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
L050314      Congress makes last-minute try to save Schiavo
L050314L    Condoleezza Rice and abortion.
L050315       Pro-choice view an obstacle for GOP hopefuls
L050315Md  Sarbanes opens starting gates for a wild race
L050316       Abortion records sought in Kansas
L050317       Hillary's example
L050317       Terri's bill
L050317C     Prayers for Terri
L050318       'Ethical reflection' urged before stem-cell research
L050318       S.D. tightens abortion rules
L050318       Impasse halts bills to save Schiavo
L050318       Tough choice
L050319       Schiavo's feeding tube is removed
L050320       Hill mission: Save Schiavo
L050320Md  Mfume, Steele eye Senate showdown

HOMOSEXUAL BEHAVIOR/PERVERSION
H050313      Connecticut, Oregon study civil unions
H050315      California judge rejects same-sex 'marriage' ban
H050316Va  Both sides tout gay 'marriage' ruling
H050318      HIV, AIDS agency faulted
H050318L   Defending voting rights and marriage

RELIGION/RELIGIOUS PERSECUTION
R050313C    Justice cause for re-election?
R050313E    Other nations' laws
R050316      Scalia's critique
R050316      U.S. seeks pacts on religious freedom
R050316E    The 'nuclear option' fallout
R050317       Frist pledges to protect Boy Scouts
R050317      Cardinal lashes out at 'Da Vinci Code'
R050317      Episcopalian plan stays consecrations
R050317E    Majority rule on judges
R050317Va  ACLU seeks to reinstate suit over teen nudist camp
R050318      Panel gives nod to Bush judicial nominee
R050318      Up or down
R050318      Judicial struggle
R050318      MICHIGAN    Governor starts faith-based initiative
R050318E    Freedom in the pulpit
R050320      Tennessee sets 2006 vote on marriage amendment


EDUCATION
E050316L    '3Rs' — not sex education — needed
E050317C    Anti-intellectualism at Harvard
E050320Md Sex-education classes attract parental opposition
MEDIA
M050315      Study finds press negative on Bush
M050318      Confidence low for lawyers, press
M050320C   Poor reflections in news mirror

OTHER
O050317      Gene study sheds light on sexes' differences
O050317E    Liberals vs. liberals
O050318      Virginity pledgers found no less susceptible to ills
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

When the Supreme Court nullified death-penalty statutes for 16- and 17-year-olds in 20 states in its 5-4 Roper v. Simmons decision of March 1, it appealed, among other things, to world opinion and to statutes the United States hasn't agreed to. Meanwhile in so doing, it ignored the many Americans who think that sometimes, when juveniles commit capital offenses, they deserve death. The question all this prompts, in our view, is whether the time is drawing near for Congress to limit the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court.
    If that seems extreme, consider how little constitutionality and U.S. law figured in the Roper v. Simmons case. The decision in Justice Anthony M. Kennedy's majority opinion on juveniles and the death penalty rested primarily on "our society's evolving standards of decency" as Justice Kennedy saw them. "[Eighteen] states — or 47 percent of states that permit capital punishment — now have legislation prohibiting the execution of offenders under 18," Justice Kennedy posited, calling it a consensus. The Supreme Court decision overturned a 15-year-old Supreme Court ruling that the juvenile death-penalty statutes are constitutional.
    It's not just the faulty reasoning that is troubling; it's the faulty law. Most prominently, Justice Kennedy proceeded to invoke international laws to which the United States doesn't even subscribe. "It is fair to say that the United States now stands alone in a world that has turned its face against the juvenile death penalty," Justice Kennedy wrote. He pointed to a treaty the United States hasn't signed, the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, and one it signed without agreeing to its juvenile death-penalty provisions, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, to buttress the argument. World opinion, he wrote, "while not controlling our outcome, does provide respected and significant confirmation for our own conclusions." He claimed a national consensus exists on the issue, pointing to the fewer than half of death-penalty states that disallow it.
    This was too much for Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, who is normally an international-law enthusiast. "Because I do not believe that a genuine national consensus against the juvenile death penalty has yet developed," she wrote in her dissent, "I can assign no such confirmatory role to the international consensus described by the court." She's right, of course: Some polls indicate that one-third of Americans support keeping the juvenile death penalty, which is one reason why more than half of the country's death-penalty states allowed it.
    It was also too much for Justice Antonin Scalia, who took exception to Justice Kennedy's resort to the two treaties. "Unless the Court has added to its arsenal the power to join and ratify treaties on behalf of the United States, I cannot see how this evidence favors, rather than refutes, its position," he wrote in a dissent joined by Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist and Justice Clarence Thomas. Justice Scalia also had caustic words for the supposed "consensus." As he wrote: "Words have no meaning if the views of less than 50 percent of death penalty States can constitute a national consensus. Our previous cases have required overwhelming opposition to a challenged practice, generally over a long period of time."
    It's not hard to see why the justices were unhappy with the decision. American courts have used foreign law and international law in their decisions since their inception. But what they haven't done is reason according to laws the United States hasn't agreed to. That strain of thought is new, and it's the product of a movement that favors international law as an end in itself.
    As Yale's Harold Koh has put it in the past, the point of the new thinking is "bringing international law home." Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg said in 2003 that she hoped America could discard its "Lone Ranger" approach to the Constitution. Justice Stephen Breyer, who has invoked the rulings of Zimbabwe and India in his opinions, said on ABC's "This Week" in 2003 that Americans will need to figure out whether the Constitution "fits into the governing documents of other nations." Justice O'Connor herself has a track record here. In 1997 she said that American judges and lawyers "sometimes seem a bit insular" and "forget that there are other legal systems in the world."
    But international law isn't always desirable, and sometimes the United States rejects it. On Wednesday, the United States did just that when it withdrew from an agreement that gave a foreign entity control over, among other things, U.S. death penalty verdicts for foreign nationals. The agreement, an optional protocol to the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, had frequently been used by death-penalty opponents to hand cases to a more congenial tribunal. In this case, the State Department reportedly withdrew after the International Court of Justice told the United States to hold new hearings for 51 Mexican nationals on death row.
    If the United States is not a signatory to a law, there are usually good reasons for it. In any event, it is Congress' prerogative, not the Supreme Court's, to decide whether the United States will accede to a given treaty or body of international law. What happens when Supreme Court justices ignore that fact?
    We ask the question because we may be close to the time when Congress must exercise its authority to vouchsafe the supremacy of U.S. law in the Supreme Court. Congress possesses the constitutional authority to limit the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, so it's worth examining precisely how it would do that. There's no question that such authority exists. Thomas Jefferson regarded judicial supremacy, the doctrine of those who disagree, as "a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy." He worried of a judiciary "working like gravity by night and day, gaining a little today and a little tomorrow, and advancing its noiseless step like a thief, over the field of jurisdiction, until all shall be usurped from the States, and the government of all be consolidated into one."
    In the book "Coercing Virtue: The Worldwide Rule of Judges," Robert Bork sees four possibilities to limit an overreaching judiciary. Two of these pertain to Congress. First, Congress could resort to Article III, Section 2 of the Constitution, which provides that "the Supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction . . . with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make." Another recourse would have Congress adopt a constitutional amendment "to permit the overruling of Supreme Court decisions by the full Congress or by the Senate."
    Mr. Bork's other two remedies are the prerogatives of presidents and political movements as much as Congress. A third is to appoint only judges who respect the Constitution, which is an ongoing labor. The fourth is a campaign to persuade the court of the error of its ways. Justice Scalia's dissents would seem to be a noble beginning of such a project.
    These four remedies are at least a worthy starting point for a discussion on reining in the judiciary. Such a discussion is urgently needed today. Without it, the Supreme Court will continue on a reckless path of disregard for U.S. law.
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

L050314L   Condoleezza Rice and abortion.

    I read, with just a little more than disappointment, about Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice's "mildly pro-choice" stance on abortion ("Rice vows no apology to North Korea," Page 1, Saturday).
    In this, and numerous other interviews, she describes herself as deeply religious. She points out that she is the daughter of a Presbyterian minister. In an interview with the Presbyterian Layman, she describes herself as an, "all-over-the-map Republican" and "almost shockingly libertarian" on other issues.
    Lest the reader be misled, there is more than one Presbyterian church. The one to which Miss Rice belongs is the Presbyterian Church (USA), which makes the following statement about abortion: "There is [both] agreement and disagreement on the basic issue of abortion. The committee [on problem pregnancies and abortion] agreed that there are no biblical texts that speak expressly to the topic of abortion, but that taken in their totality the Holy Scriptures are filled with messages that advocate respect for the woman and child before and after birth. Therefore the Presbyterian Church (USA) encourages an atmosphere of open debate and mutual respect for a variety of opinions concerning the issues related to problem pregnancies and abortion."
    In other words, they are pro-choice. They are also embroiled in a controversy over whether or not they should ordain active, practicing homosexuals to ministry. In official church documents, it is repeatedly stated that the Bible has errors in it.
    As to her quote about being "libertarian," here are a few common definitions of that word. "One who advocates maximizing individual rights and minimizing the role of the state." "One who believes in free will."
    So now we know that, upon further inspection, Miss Rice's deeply religious beliefs are grounded in one of the most liberal Protestant denominations, one which doesn't even believe that its own guidebook, the Bible, is infallible. We also know that she believes in individual rights, unless you're an unborn child.
    Needless to say, the Republicans are afraid of Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, already shape-shifting as she reinvents herself for an expected 2008 presidential campaign. This is a party which has allowed itself to be pulled over to the left, state by state, and now has little more to offer than the hope of better Supreme Court nominees.
    Almost every liberal candidate has talent, personality, intellect, and energy. Until fairly recently, conservatives in this country recognized that, without a strong moral foundation, these things are not enough. Miss Rice's brand of religiosity seems to have something in common with modern-day abortion clinics. As Matthew wrote about the Pharisees: "They look beautiful on the outside. But on the inside they are full of the bones of the dead."
    Is this what you really want?
 
    RICHARD BROWN
    Parkville
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

E050316L    '3Rs' — not sex education — needed

    I wonder if the placement of the article "Schools chosen for sex course in Montgomery" (Page 1, March 5) was to bring it to everyone's attention or to emphasize the importance of the subject.
    It got my attention, and I object to the sex course in the strongest terms. Sex education is the responsiblility of mom and dad. Schools are supposed to teach the "three Rs."
     For some reason, a citizens advisory committee is pushing this course. Citizens for Responsible Curriculum is against the course. The 20 or so people on the advisory committee are not elected; the school board that unanimously approved the curriculum is elected, and its members will have to explain their reasons at the next election.
    I, for one, will do everything in my power to vote them out of office. When our students are falling behind other nations' students, it's because of a lack of quality education. When we can't mention God in school or in our pledge of allegiance or point a finger at someone, but it's OK to teach students how to put a condom on a cucumber, there's a problem.
 
    JOE ABOSSO
    Potomac
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

R050316E   The 'nuclear option' fallout

By Harlan Ullman

A political mushroom-shaped cloud could soon envelop Congress if the controlling Republican majority in the Senate exercises the so-called nuclear option to end the tradition of extended debate. The risk is a massive chain reaction that will create a political nuclear winter for Congress and the conduct of the nation's business. The trigger is gridlock over a handful of the administration's judicial nominees opposed by Democrats. But the underlying reason is power and, in the poisonously partisan atmosphere in Washington, the opportunity for one party to dominate the other.
    Pushed by the White House, Republicans could put the Senate on a majority-rule footing. Unlike the House of Representatives, the Senate operates on the basis of extended debate, including the famous filibuster and the right of the minority to exercise that procedure. To end a filibuster, "cloture" of a "super majority" of 60 votes was needed, or, if the full Senate was in session, 67 votes was needed. Today, the Republicans control 55 seats, five short of invoking cloture. Through Rule 62, the majority can call for a parliamentary ruling by the Senate's president, Vice President Dick Cheney, on the constitutionality of this procedure. Mr. Cheney can change the rule to a simple majority vote.
    The conventional political deterrent to the nuclear option is the threat of closing the Senate down. But if simple majority vote prevailed, would Republicans need any Democrats to keep the Senate working? Of course, little is that simple in Washington.
    The greatest political fear is that with one party fully controlling all three houses of government, the minority would have no representation and this republic would be transformed into a de facto parliamentary system. Here, two observations are relevant. First, when Franklin Roosevelt was president, he enjoyed huge majorities in both houses. But he was unable to get some of his most important legislation passed, nor could he "pack" the Supreme Court. And the Senate's rejection, so far, of President Bush's plans for Social Security is relevant.
    But, second, would a parliamentary-like government based on majority rule be more relevant to the world of the 21st century that is instantly connected, incredibly complex, overly regulated and filled with new dangers that defy conventional solutions and that may finally have outgrown the capacity of a political system designed by the best minds of the 18th century to work effectively?
    With issues spanning the war on terror, imposing peace in the Middle East through democratization, reforming Social Security and the tax code, attempting to balance the budget and provide for future domestic liabilities that extend into the tens of trillions of dollars, perhaps a parliamentary type of government based on strict majority rule now makes better sense. Hence, in that context, the nuclear option could prove to be in the nation's long-term interest. In the short term, however, the consequences would be radioactive and already bitter partisan politics would become even more bitter.
    Republicans would move to fill the bench with judges of a conservative bent. Reversal of Roe v. Wade, strengthening of domestic security laws to protect against terror and other movement to the "right" would no doubt follow. Given near-absolute control by the majority that seals off legislative prerogatives, civil disobedience by the minority to close down government through obstructing the work of Congress could result. Congress would become a spectacle.
    While many Americans might consider this favorably for a short time, finding any resolution to this pending explosion will not happen easily. Avoidance of the nuclear option is the most prudent path through some form of compromise. And hidden from public view like the proverbial crazy relative in the closet is that Congress, along with the rest of government, is simply not organized to deal with many issues and challenges before it. Reform is not only overdue, it is essential. Yet, there is no constituency for reform in Congress and the public remains disengaged.
    Should Congress shut down, then the president and executive branch will become the de facto government without any check or balance. But how long would the public tolerate unicameral government, even if the White House proves to be more effective at the job than the current system? Nothing less than the political future of the nation could be at stake. And whatever political debate and fallout over invoking the nuclear option occur, both are likely to favor the lowest common denominator, meaning that these greater consequences will be ignored or dismissed.
    So, should Republicans take the risk, throw the dice and let the Senate go nuclear? Or should we the people use this pending cataclysm to force our elected leaders to address these serious questions seriously? The answer is obvious. What will happen is not.
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

R050317E   Majority rule on judges

By Gary J. Andres

The Senate continues to produce solid legislative accomplishments, despite roiling partisanship right below the surface. Scheduled completion of the fiscal 2006 budget resolution this week follows major victories on class-action legislation and bankruptcy reform.
    Yet one issue could throw sand in the gears of legislative progress — continued unprecedented obstruction of President Bush's appellate court nominees by Senate Democrats. Majority Leader Bill Frist has rightly insisted on finding a way to allow the Senate to take an up or down vote on these jurists. One possibility is a parliamentary move that eliminates filibusters as a tactic to deny confirmation to judges who have majority support in the Senate. Democrats announced this week they would unleash an obstructionist juggernaut if Republicans choose that path.
    Inside-the-Beltway parlance calls this the nuclear option, an unfortunate misnomer for a couple of reasons. First, the Republicans didn't start this fight. Democrats launched what amounts to a first-strike procedural warhead last Congress. Republican leaders are simply demanding the restoration of the status quo in the confirmation process. Labels like "nuclear option" imply major, unprecedented and pre-emptive actions by Senate Republicans. Not true. It's the Democrats' tactics, filibustering and denying confirmation to majority-supported appellate court nominees, that is "unprecedented" and "pre-emptive."
    This debate needs more history, not hysteria.Democrats protested this week about Republicans using majority rule to eliminate minority obstructionism, but such tactics have a long and venerable tradition in the Senate. Indeed, Republican attempts to reassert and enforce the principle of majority rule are part of an ongoing, evolutionary parliamentary give-and-take as old as the Senate itself.
    As political scientist Sarah A. Binder argues in her book, "Minority Rights, Majority Rule," the history of both the House and Senate includes an evolving set of procedures and rules based on the shifting balance between minority tactics and the majority's need to govern. "When minority parties devise new ways of obstructing the majority, the preferences of the majority about desired institutional arrangements shift as well," she writes. This give-and-take between the minority trying to obstruct and the majority adjusting the rules is evident going back to the earliest days of Congress.
    Even in the antebellum Senate, a period conventional wisdom suggests was less partisan, minority tactics often resulted in calls for rules changes. Ms. Binder recounts frustrated Henry Clay on the Senate floor in July 1841 saying, "the minority here control the action of the Senate, and cause all the delay of the public business." While Clay ultimately dropped his bid to change procedure, he vowed that he was "ready for the adoption of a rule which would place the business of the Senate under the control of the majority in the Senate."
    In a recent article in the Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy, Martin B. Gold and Dimple Gupta make a similar point, outlining a number of examples of how majority votes in the Senate accomplished procedural changes, sometimes without even altering the standing rules of the Senate. "Throughout Senate history, a simple majority has changed Senate procedures governing debate and by setting precedents or adopting Standing Orders that altered the operation of the Standing Rules (of the Senate) without amending their actual text," they write.
    According to Mr. Gold and Ms. Gupta, in 1977, 1979, 1980 and 1987, Sen. Robert Byrd of West Virginia, while serving as Democratic leader, either threatened or forced the Senate to alter procedures by majority vote. In each case, a minority of senators applied the rules creatively to obstruct and in each case procedures to return to the previous status quo were established by either the threat or actual application of a simple majority vote.
    Republicans won't act until later this spring, after Democrats implement additional filibusters. But then they should re-assert majority control. Doing otherwise is a de facto change in over 200 years of Senate history.
    So, despite the unfortunate conventional wisdom that Senate Republicans are doing something novel, clarifying procedures by way of majority vote has been done through the history of the Senate as majority control has regularly jousted with minority obstructionism. Re-asserting that the Senate can take steps to alter its procedures is consistent with precedent and constitutional intent: It's neither "new," nor "nuclear."
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

O050317E   Liberals vs. liberals

By Burt Prelutsky

Out here, in Los Angeles, we have recently been treated to a colossal hissy fit that had liberals gunning for other liberals. One would think that any right-thinking conservative would happily sit back and watch the blood run in the gutters. But even in a battle royal that pits lefties against their own kind, a fair-minded person can't help taking sides.
    On one side, you have the knee-jerk liberal editors at the L.A. Times wearing the white trunks or, in this case, at least the white hats. On the other side, you have the idly rich women of the Westside — most of them the wives or ex-wives of multimillionaires like Michael Huffington, Bud Yorkin and Larry David. They're the sort of ladies who, because they might have undocumented maids, nannies and gardeners from Mexico and Guatemala working for them, not only favor open borders, but believe they're in line for canonization. These are the knuckleheads who support NOW and the ACLU, and who yammer about fossil fuels and the ozone layer while they gad about in SUVs and private jets.
    Perhaps not as wealthy as some of her cohorts, but equally self-deluded is Susan Estrich. Today, she's a law professor at the University of Southern California; in the past, she was the campaign manager for Michael Dukakis. Somehow, Miss Estrich has turned an annoyingly nasal voice, a painted-on smirk and a ton of attitude into a secondary career as one of TV's talking heads.
    Recently, she declared a jihad against the L.A. Times because she had decided that they don't publish nearly enough female columnists. She even had the chutzpah to assign her college students to keep track. Apparently — assuming that her law students are able to count — the L.A. Times was publishing men four times as often as they were publishing women.
    The editors, fools that they are, took the charge to heart. In their lame defense, they countered the accusation by pointing out that they published women more frequently than did such liberal citadels as the New York Times and The Washington Post. Miss Estrich and her cohorts replied that what other papers do or don't do is no defense for what the L.A. Times does or doesn't do.
    Then, when she realized that the L.A. Times wasn't about to knuckle under to the ladies who lunch, she stooped to suggesting that perhaps editor Michael Kinsley's brain had been adversely affected by his illness. The man suffers from Parkinson's.
    At one fell swoop, Miss Estrich not only struck a new low in debating tactics, but by trying to score points off the man's illness, proved that in her case at least, it's compassionate liberal that's the oxymoron.
    The fact is, if anybody should be complaining about being underrepresented on the paper's op-ed page, it's not women; it's conservatives. By way of tokenism, once a week they run something by Max Boot. The rest of the week, they run letters to the editor from readers berating Mr. Boot.
    If women get to sound off 20 percent of the time in the Times, I'd say that's roughly 10 times as much space as writers from the right receive. Of course I'm only guessing.
    Unlike Miss Estrich, I don't have a cadre of eager coeds to do my counting for me.
    The worst thing about Miss Estrich and the other members of her overly pampered platoon is that they're hypocrites. It's not really female writers they want to see in the L.A. Times, it's female left-wing writers. I guarantee that if Ann Coulter, Tammy Bruce and Michelle Malkin started showing up on a regular basis, these wealthy, self-important elitists would be descending on the L.A. Times armed with tar and feathers.
     The truth is, with this gaggle of geese, agenda always trumps gender.
 
    Burt Prelutsky, author of "Conservatives Are From Mars, Liberals Are From San Francisco," is an award-winning TV writer.
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

H050318L   Defending voting rights and marriage

    I seem to be the poster lady for the rally events that took place in Annapolis Jan. 27 and March 10. For the second time, a picture of me, with my hands in the air, praising God, was part of the Metropolitan section (" 'Marriage' foes demonstrate," March 11).
     We are not " 'marriage' foes." We are defenders of marriage as it is traditionally known between one man and one woman. Marriage does not need to be redefined in order for homosexual couples to have civil rights. Rather than let the courts redefine marriage against the will of Maryland voters, we are asking the General Assembly to pass an amendment that gives Marylanders the opportunity to vote and decide this issue. After such a vote, marriage will either be defined, as it is currently, in Maryland law as between one man and one woman, or the definition of marriage in Maryland law will be reconfigured to include same-sex unions.
    Elected officials who say "Let the courts decide" are denying all of us, regardless of our sexual orientation, the right to vote. What do homosexuals fear? They should want to vote also.
    The civil rights march of 40 years ago was led by Martin Luther King from Selma to Montgomery, Ala., to excercise the civil right to vote for the black citizens of this country. A few days later, the law was signed. Now we are being asked to "let the judges decide." That's not what the law says. It says qualified citizens have the right to vote.
    Friday's story quoted a same-sex couple inside the House of Delegates as saying, "Once again, they are out there attacking who we are fundamentally, and here we are asking again politely for these rights."
    Quoting this individual, who probably did not hear one word that was spoken at this rally, misrepresented the spirit and intention of the entire rally. I must ask that the Associated Press reporter who wrote this story talk to me and the other participants seen in the photo.
 
    CAROL PINTO
    Baltimore
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

R050318E   Freedom in the pulpit

By Patrick J. Buchanan

On Oct. 19, 1960, Martin Luther King and 52 others were arrested in Rich's Department Store in Atlanta for refusing to leave a table in its Magnolia Room restaurant. On Monday, Oct. 24, the 52 "sit-ins" were released.
    But King was sentenced to four months at hard labor and sent to Reidsville State Prison. His pregnant wife, Coretta, was terrified King would never leave that rural prison alive.
    Told of the situation, John F. Kennedy placed a call to Mrs. King, and Robert Kennedy telephoned the judge who had ordered King to Reidsville. The next day, King was released on bail.
    Relief in the black community, especially in the South, was immense. King's father, a renowned Baptist preacher who had come out for Richard Nixon on religious grounds, now endorsed Kennedy. "Because this man was willing to wipe the tears from my daughter's eyes," said the senior King, "I've got a suitcase full of votes, and I'm going to take them to Mr. Kennedy and dump them in his lap." Writes Theodore H. White, chronicler of presidential campaigns,"Scores of Negro leaders, deeply Protestant but even more deeply impressed by Kennedy's action, followed suit."
    Black pastors told the story from pulpits. Outside their churches, pamphlets describing the episode were distributed in the millions on the Sunday before the election. The shift of the black vote to Kennedy probably decided the election of 1960.
    Yet, had King, which assuredly he did, told his congregation that Sunday what the Kennedys had done and what he proposed to do — take a "suitcase full of votes" to the Democratic nominee — his Ebenezer Baptist Church should have, under IRS. law, lost its tax exemption. As should have every church in the South whose pastor endorsed Kennedy from the pulpit that Sunday.
    That is the absurdity in the IRS tax code that Rep. Walter Jones of North Carolina has set about to abolish.
    Under The Houses of Worship Free Speech Restoration Act of 2005, the IRS code would be amended to permit priests, pastors and rabbis to express their "personal views on political matters or elections for public office during regular religious services, so long as these views are not disseminated beyond the members and guests assembled together at the service."
    Sunday services at black churches where candidates like Bill Clinton and John Kerry are embraced by preachers and pastors would be legal under U.S. law. But, so, too, would sermons from the pulpit by Catholic priests and Christian pastors who told congregations that abortion is the slaughter of the innocent, that homosexual marriage is an abomination, and they should vote for the candidate, be it George Bush, who will oppose them.
    What are we doing muzzling our religious leaders, who, like the prophets of old, have been ordained by God to hold rulers to account?
    America was founded by men and women who sought religious freedom. The Bill of Rights begins with a command: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech."
    How in such a land can we permit federal agents of the IRS to monitor speech in churches and punish priests or pastors or rabbis who speak truth to power by telling their congregations that some men and women are standing up for morality, while others are not. What kind of country have we become, when men and women who take vows to God thereby lose their rights?
    The power to tax is the power to destroy. How did the power to destroy churches whose preachers tell their congregations the truth as they see it — that some politicians are advancing God's Kingdom, while others are violating God's commandments — end up in the hands of the IRS? Because LBJ put it there.
    He had not intended, too, but in 1954, an election year, LBJ was bedeviled by tax-exempt groups who were pointing out the alleged Communist connections of some Texas liberals. LBJ had inserted in the IRS code a penalty loss of tax exemption for any organization whose leaders endorsed or opposed the election of a politician. His amendment was not intended for churches, but it bound them just the same.
    Separation of church and state means churches do not dictate state policy and the state does not dictate church teaching. It does not mean rulers have immunity from condemnation or praise.
    As Bishop Michael Sheridan of Colorado Springs argues, Catholic priests have a duty to declare "moral principles, including those pertaining to the social order, and to make judgments on human affairs to the extent that they are required by the fundamental rights of the human person or the salvation of souls." If Congress cannot get free the houses of God, the obstructionists, whoever they are, should get a hiding — from every pulpit in America.
 
     Patrick J. Buchanan served in the Nixon, Ford and Reagan administrations.
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

R050316E   The 'nuclear option' fallout

By Harlan Ullman

A political mushroom-shaped cloud could soon envelop Congress if the controlling Republican majority in the Senate exercises the so-called nuclear option to end the tradition of extended debate. The risk is a massive chain reaction that will create a political nuclear winter for Congress and the conduct of the nation's business. The trigger is gridlock over a handful of the administration's judicial nominees opposed by Democrats. But the underlying reason is power and, in the poisonously partisan atmosphere in Washington, the opportunity for one party to dominate the other.
    Pushed by the White House, Republicans could put the Senate on a majority-rule footing. Unlike the House of Representatives, the Senate operates on the basis of extended debate, including the famous filibuster and the right of the minority to exercise that procedure. To end a filibuster, "cloture" of a "super majority" of 60 votes was needed, or, if the full Senate was in session, 67 votes was needed. Today, the Republicans control 55 seats, five short of invoking cloture. Through Rule 62, the majority can call for a parliamentary ruling by the Senate's president, Vice President Dick Cheney, on the constitutionality of this procedure. Mr. Cheney can change the rule to a simple majority vote.
    The conventional political deterrent to the nuclear option is the threat of closing the Senate down. But if simple majority vote prevailed, would Republicans need any Democrats to keep the Senate working? Of course, little is that simple in Washington.
    The greatest political fear is that with one party fully controlling all three houses of government, the minority would have no representation and this republic would be transformed into a de facto parliamentary system. Here, two observations are relevant. First, when Franklin Roosevelt was president, he enjoyed huge majorities in both houses. But he was unable to get some of his most important legislation passed, nor could he "pack" the Supreme Court. And the Senate's rejection, so far, of President Bush's plans for Social Security is relevant.
    But, second, would a parliamentary-like government based on majority rule be more relevant to the world of the 21st century that is instantly connected, incredibly complex, overly regulated and filled with new dangers that defy conventional solutions and that may finally have outgrown the capacity of a political system designed by the best minds of the 18th century to work effectively?
    With issues spanning the war on terror, imposing peace in the Middle East through democratization, reforming Social Security and the tax code, attempting to balance the budget and provide for future domestic liabilities that extend into the tens of trillions of dollars, perhaps a parliamentary type of government based on strict majority rule now makes better sense. Hence, in that context, the nuclear option could prove to be in the nation's long-term interest. In the short term, however, the consequences would be radioactive and already bitter partisan politics would become even more bitter.
    Republicans would move to fill the bench with judges of a conservative bent. Reversal of Roe v. Wade, strengthening of domestic security laws to protect against terror and other movement to the "right" would no doubt follow. Given near-absolute control by the majority that seals off legislative prerogatives, civil disobedience by the minority to close down government through obstructing the work of Congress could result. Congress would become a spectacle.
    While many Americans might consider this favorably for a short time, finding any resolution to this pending explosion will not happen easily. Avoidance of the nuclear option is the most prudent path through some form of compromise. And hidden from public view like the proverbial crazy relative in the closet is that Congress, along with the rest of government, is simply not organized to deal with many issues and challenges before it. Reform is not only overdue, it is essential. Yet, there is no constituency for reform in Congress and the public remains disengaged.
    Should Congress shut down, then the president and executive branch will become the de facto government without any check or balance. But how long would the public tolerate unicameral government, even if the White House proves to be more effective at the job than the current system? Nothing less than the political future of the nation could be at stake. And whatever political debate and fallout over invoking the nuclear option occur, both are likely to favor the lowest common denominator, meaning that these greater consequences will be ignored or dismissed.
    So, should Republicans take the risk, throw the dice and let the Senate go nuclear? Or should we the people use this pending cataclysm to force our elected leaders to address these serious questions seriously? The answer is obvious. What will happen is not.
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

R050317E   Majority rule on judges

By Gary J. Andres

The Senate continues to produce solid legislative accomplishments, despite roiling partisanship right below the surface. Scheduled completion of the fiscal 2006 budget resolution this week follows major victories on class-action legislation and bankruptcy reform.
    Yet one issue could throw sand in the gears of legislative progress — continued unprecedented obstruction of President Bush's appellate court nominees by Senate Democrats. Majority Leader Bill Frist has rightly insisted on finding a way to allow the Senate to take an up or down vote on these jurists. One possibility is a parliamentary move that eliminates filibusters as a tactic to deny confirmation to judges who have majority support in the Senate. Democrats announced this week they would unleash an obstructionist juggernaut if Republicans choose that path.
    Inside-the-Beltway parlance calls this the nuclear option, an unfortunate misnomer for a couple of reasons. First, the Republicans didn't start this fight. Democrats launched what amounts to a first-strike procedural warhead last Congress. Republican leaders are simply demanding the restoration of the status quo in the confirmation process. Labels like "nuclear option" imply major, unprecedented and pre-emptive actions by Senate Republicans. Not true. It's the Democrats' tactics, filibustering and denying confirmation to majority-supported appellate court nominees, that is "unprecedented" and "pre-emptive."
    This debate needs more history, not hysteria.Democrats protested this week about Republicans using majority rule to eliminate minority obstructionism, but such tactics have a long and venerable tradition in the Senate. Indeed, Republican attempts to reassert and enforce the principle of majority rule are part of an ongoing, evolutionary parliamentary give-and-take as old as the Senate itself.
    As political scientist Sarah A. Binder argues in her book, "Minority Rights, Majority Rule," the history of both the House and Senate includes an evolving set of procedures and rules based on the shifting balance between minority tactics and the majority's need to govern. "When minority parties devise new ways of obstructing the majority, the preferences of the majority about desired institutional arrangements shift as well," she writes. This give-and-take between the minority trying to obstruct and the majority adjusting the rules is evident going back to the earliest days of Congress.
    Even in the antebellum Senate, a period conventional wisdom suggests was less partisan, minority tactics often resulted in calls for rules changes. Ms. Binder recounts frustrated Henry Clay on the Senate floor in July 1841 saying, "the minority here control the action of the Senate, and cause all the delay of the public business." While Clay ultimately dropped his bid to change procedure, he vowed that he was "ready for the adoption of a rule which would place the business of the Senate under the control of the majority in the Senate."
    In a recent article in the Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy, Martin B. Gold and Dimple Gupta make a similar point, outlining a number of examples of how majority votes in the Senate accomplished procedural changes, sometimes without even altering the standing rules of the Senate. "Throughout Senate history, a simple majority has changed Senate procedures governing debate and by setting precedents or adopting Standing Orders that altered the operation of the Standing Rules (of the Senate) without amending their actual text," they write.
    According to Mr. Gold and Ms. Gupta, in 1977, 1979, 1980 and 1987, Sen. Robert Byrd of West Virginia, while serving as Democratic leader, either threatened or forced the Senate to alter procedures by majority vote. In each case, a minority of senators applied the rules creatively to obstruct and in each case procedures to return to the previous status quo were established by either the threat or actual application of a simple majority vote.
    Republicans won't act until later this spring, after Democrats implement additional filibusters. But then they should re-assert majority control. Doing otherwise is a de facto change in over 200 years of Senate history.
    So, despite the unfortunate conventional wisdom that Senate Republicans are doing something novel, clarifying procedures by way of majority vote has been done through the history of the Senate as majority control has regularly jousted with minority obstructionism. Re-asserting that the Senate can take steps to alter its procedures is consistent with precedent and constitutional intent: It's neither "new," nor "nuclear."
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

R050313C   Justice cause for re-election?

By Terence P. Jeffrey

Now that he has made himself an uber-legislator, Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy should do as lesser legislators do. He should stand for re-election.
    What I mean is, he should resign -- and see if the president nominates him again, or the Senate confirms him.
    The Constitution, of course, sets no term limit for justices. They can resign, however, at any time. Explaining why the Framers gave justices unlimited terms, Justice Joseph Story (a Madison nominee) ironically cited the very reason Justice Kennedy should limit his own term: He put his personal view of popular opinion above our written Constitution.
    That's the very sin the Framers feared elected politicians would commit. To balance it, they gave justices indefinite tenure, hoping they would check power-hungry politicians by following only the Constitution as first written or duly amended.
    For if justices with limited terms interpreted the Constitution according to their own perceptions of popular opinion, asked Story, would it not make "at different times the most opposite commands?" Would it not "erect, behind the Constitution, a power unknown, and unprovided for by the Constitution, and greater than itself?"
    Two opinions rendered 16 years apart demonstrate how Justice Kennedy, despite lifetime tenure, behaves like a legislator, not a judge, and commits the very abuse Story describes. In both cases, the question was whether the Eighth Amendment ban on "cruel and unusual punishment" prohibits states from executing killers who commit murder before they are 18. In 1989, Justice Kennedy said no. Last week, he said yes.
    In 1989, Justice Kennedy embraced arguments by Justice Antonin Scalia. Last week, he rejected the same arguments -- made again by Justice Scalia.
    Americans have not amended the Eighth Amendment since 1989. But, thanks to Anthony Kennedy and four other justices who share his current personal opinion, the Eighth Amendment now means the opposite of what it meant in 1989 (and in 1789), insofar as executing 17-year-old killers is concerned.
    In the 1989 case, Stanford v. Kentucky, two teenage murderers appealed their death sentences, pointing to the 1958 case, Trop v. Dulles. In Trop, a World War II Army deserter argued depriving him of U.S. citizenship was "cruel and unusual" punishment for wartime desertion. It was a long shot: The penalty was enforced unchallenged since the Civil War.
    But a four-justice plurality in Trop ruled the Eighth Amendment "must draw its meaning from the evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society."
    They did not explain how future justices should divine America's "evolving standards," but feebly warned it must not be "reliance on personal preferences."
    In keeping with this, in Stanford, Justice Kennedy and Justice Scalia declared, "We emphatically reject petitioner's suggestion that the issues in this case permit us to apply our 'own informed judgment' regarding the desirability of permitting the death penalty for crimes by 16- and 17-year-olds."
    America's "evolving standards," they ruled, could be found primarily in the acts of state legislatures. Since 22 of 37 states allowing capital punishment in 1989 allowed it for both 16- and 17-year-olds, clearly America's "evolving standards" did not forbid executing juveniles.
    The dissenters in Stanford suggested foreign opinion should determine U.S. constitutional standards: "Within the world community, the imposition of the death penalty for juvenile crimes appears to be overwhelmingly disapproved." This seemed so ludicrous in 1989 the Scalia-Kennedy opinion didn't even rebut it.
    Last week, in Roper v. Simmons, Justice Kennedy improbably argued it was his perception that state legislatures since 1989 had demonstrated an "evolving standard" against a juvenile death penalty. He conceded, however, that of 22 states that allowed executing 16- and 17-year-olds then, 20 still do so.
    However, he claimed unilateral authority for the court to change what the Eighth Amendment means. "We then must determine, in the exercise of our own independent judgment, whether the death penalty is a disproportionate punishment for juveniles," he said. He backed up his new case against a juvenile death penalty by citing foreign opinion.
    This is exactly the raw exercise of power Story warned of and Justices Kennedy and Scalia in "emphatically" rejected in 1989.
    If Justice Kennedy and four other justices can change the meaning of the Constitution whenever their personal opinions -- or claimed perceptions of public (or foreign) opinion -- coincide, they are no longer judges but an uber-legislature.
    If Justice Kennedy is to claim the authority of a legislator to act on his personal opinion or his perception of public opinion, he should open himself to the political liability legislators face: He should resign and see if public opinion wants him back.
    President Bush should accept his resignation, and nominate a replacement who respects the United States Constitution and actually deserves an unlimited term.
 
    Terence P. Jeffrey is a nationally syndicated columnist.
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

L050317C   Prayers for Terri

By David Limbaugh

Without a further court order, Terri Schiavo's feeding tube will be removed Friday, and she will starve -- painfully, many say -- to death. Doesn't it strike you as eerie that the court relied on the testimony of an "estranged" husband in making its decision?
    Doesn't it strike you as horrifying that Terri may very well want to live but they are going to cause her to die, not by removing a respirator but a feeding tube?
    Do you really believe Terri's husband, Michael, who is living with another woman with whom he sired two children, is refusing to relinquish guardianship of Terri to her parents because he is irreversibly committed to carrying out Terri's wishes?
    Do you believe that disabled, but conscious and self-breathing people who can't physically feed themselves or verbally express their desire to live, but who have left no written legal directions for such circumstances, should be starved to death?
    How likely is it that Terri, now only 41, would have discussed her wishes about life support with her husband in 1990, when she would have only been in her mid-20s, with no inkling of life-threatening or disabling medical conditions?
    Without question, even young people discuss these unpleasant matters when they go through estate planning. But Terri didn't have a will, much less a "living will" or health-care power of attorney. If Terri had been so strong-willed and adamant on the subject, why didn't she make sure her papers were in order?
    Even if Terri told her husband she wouldn't want to be kept alive "artificially" if she were incapacitated, is it likely she would have been explicit enough to cover all possible scenarios (like she might have in a lawyer's office), such as those in this case?
    If you actually believe she expressed her wishes to Michael, do you think she was so thorough and unambiguous as to make clear her irrevocable desire to die even if it meant starving to death when she could breathe on her own?
    What is the urgency, other than financial, to end Terri's life, especially when her parents want her kept alive and have agreed to care for and assume guardianship of her? Do you really believe Terri's parents would insist on keeping her alive if they believed she were miserable and didn't want to live?
    Were you aware some believe suspicious circumstances surround Terri's injuries and there are discrepancies about her medical condition, such as whether she had a heart attack?
    Did you know that not long ago the Florida Department of Children and Families sought the court's permission to intervene in Terri's case to seek a delay to permit the investigation of claimed abuse?
    From what I have read, while Terri is severely disabled, she's not in a so-called vegetative state. She's not in a coma, and she's not medically terminal -- except by court decree of starvation. What if, as Terri's parents believe, Terri truly wants to go on living but just can't verbalize it? Would it be ethical to starve her just because she can't feed herself?
    If not, on what basis has the system decided to end her life? Surely we can agree it's entirely possible Terri wants to live even in her current condition even if she expressed a general desire 15 years ago that she did not want "heroic measures" taken to prolong her life under certain circumstances.
    Given Terri's reported responsiveness, her ability to breathe on her own, and the doubt and suspicious circumstances surrounding this case, shouldn't the decision be in favor of life, especially given that recently, for example, a comatose patient regained consciousness after 19 years?
    I find it haunting we live in a culture of death where the presumption seems against a human being wanting to go on living and the burden of proof is on those promoting life.
    Terri Schiavo and her parents need and deserve our prayers.
 
    David Limbaugh is a nationally syndicated columnist.
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

E050317C    Anti-intellectualism at Harvard

By Walter E. Williams

Larry Summers, Harvard's president, remains under siege for remarks made in his Jan. 14 address to the National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER).
    Mr. Summers suggested there might be three major reasons why women are underrepresented in the higher reaches of science and ranked them in order of importance.
    • First is what he calls the "high-powered job hypothesis," where success demands putting in 80-hour weeks, and men are more willing or capable to do so. In support of how marriage and family affect women's careers, he added that women in the higher reaches of science tend to be unmarried or childless.
    • Mr. Summers' second hypothesis is that there are sex differences in IQ and aptitude at the high end.
    • And his third idea is socialization and discrimination might explain some of the underrepresentation of women.
    Mr. Summers' second hypothesis caused Massachusetts Institute of Technology biologist Nancy Hopkins to leave the lecture, explaining to a Boston Globe reporter (Jan. 17, 2005) that, "I would've either blacked out or thrown up."
    Previous temper tantrums served Ms. Hopkins well as reported in the Women's Freedom Network Newsletter (January-February 2000), "MIT tarnishes its reputation with junk gender science," by Judith Kleinfeld. After claiming sex discrimination, "Professor Hopkins received an endowed chair, a 20 percent salary increase, $2.5 million of research funds from internal MIT sources, a 5,000 square foot laboratory, an invitation to join the prestigious National Academy of Sciences, and an invitation to the White House where President and Mrs. Clinton praised her courage and expressed the hope that other institutions would follow the MIT example."
    Virtually all academic literature on sex, IQ and aptitude conclude there are differences between men and women. While the mean intelligence between men and women is similar, the variance differs significantly. Women cluster more about the mean while men are more spread out. That means fewer women, relative to men, are at both the low end and the high end of the intelligence and aptitude spectrum. That might partly explain why so many men are in jail compared to women, and why more geniuses like Wolfgang Mozart and Albert Einstein are men. On last year's SAT math test, more than twice as many boys as girls scored in the top range (750-800).
    The only debate among scholars isn't if these patterns exist but whether they reflect acculturation or genetics. A substantial body of work suggests genetics. The fact is we do differ genetically by race and sex, not only in intelligence and aptitude, but in physical ways as well.
    Why in the world would we deny these differences and deny their effects on observed outcomes, particularly in an academic setting where there's supposed to be open inquiry? I think we do so for a couple of foolish reasons:
    (1) Most of us share the value of equality before the law. We falsely believe equality before the law requires we be equal in fact. In my book, being a human being is the only condition for equality before the law.
    (2) The second reason involves human arrogance. If a particular outcome is deemed undesirable and it's genetically determined, our hands are tied and we must just accept it.
    Mr. Summers has responded to the criticism created by his NBER remarks with serial mea culpas, groveling and apologies. He is in deep trouble. Faculty members don't differ that much from chickens in a barnyard. The boss chicken bleeding a bit is all that's needed for the vicious pecking to begin.
    If there's a legitimate criticism about Mr. Summers' NBER comments, it is his failure to be discreet. Some things are best left unsaid in front of children, who have little understanding and can be easily offended by unvarnished truths.
 
    Walter E. Williams is a nationally syndicated columnist and an economics professor at George Mason University.
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

H050313   Connecticut, Oregon study civil unions

By Cheryl Wetzstein
THE WASHINGTON TIMES

Connecticut and Oregon appear to be vying to become the second U.S. state to create marriagelike civil unions for homosexual couples.
    In Connecticut, the Joint Judiciary Committee recently approved a bill to create civil unions, a legal partnership that carries many state rights of marriage but is not called marriage. It is similar to the nation's first civil union law in Vermont, which went into effect in 2000.
    The Connecticut bill still needs to go before the Democrat-led House and Senate, but many observers think it can pass. Connecticut Gov. M. Jodi Rell, a Republican, has indicated "general" support for civil unions, although she has not said whether she will sign this particular bill.
    Traditional-values groups, such as the Family Institute of Connecticut and Connecticut Catholic Conference, oppose civil unions as "same-sex marriage in everything but name." Last week, they released a poll showing that most Connecticut residents would like to vote on a constitutional amendment that reserves marriage for opposite-sex couples.
    Meanwhile, in Oregon, the watch is on for a pivotal decision by the state Supreme Court.
    Last year, Multnomah County officials "married" thousands of same-sex couples, prompting lawsuits. Traditional-values groups reacted with a petition drive for a constitutional amendment restricting marriage to opposite-sex couples, which voters approved in November.
    The amendment presumably blocks the Oregon high court from permitting same-sex "marriage," although the court still must decide on the legality of the 3,000 Multnomah unions.
    Homosexual-rights groups generally oppose civil unions because they are not recognized outside the home state and are not viewed as marriages under federal law. Moreover, since the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court legalized same-sex "marriage" in that state in November 2003, the goal has become full marriage rights in every state.
    In Connecticut, the Love Makes a Family homosexual-rights group initially opposed the civil-union bill, but changed its position. "We will not stand in the way of expanding our rights," group leader Anne Stanback wrote in the Hartford (Conn.) Courant.
    Americans are divided on legal recognition for same-sex unions.
    Polls taken in 2004 show strong disapproval of same-sex "marriage," according to the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), which in December updated its report on public attitudes about homosexuality and same-sex "marriage."
    However, in at least seven polls, people were given three options for homosexual couples: "marriage," "civil unions" or "nothing." In five of these polls, the most popular answer was "nothing," the AEI report said. But if supporters of "marriage" and "civil unions" were counted together, they outnumbered those who didn't want any legal recognition for homosexual couples.
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

L050314   Congress makes last-minute try to save Schiavo

By Amy Fagan
THE WASHINGTON TIMES

A group of House and Senate Republicans are working hard to approve a new law as soon as possible that would provide one last shot at federal court review for Terri Schiavo, a brain-damaged Florida woman whose food and water will be stopped Friday by state court order.
    "We're fighting a clock," said Sen. Mel Martinez, who introduced the legislation last week, along with fellow Florida Republican Rep. Dave Weldon.
    Under the bill, Mrs. Schiavo -- who is incapacitated and has been the center of a bitter legal battle for years between her husband and her parents -- would be granted a chance at federal habeas corpus review, typically only used to review death-row cases before an execution.
    The bill would allow federal courts -- in limited cases such as Mrs. Schiavo's -- to expand habeas corpus review to incapacitated people who are the subject of a family dispute, have no previous written directive and are the subject of a lower court order to stop their food and water.
    Mrs. Schiavo suffered cardiac arrest and brain damage in 1990, rendering her incapacitated. Since then, her husband, Michael, has been trying to have her feeding tube removed, arguing that his wife would not want to live in a vegetative state. A state court ruled late last month that he can do so on Friday.
    Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, Tennessee Republican, wants to move the bill "as quickly as we can." He plans to try to bring it up for consideration on the Senate floor this week, skipping the committee process.
    In the House, supporters are pushing for quick action as well.
    But, House Judiciary Committee Chairman F. James Sensenbrenner Jr., Wisconsin Republican, has scheduled a hearing on the bill for Wednesday, indicating that, at least for now, he wants to follow normal procedure.
    The long legal battle over Mrs. Schiavo's future has resulted in differing state court rulings. In 2003, her feeding tube was removed under a ruling by Florida Circuit Court Judge George Greer, but reinserted six days later after the Florida legislature passed emergency legislation called "Terri's Law" that granted Gov. Jeb Bush the right to intervene. The Florida Supreme Court has since declared the law unconstitutional, and the U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear the case.
    Late last month, Judge Greer again ruled that Mr. Schiavo can remove his wife's feeding tube, ceasing food and water starting Friday.
    But Washington lawmakers are still hoping their effort works.
    "Our Constitution guarantees that no life will be taken without due process of law and guarantees equal protection under the law," Mr. Weldon said. "We need to make sure that these protections are clearly available to the disabled and incapacitated."
    Mr. Martinez acknowledges that it will be tough to pass a bill in one week, especially as a newly elected senator. A spokesman for Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada said he hasn't taken a position on the bill yet, but said it clearly should go through the normal committee process.
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

H050315   California judge rejects same-sex 'marriage' ban

By Cheryl Wetzstein
THE WASHINGTON TIMES

A California judge yesterday ruled that it is unconstitutional for the state to deny marriage licenses to homosexual couples.
    "[I]t appears that no rational purpose exists for limiting marriage in this state to opposite-sex partners," San Francisco County Superior Court Judge Richard Kramer ruled in the consolidated lawsuit filed by same-sex couples and others seeking marital rights.
    Judge Kramer rejected the state's arguments that male-female marriage embodies the traditional understanding of what marriage is.
    "Simply put, same-sex marriage cannot be prohibited solely because California has always done so before," Judge Kramer wrote.
    He also rejected the state's argument that it is acceptable to maintain traditional marriage while offering many similar rights to same-sex couples through laws recognizing domestic partnerships.
    "The idea that marriagelike rights without marriage is adequate smacks of a concept long rejected by the courts -- separate but equal," said the judge, who was appointed to the bench by Republican Gov. Pete Wilson.
    Judge Kramer will hold a hearing on his ruling March 30. Appeals are expected by that time.
    "We're gratified by today's ruling," said San Francisco City Attorney Dennis Herrera, who represents the city and county of San Francisco in the lawsuit.
    Last year, San Francisco officials "married" more than 4,000 same-sex couples. Although the California Supreme Court later ruled those "marriages" invalid, San Francisco officials are hoping the consolidated lawsuit will lead to legalization of same-sex "marriage" in the state.
    "It's a big victory for the effort, but hardly is this the end," San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom told KCBS radio. "It's a long fight to the Supreme Court."
    Attorneys with Lambda Legal, the National Center for Lesbian Rights and the American Civil Liberties Union hailed the ruling as "legally solid."
    Proponents of traditional marriage said Judge Kramer's ruling strikes down Proposition 22, a voter-passed initiative that says only the union of a man and a woman is recognized as a marriage in California.
    The judge's ruling is "ludicrous," said Mat Staver, president of Liberty Counsel, which is representing Campaign for California Families and its founder Randy Thomasson in the lawsuit.
    "We will continue to fight San Francisco's attempt to gut marriage of meaning," said Glen Lavy of the Alliance Defense Fund, which is representing a group that supports Proposition 22.
    "The people spoke with Proposition 22," said Margita Thompson, spokeswoman for Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger. "We have this decision today, and we will see where it ultimately leads us."
    In the Legislature, lawmakers have introduced bills to have a public vote on a constitutional marriage amendment and bills to legalize same-sex "marriage."
    • This story is based on wire service reports.
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

M050315   Study finds press negative on Bush

By Jennifer Harper
THE WASHINGTON TIMES

The press produced three times more negative stories about President Bush than about Sen. John Kerry during the 2004 campaign, says a study released yesterday.
    "Criticism that George Bush got worse coverage than John Kerry is supported by the data," said the District-based Project for Excellence in Journalism, which produced the 617-page study with affiliates from Columbia University and three other schools.
    The group analyzed coverage in 16 newspapers, four nightly newscasts, three network morning news shows, nine cable news programs and nine online news sites during a four-week period last year.
    The analysis found 36 percent of campaign stories about Mr. Bush were negative and 12 percent were negative for Mr. Kerry. Although 20 percent of the Bush stories were deemed positive, the study found 30 percent of the Kerry stories positive.
    "Reporters and editors in national news organizations in particular feel the press has gone too easy on the Bush administration," the study stated, noting that 55 percent of the national press said Bush coverage was not critical enough.
    Only 9 percent of print and 8 percent of broadcast journalists called coverage of the Bush administration "too critical." Among conservative journalists, 53 percent said Bush coverage was too critical; among liberal journalists, the figure was 3 percent.
    Among national journalists, 38 percent said they could name an "especially liberal" news organization, while 82 percent said they could name a conservative news group. Fox News Channel led the way, cited by 69 percent of the respondents.
    "Most liberals don't see a liberal point of view," the analysis found, noting that 24 percent of liberal journalists could name a liberal news outlet but 79 percent could name a conservative one. Among conservative journalists, 68 percent said they could readily name both a liberal and a conservative news group.
    The analysis found a "values gap on social issues" between the public and the press: 91 percent of the journalists said belief in God was "not necessary to be moral" while 88 percent said homosexuality should be accepted by society. In the public, those figures were 40 percent and 51 percent, respectively.
    "News people — especially national journalists — are more liberal and far less conservative than the general public," the report said.
    Among journalists from national print and broadcast news organizations, 34 percent described themselves as liberals; the figure is 20 percent in the general public. Only 7 percent of the national press say they're conservative, compared with 33 percent in the public.
    Between 1985 and 2004, the study reports, the number of Americans who felt news organizations were politically biased rose from 49 percent to 59 percent.
    The complete report can be seen at www.stateofthemedia.org.
    • Contact Jennifer Harper at jharper@washingtontimes.com or 202/636-3085.
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

L050315    Pro-choice view an obstacle for GOP hopefuls

By Amy Fagan and Donald Lambro
THE WASHINGTON TIMES

The pro-choice views of some popular Republicans -- such as Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and former New York City Mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani -- likely will undermine their ability to win the party's presidential nomination in 2008, party strategists say.
    "I don't think there is anything happening in the party per se on this issue. We are a pro-life party and will remain so," said Republican campaign strategist Bill Dal Col, who managed Steve Forbes' 2000 presidential campaign.
    "At the end of the day, only the pro-life social conservative will be the nominee in 2008."
    Still, other strategists argue that a candidate like Miss Rice, who last week told editors and reporters at The Washington Times that she is "mildly pro-choice," but who is considered very strong on national security and foreign policy, could indeed win the top slot on the Republican ticket.
    "It's certainly being discussed, and I think there is concern within the pro-life activist community that there may be a candidate who's not acceptable to them who could emerge as a victor," said Republican consultant Cheri Jacobus.
    Miss Rice's name has been thrown into the ring by several Republicans as a 2008 contender, especially if Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, New York Democrat, decides to run. Mrs. Clinton in recent years has softened her pro-choice stance to reflect the idea that abortion should always be legal, but efforts should be made to limit it.
    Miss Rice told The Times on Friday that she has "never wanted to run for anything" and that she "really can't imagine it," but didn't rule out a presidential run. She then shut that door Sunday on NBC's "Meet the Press," telling host Tim Russert, "I will not run for president of the United States."
    In a Marist College poll last month, Mr. Giuliani was the top choice for president among Republican possibilities for 2008, winning 25 percent. Sen. John McCain of Arizona was second with 21 percent, and Miss Rice was third with 14 percent.
    Mr. Giuliani is pro-choice and Miss Rice, when defining herself as "mildly pro-choice," said she wouldn't want the government forcing its views on people.
    "So, for instance, I've tended to agree with those who do not favor federal funding for abortion, because I believe that those who hold a strong moral view on the other side should not be forced to fund it," Miss Rice said Friday.
    Mr. McCain generally votes pro-life, but he got into trouble on the issue during his 1999 try at the Republican nomination, when he told the San Francisco Chronicle that, "Certainly in the short-term or even the long-term, I would not support repeal of Roe v. Wade."
    He later wrote to the National Right to Life Committee pledging "unequivocal support for overturning" the Roe v. Wade decision.
    Richard Lessner, executive director of the American Conservative Union, said being pro-life is essential to nationwide success in the Republican Party.
    "I anticipate whoever the nominee is, he or she will be pro-life," Mr. Lessner said.
    But Ms. Jacobus said there will indeed be an internal fight over what the priorities for a 2008 presidential candidate should be. She said it is "realistic" that foreign policy "will take precedence" over other issues, like abortion.
    Kellyanne Conway, Republican pollster and analyst, noted that while abortion once was a "hot" issue, it has become "muted if not neutered" by other social issues such as same-sex "marriage," cloning and religious freedom.
    Democrats said the popularity of pro-choice Republicans signals a shift.
    "It should send a signal to the party if nothing else that their base wants their party to move to the center on choice," said Jano Cabrera, spokesman for the Democratic National Committee.
    Republicans balked at that, arguing that it's prominent Democrats who have been trying to move away from their extreme pro-choice views lately.
    Mr. Lessner said that it's simply too early in the process and that so current polls can only measure celebrity status. "They don't reflect any mature political thinking about who best embodies the principles of the Republican Party and who should be the standard-bearer," he said.
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

L050316   Abortion records sought in Kansas

By Cheryl Wetzstein
THE WASHINGTON TIMES

Kansas Attorney General Phill Kline said the county judge who subpoenaed 90 medical records from abortion clinics last year did so to see if there was evidence of child rape or illegal abortions, not to violate patient confidentiality or privacy.
    But the pro-life jurist agreed that his yearlong investigation into abortion-related criminal acts has touched off a lot of talk about illegal "fishing expeditions" and patient information protection.
    "The targets are the clinics and the rapists," Mr. Kline said in an interview this week. He said the 90 women and girls who had late-term abortions are not in criminal jeopardy. "They are the victims. Their privacy will always be protected."
    Pro-choice advocates like Nancy Northup of the Center for Reproductive Rights in New York said Mr. Kline has other motives.
    "The attorney general in Kansas appears to be on a fishing expedition to violate the constitutional rights of patients in the state of Kansas by seeking their private medical records," Ms. Northup said yesterday.
    Referring to Mr. Kline's clear opposition to abortion, Ms. Northup said the attorney general's efforts to obtain unedited abortion records appear to be "an intimidation tactic against doctors and their patients."
    It's a "scary trend," she said, referring to a similar attempt by former U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft to obtain abortion records.
    Meanwhile, today lawyers for the two clinics targeted are expected to file final briefs in Kansas Supreme Court, which they have asked to intervene in the matter. The clinics also will hold a press conference today detailing their briefs, the first time either side has been able to speak since a gag order was lifted by the state high court.
    "This whole matter, from our perspective, is about a covenant of confidentiality between a doctor and his or her patient," said Peter Brownlie, chief executive officer of Planned Parenthood of Kansas and Mid-Missouri,, one of the targeted clinics. "We think it's wrong for [Mr. Kline] to expect that any doctor would turn over the medical records of dozens of patients, based on the hunch that he may find evidence of crimes."
    Mr. Kline, who is in town this week for the National Association of Attorneys General conference, said his office spent more than a year obtaining information about suspected cases of child rape and illegal late-term abortions. Kansas law forbids abortion after 22 weeks of gestation unless it is necessary to save the mother from death or severe injury. The age of sexual consent is 16.
    "When a 10, 11, 12-year-old child is pregnant in Kansas, the child has been raped and I will do all I can to protect the child," Mr. Kline said. If there are violations of late-term abortions, he added, "I will prosecute for criminal late-term abortion."
    Last year, Mr. Kline presented evidence of illegal abortions to Shawnee County District Judge Richard Anderson, who in September ordered the Planned Parenthood clinic and Women's Health Care Services in Wichita to give the court 90 medical records. All involve abortions performed at or after 22 weeks of gestation.
    Once the records have been turned over, Mr. Kline said, "the judge, a doctor, as well as a guardian appointed for the children, would review the records."
    The patient names to be turned over to his office, he said, would be only those of minors "because we need to remove them from a predatory situation, if one exists, and protect them."
    In late February, lawyers for the two abortion clinics filed a brief asking the Kansas Supreme Court to intervene, which was reported by the Wichita Eagle. The Kansas high court this month agreed to intervene and lifted a gag order on the case.
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

R050316   Scalia's critique

    Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia criticized the court's recent decision to strike down the juvenile death penalty, calling it the latest example of politics on the court that has made judicial nominations an increasingly bitter process.
    In a 35-minute speech Monday, Justice Scalia said unelected judges have no place deciding issues such as abortion and the death penalty. The court's 5-4 ruling March 1 to outlaw the juvenile death penalty, based on "evolving notions of decency," was simply a mask for the personal policy preferences of the five-member majority, he said.
    "If you think aficionados of a 'living' Constitution want to bring you flexibility, think again," Justice Scalia told an audience at the Woodrow Wilson Center, a Washington think tank. "You think the death penalty is a good idea? Persuade your fellow citizens to adopt it. You want a right to abortion? Persuade your fellow citizens and enact it. That's flexibility."
    "Why in the world would you have it interpreted by nine lawyers?" he said.
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

L050317   Terri's bill

    The House approved legislation last night on a voice vote that would provide one last shot at federal court review for Terri Schiavo, a brain-damaged Florida woman whose food and water will be stopped tomorrow by state court order.
    Supporters of the effort worked feverishly yesterday, privately amending the legislation so it would be acceptable to enough congressmen to become law.
    The bill — crafted by House Judiciary Committee Chairman F. James Sensenbrenner Jr., Wisconsin Republican, and Rep. Dave Weldon, Florida Republican — would allow certain cases like Mrs. Schiavo's to be moved to federal court, allowing a federal judge to review the case and make sure the incapacitated person's rights were not violated.
    If Congress intervenes, the Florida state order likely will be delayed pending federal court review. In the meantime, Mrs. Schiavo could not be starved to death.
    "My heart is that she should not have the feeding tubes removed," Mr. Weldon said. "I've been trying to — from the get-go — get a review of the proceedings in this case to make sure her rights have been protected."
    "The Florida courts set an extremely dangerous precedent by saying we must stop feeding someone who can't feed herself. Who's next — the disabled or those late in life?" Mr. Sensenbrenner said.
    Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, Tennessee Republican, said he hopes his chamber will follow suit on similar legislation "addressing the Schiavo case" today or tomorrow.
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

L050317   Hillary's example

    "If the Democratic Party wants to figure out how to win national elections again, it has an unexpected guide: Hillary Rodham Clinton," New York Times columnist Nicholas D. Kristof writes.
    "Sen. Clinton, much more than most in her party, understands how the national Democratic Party needs to rebrand itself. She gets it — perhaps that's what 17 years in socially conservative Arkansas does to you," Mr. Kristof said.
    "The first lesson Mrs. Clinton is demonstrating is the need to talk much more openly about God and prayer. That resonates in a country where a Pew poll found that 60 percent of Americans pray at least once a day.
    " 'I've always been a praying person,' Mrs. Clinton declared recently. Of course, this approach works in her case only because her religious faith is longs-tanding. It didn't work for Howard Dean when he described the Book of Job as his favorite book in the New Testament.
    "Then there's abortion. Mrs. Clinton took a hugely important step in January when she sought common ground and described abortion as a 'sad, even tragic choice to many, many women.' "
    The columnist, who said he nevertheless doubts that Mrs. Clinton can win the presidency, added: "What has been lethal for Democrats has not been their pro-choice position as such, but the perception that they don't even share public qualms about abortion."
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

O050317   Gene study sheds light on sexes' differences

ASSOCIATED PRESS
    Women get more work out of hundreds of genes on the X chromosome than men do, and that could help explain biological differences between the sexes, a study says.
    The results imply that women make higher doses of certain proteins than men do, which could play out in sex differences in both normal life and disease, researchers said.
    So far, however, none of the genes identified in the study has been linked to any such observable differences, said senior study author Huntington Willard of Duke University.
    He and Laura Carrel of Pennsylvania State University describe their analysis of the X chromosome genes in today's issue of the journal Nature.
    A second paper in the same issue presents a comprehensive analysis of the chromosome's DNA, in which an international team of scientists found 1,098 genes.
    Chromosomes are the threadlike packages of genes and other DNA found in cells of the body. People have 24 kinds, numbered 1 through 22 plus the X chromosome and its runty partner, the Y. Women carry two copies of the X chromosome, one inherited from each parent, while men have one X plus one Y chromosome.
    Long before birth, women permanently turn off one copy of their X chromosome in each cell, so that like men they operate with just one copy functioning. But scientists have long known that inactivation isn't perfect. Some genes on the inactivated copy continue to function, sending out chemical orders for the cell to manufacture specific proteins.
    The work by Mr. Willard and Miss Carrel suggests the inactivated chromosome contains 200 to 300 such genes, in two categories.
    First, they found that 15 percent of the inactivated chromosome's genes continue to function to some degree. More surprising, Mr. Willard said, was what researchers discovered about another 10 percent of the genes. For each, the activity level varied widely from one woman to the next, from zero in some women to varying levels in others.
    That contrasts with the relatively consistent activity levels one sees in X chromosomes from men, or in other chromosomes in either sex, Mr. Willard said.
    In fact, when the study compared the inactivated X chromosomes of 40 women, each of them showed a different pattern of gene activity, Mr. Willard said.
    Dr. Jeannie T. Lee, who studies X chromosome inactivation at Harvard Medical School, said the study provides a better estimate than scientists had before of how many genes escape inactivation. She agreed that the variability among women was a surprise.
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

R050317    Frist pledges to protect Boy Scouts

By Amy Fagan
THE WASHINGTON TIMES

Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist yesterday vowed to pass legislation this year to protect the Boy Scouts of America from attacks by liberal groups challenging federal support for the Scouts because the organization administers a religious oath.
    The Tennessee Republican predicted his bill and its House counterpart will pass both chambers this year. The legislation has bipartisan support.
    The bill says no federal law, directive, rule, instruction or order should limit any federal agency from providing support to the Boy Scouts or Girl Scouts, including meetings held on federal property.
    The legislation is a direct response to an ongoing lawsuit by the American Civil Liberties Union that says federal support of the group, including about $2 million annually for the National Scout Jamboree, violates the Constitution's provision mandating separation of church and state.
    Last fall, the Defense Department was released as a defendant in the lawsuit after agreeing to warn military bases that department policy does not allow them to be official sponsors of Boy Scout units. Military personnel can sponsor Boy Scout groups only in their civilian capacity.
    Mr. Frist " who was a Boy Scout, as were his three sons " said the lawsuit "has had a chilling effect" on the government's support of the Boy Scouts.
    Rep. Jo Ann Davis, Virginia Republican, is sponsoring a House counterpart, and the chamber's leadership is determining how best to proceed.
    In introducing the bill, Mr. Frist was flanked by several senators, including a few Democrats. Sen. Ben Nelson, Nebraska Democrat, said his time as a Boy Scout was "probably one of the single most important parts of my youth" and that the bill is "certainly in the best interest of our young people."
    Sen. Bill Nelson, Florida Democrat, said military personnel who are Scout leaders often inspire the boys to join the service.
    "It's long past time that we just put this issue to rest," said Sen. Jim Talent, Missouri Republican, who noted the legislation will result in the dismissal of "harassing lawsuits," such as the ACLU's.
    Fifty-three senators and 163 House members in the 108th Congress were Boy Scouts in their youth, according to a Boy Scouts of America fact sheet.
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

R050317   Episcopalian plan stays consecrations

By Julia Duin
THE WASHINGTON TIMES

The nation's Episcopal leaders, at the urging of the church's first openly homosexual bishop, have slapped a one-year moratorium on consecrating all bishops, saying such a refusal was preferable to discriminating against "our gay brothers and lesbian sisters."
    The moratorium was proposed by New Hampshire Bishop V. Gene Robinson during a semiannual meeting of the Episcopal House of Bishops meeting in Navasota, Texas, which ended yesterday.
    Presiding Bishop Frank Griswold, head of the 2.3-million-member Episcopal Church, told the Associated Press yesterday church leaders approved the moratorium because they did not want "our gay brothers and lesbian sisters demeaned."
    The Rev. Jan Nunley, spokeswoman for the denomination, said she was not aware of any homosexual candidates in the pipeline for the episcopate.
    However, the majority of 140 bishops at the meeting "didn't want to single out any one group and say, 'We can't do that,'Â " she said.
    "So we'll put a hold on it all."
    Six dioceses will be affected by the decision, she added.
    The moratorium will last until the next Episcopal General Convention, in June 2006 in Columbus, Ohio, where the church likely will revisit its policies on homosexual clergy and "blessings" of same-sex unions, the issues that threaten the U.S. church with expulsion from the worldwide Anglican Communion.
    The moratorium was part of a larger document, "A Covenant Statement of the House of Bishops," which was passed by a "nearly unanimous" vote of the bishops, according to Episcopal News Service.
    The statement also said bishops will not authorize any rites for same-sex "blessings" in churches nor bless such unions until General Convention. However, it left a loophole for priests to conduct such "blessings" on their own authority.
    The covenant, which was drawn up by an 18-member group of bishops including Washington's John B. Chane, put the Episcopal Church's leadership technically in compliance with an order last month from the world's Anglican archbishops to stop ordaining homosexual bishops and conducting same-sex blessings.
    According to the Living Church, an Episcopal publication, Bishop Griswold told his fellow prelates at the Navasota meeting that the archbishops were "out for blood" at the Northern Ireland meeting and likened six conservative Episcopalians to the devil.
    The six, all of whom were in Northern Ireland during the meeting, were Pittsburgh Bishop Robert Duncan; Canon Bill Atwood, general secretary of the Ekklesia Society in Texas; the Rev. Martyn Minns, rector of Truro Episcopal Church in Fairfax; the Rev. David Anderson, president of the American Anglican Council in Atlanta; the Rev. Kendall Harmon, canon theologian of the Diocese of South Carolina; and Diane Knippers, president of the Institute for Religion and Democracy in the District and a member of Truro.
    When Bishop Duncan protested Bishop Griswold's characterization of him, the magazine said, Bishop Robinson responded: "I don't believe a word of what you said. I just can't believe you."
    Attempts to reach Bishop Robinson for comment were unsuccessful.
    In an interview, Bishop Duncan said he was shocked at the exchange.
    "As a pastor, when I hear someone say everything I'm doing is evil or 'I don't believe anything you say,' this marriage is probably beyond repair," he said. "I think our House of Bishops is finally talking about that."
    Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams, head of the 70-million-member Anglican Communion, called the Episcopal covenant a "constructive" response.
    But Mr. Harmon called U.S. bishops' actions the mere minimal compliance.
    "You have apostolic leaders acting as lawyers," he said. The bishops "were asked to do nothing until a new consensus in the Anglican Communion had emerged. Instead, they made a time-specific commitment and added to it their own conditions. That's what lawyers do."
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

R050318   MICHIGAN    Governor starts faith-based initiative

    LANSING -- Gov. Jennifer M. Granholm has created an office of community and faith-based initiatives, saying she wants state government to work with religious groups to help the needy.
    The Democrat announced the office Monday at a state-sponsored symposium on faith-based programs, with the goal of enlisting religious organizations to recruit mentors for foster children, provide lower-cost prescription drugs and fight substance abuse.
    The American Civil Liberties Union says Mrs. Granholm's initiative could promote religion and violate the federal and state constitutions.
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

R050318   Judicial struggle

    "Let's assume that the Democrats use all the procedural tools available to them and are committed to blocking Senate business until the Republicans agree to recognize the need for a supermajority to confirm judges. How would the country react?" Stuart Rothenberg asks in Roll Call.
    "The Republicans almost certainly would be the first ones to absorb a negative media hit, as journalists report that Senate Republicans have 'changed the rules of the game' and are abusing their power in their efforts to confirm judges that the Democrats oppose. ...
    "Barring the existence of a news story of equal importance, such as the capture of Osama bin Laden or a major terrorist attack, the Senate 'nuclear option' story would dominate the news for days, even weeks," Mr. Rothenberg said.
    "While Republicans would seek to put their strategy into a more positive historical context and demonize the Democrats for frustrating the will of the majority and politicizing judicial confirmations, the GOP tactic would probably draw most of the attention. And if so, the party would be at risk of a backlash.
    "However, the longer that the confrontation on Capitol Hill continued, the more the Democrats' vulnerability would grow. ... Like the Republicans who 'shut down the government' in 1995, Senate Democrats would likely be viewed ultimately as behaving irresponsibly."
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

L050318   Tough choice

    A 2008 presidential race between Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, New York Democrat, would present pro-life conservatives with a tough decision because of Miss Rice's "mildly pro-choice" position on abortion.
    That phrase was how Miss Rice described her views last week in an interview with editors and reporters of The Washington Times in which she said she had no intention of ever seeking the presidency but refused to flatly rule out the possibility.
    But conservative leader Paul Weyrich said he could not see Miss Rice getting the party nomination because "Republicans who vote in the primary and vote in the convention do not buy that 'mildly pro-choice' position. I think she would have a very, very tough time."
    Even so, when Washington Times reporter Donald Lambro asked Mr. Weyrich how he would vote in the event that the two women won their party nominations, Mr. Weyrich said he would vote for Miss Rice.
    "I would swallow hard and support her because I consider Hillary a dangerous person who would take the country so far down the wrong track that we wouldn't recognize it during her presidency," he said.
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

R050318    Up or down

    An overwhelming majority of Americans — 82 percent — think qualified candidates for the nation's highest courts deserve an up-or-down vote in the Senate, while a similar majority wants partisan politics removed from the judicial confirmation process.
    "This sort of shoots what Harry Reid, Robert Byrd and others are saying about the right to filibuster right out of the water, huh?" says Washington publicist Mark Coyle, referring to recent remarks by the Democratic senators from Nevada and West Virginia respectively.
    Examining the survey of 800 registered voters conducted on behalf of the Judicial Confirmation Network (JCN) by Ayres, McHenry & Associates, JCN counsel Wendy Long says it is "abundantly clear that the American people are tired of the partisan, political maneuvering and the unwarranted character assassinations against qualified candidates for the federal bench."
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

M050318   Confidence low for lawyers, press

By Jennifer Harper
THE WASHINGTON TIMES

Americans have the least confidence in law firms, the press, Wall Street, television news and the U.S. Congress, according to an annual gauge of public trust in 16 leading institutions released by the Harris Poll yesterday.
    We have the most confidence in small businesses and the U.S. military, followed by colleges and universities, the White House, the U.S. Supreme Court, medicine, organized religion and public schools.
    As a nation, our overall "confidence index" stands at a healthy level of 53 -- based on an average of poll numbers for all the institutions.
    The index fell two points from 55 last year. It was at an all-time high of 69 in 1973, followed by 65 three years ago -- a rally that poll director Humphrey Taylor attributes to patriotism after September 11.
    The nation's confidence index was at an all-time low of 42 in 1997.
    Public opinion of the White House has remained steady for two years, with 31 percent of the respondents saying they have a "great deal" of confidence in the Bush administration. The highest rating was in 2002, when 50 percent expressed strong confidence; the all-time low was 13 percent during the Clinton administration in 1995.
    Congress has suffered image woes over the years, typically sharing the lower rungs of public opinion with lawyers, journalists and organized labor since Harris began the poll 39 years ago.
    This time, only 16 percent of the respondents said they have strong confidence in lawmakers, with a quarter saying they had "hardly any" confidence in Capitol Hill.
    Meanwhile, just 11 percent have a great deal of confidence in lawyers -- up a point since last year, and four points more than the legal profession's lowest rating, 7 percent in 1997.
    Journalists are also on unsteady ground. Twelve percent of the respondents have a great deal of confidence in the press, down three points since last year -- but up three points since the lowest rating of 9 percent in 1991.
    Television news has had a rocky time as well.
    Just 16 percent of us have a great deal of confidence in it -- part of a steady decline since 2001, when the number stood at 24 percent.
    Though the public still reveres the military, its image has suffered in the past year.
    "The public's views of specific institutions have not changed that much, with one very important exception. Those having a great deal of confidence in the leadership of the military has fallen a staggering 15 percentage points since last year -- from 62 percent to 47 percent," the poll stated.
    The drop is the largest one-year decline in the history of the poll, and "probably the result of the military's handling of events surrounding the treatment of Iraqi prisoners by U.S. military personnel," the poll noted.
    The poll of 1,012 adults was conducted Feb. 8 and 13, with a sampling error margin of three percentage points.
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

L050318    S.D. tightens abortion rules

PIERRE, S.D. (AP) -- Gov. Michael Rounds has signed a series of bills that further tighten state abortion restrictions, his office announced yesterday.
    One of the four new laws requires doctors to inform pregnant women, in writing and in person, no later than two hours before an abortion that the procedure ends the lives of humans and terminates the constitutional relationship women have with their unborn children.
    Women also must be told that