    House Majority Leader Kumar P. Barve, Montgomery County Democrat, has told The Washington Times that lawmakers have persuaded Mr. Busch to allow a full House vote on the legislation this year.
    •Â  This article is based in part on wire service reports.
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

L050223Va   Stem-cell research bill sent to governor
 

By Christina Bellantoni
THE WASHINGTON TIMES

RICHMOND -- The House yesterday passed a bill that would create a stem-cell research fund in memory of actor Christopher Reeve.
    The measure, which does not apply to embryonic stem-cell research, passed on a 76-22 vote with no debate.
    The Senate has approved the legislation, and it will now go to Gov. Mark Warner, a Democrat, for consideration.
    Under the measure, the "Christopher Reeve Stem Cell Research Fund" would be created and would pay for Virginia college research on ailments such as diabetes, cancer and heart disease.
    The bill was sponsored by Sen. H. Russell Potts Jr., Winchester Republican. No money would go to fund embryonic stem-cell research, which pro-life groups oppose.
    The fund will consist of gifts, grants and donations from public or private sources. It will be managed by the Commonwealth Health Research Board.
    Mr. Reeve died in October after having been paralyzed in a horse riding accident in Virginia in 1995.
    •••
    A tug of war has begun between House and Senate budget negotiators who must agree on how to spend a $1.2 billion budget surplus when crafting amendments to the state budget.
    The 11 delegates and senators negotiating the spending plan did not meet their midnight deadline last night, and have just two more days to hammer out the final details. The negotiators spent most of last night sending each other messages. At dinnertime, most had not met face to face.
    All but one of the House negotiators went to dinner and did not come back for the evening.
    The main sticking point is how much to spend on transportation and whether to end the accelerated sales tax procedure.
    Several lawmakers have said privately that they think it will be difficult to reach an agreement before the scheduled adjournment Saturday.
    Most in the House want to adjourn on time or earlier, particularly because the legislature spent an unprecedented 115 days fighting over tax increases last year.
    House Appropriations Chairman Vincent F. Callahan Jr. said he was frustrated because the Senate is "holding firm" on $347 million in general fund spending for transportation. The House wants to spend $393 million in general fund dollars for transportation.
    "We have a deadline and we're not going to meet it," said the Fairfax County Republican, one of the chief budget negotiators. "I'm not optimistic at all."
    Senate Finance Committee Chairman John H. Chichester said he thinks the Senate had met the House halfway.
    "We've gone as far as we can go," the Stafford County Republican said.
    Mr. Chichester proposed that negotiators work on other details in hopes of a compromise on those. "We're ready to go to work," he said.
    •••
    The House yesterday watered down and passed a measure intended to crack down on teens who drive while chatting on cell phones.
    On a 64-34 vote, the House approved a bill that would ticket motorists younger than 18 for using hand-held cell phones while driving only if they are stopped for another offense.
    When Sen. Jay O'Brien's bill left the Senate, it banned any use of a cellular phone while driving and made it a "primary offense," sufficient by itself to warrant a traffic ticket.
    Mr. O'Brien, Fairfax County Republican, aimed the measure at reducing the number of deadly accidents involving young drivers distracted by telephone calls, voice mails and text messages on their mobile phones.
    The House Militia, Police and Public Safety Committee on Friday reduced it to a "secondary offense." House floor amendments yesterday limited the offense exclusively to the use of hand-held phones, and then only when the car is moving.
    That sends the measure back to the Senate, which is likely to reject the amendments and let House and Senate negotiators reconcile sharp differences over the bill.
    •••
    The General Assembly yesterday gave final approval to a bill that would give college students more time to shop around for the best prices for textbooks.
    The bill requires public colleges to disclose the titles of required books as soon as the campus bookstore receives the list, allowing students more time to shop online and elsewhere.
    Supporters said that campus bookstores essentially have a monopoly because students often don't find out which books they need until it's too late to shop around.
    Virginia-21, an advocacy group for college-age Virginians, said that the thousands of students who support the bill should be encouragement enough for the governor to sign it into law.
    The legislation also prohibits professors from taking kickbacks from publishers for assigning specific books to students.
    •Â This article is based in part on wire service reports.
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

R050222Va   Virginia Senate panel kills House prayer measure
 

By Christina Bellantoni
THE WASHINGTON TIMES

RICHMOND — A Senate panel yesterday rejected a constitutional amendment that would have allowed prayer in public facilities — one of several conservative, House-approved measures that senators have killed in recent weeks.
    Opponents of the proposed amendment said it essentially would reinstate prayer in public schools. The House approved the measure on a 69-27 vote earlier this month.
    Senators — many of whom supported tax increases last year — also this year defeated legislation proposed by House delegates that would have barred illegal aliens from attending state colleges or penalized persons for wearing clothes that reveal their underwear. Both measures easily passed the House.
    Republicans control both chambers, but there have been feuds between the two legislative bodies for several years.
    The most prominent split came last year when both could not agree on tax increases. The dispute led lawmakers to extend the regular winter session to 115 days.
    The majority of the 40-member Senate had approved a $4 billion tax increase package that the House rejected. Both chambers agreed to a $1.38 billion tax increase only after a group of Republicans broke with their party's leadership and voted in support of the raise.
    The philosophical differences between the two chambers resurfaced yesterday when the Senate Courts of Justice Committee voted 10-5 to kill the prayer amendment proposed by Delegate Charles W. Carrico Sr., Grayson Republican.
    The amendment would have allowed prayer and other professions of "religious beliefs, heritage and traditions" on public property, including schools. Under state law, it already is legal for schools in Virginia to allow time for silent prayer and to permit religious student clubs to meet during noninstructional time.
    Most senators said they don't think the Virginia Constitution should be changed, and noted that the amendment would protect Christians, who constitute the majority in the state, and hurt those who practice other religions.
    "Majorities don't need to be protected, minorities do," said Sen. Richard L. Saslaw, Fairfax County Democrat. He said amending the constitution would invite an "avalanche" of lawsuits.
    Mr. Carrico disagreed. "The majority faith in this country is the one that is under attack, and that is the Christian faith," he said. "The Christian faith in this country has been grossly persecuted over the past few years."
    Mr. Carrico said professions of faith recently have been confined to the "four walls of your church," adding: "Our country was built on the Christian principles of the Bible. Today, our constitution, in my opinion, has to be strengthened to protect those rights of all Christians around this country."
    The amendment would have affected the religious freedom guarantees created in the 1786 Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom, authored by Thomas Jefferson and James Madison.
    Senators said the amendment wasn't needed because religious freedom already exists.
    "I see absolutely no reason to amend the constitution to do this; it's simply not necessary," said Sen. John S. Edwards, Roanoke Democrat. "It survived 219 years without being tinkered with."
    Michael P. Farris, a conservative constitutional lawyer, argued the amendment was necessary to protect religious free speech.
    Mr. Farris said he once defended a child whose school principal forced him to stop praying before lunch.
    "This has got to stop," said Mr. Farris, who was a Republican nominee for lieutenant governor in 1993. "I think we need a constitutional provision that's for the people " all the people — including local government officials who frankly need a civics lesson."
    Sen. Kenneth Thomas Cuccinelli II agreed, saying activist judges are putting religious freedom in jeopardy.
    The Fairfax County Republican said U.S. Supreme Court decisions in the early 1960s striking down organized prayer by school officials "have swung the pendulum too far the other way."
    "The fact of the matter is the Founders, who would have never thought of atheism as a religion, are now confronted with a Supreme Court that does," Mr. Cuccinelli said.
    The deep division between the two chambers has been more evident on social measures involving abortion and homosexual adoption.
    For example, a Senate committee recently rejected a House-approved measure that would have required doctors to give anesthesia to an unborn child during an abortion. The House voted 72-20 to approve the bill. The Senate Education and Health Committee rejected the legislation on a 9-6 vote.
    The fate of House bills in the Senate has become so predictable that delegates now often joke about a Senate committee room having a "trap door" for delegates who present bills that senators know they will not endorse.
    During floor debates, lawmakers frequently refer to their colleagues in the other chamber as "the body down the hall," instead of using their proper names.
    Each chamber has its own version of what Richmond insiders call "Kill Day," when a House or Senate committee rejects a significant number of the other chamber's bills. The House Militia, Police and Public Safety Committee most recently rejected red-light camera and seat-belt bills that were approved by the Senate.
    Some senators recently made comments about the maturity level of the delegates.
    During a debate on the "Droopy Drawers" bill earlier this month, Mr. Edwards said he thought the delegate who sponsored the measure should have gotten more guidance from House leaders. The House had voted 60-34 to approve the bill, which would have imposed a $50 fine on those caught with their underwear exposed.
    "This has passed the House of Delegates by 60 votes, and I think it is up to the Senate, using perhaps more mature judgment, to deal with this in the appropriate fashion," Mr. Edwards had said.
    •Â This article is based in part on wire service reports.
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv