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
L050607       Ethics anyone?
L050607E     Infanticide in Virginia
L050609E    Howard Dean's abortion myth

HOMOSEXUAL BEHAVIOR/PERVERSION
H050606       NEW MEXICO    Council overrides veto of same-sex ban

RELIGION/RELIGIOUS PERSECUTION
R050605L     Brave young men
R050606E     Boundless fury at the judiciary
R050607       Cloture vote expected on Brown nomination
R050607        U.S. most religious of 10 nations
R050608       Brown filibuster finally broken
R050608E     Intolerance in the Bible Belt
R050609       Dean's loose lips
R050609       Senate OKs Brown for judgeship
R050609       Warring Anglicans talk 'divorce'
R050610       Frist's victory
R050610       Three judges receive Senate confirmation

EDUCATION
E050605        Montgomery parents seek more say on sex education
E050607L     Parents, not outsiders

MEDIA
M050605L   It all adds up

OTHER
O050605      Billboards aim to shame 'johns'
O050606      Marriages that last until death do them part
O050606Md GOP predicts gains in assembly
O050607       Abstinence courses faulty, report says
O050608       GOP'ers for porn?
O050608Va   250 sex convicts lost insystem
O050610       NEW HAMPSHIRE   Photos result in child-porn arrest

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

E050605   Montgomery parents seek more say on sex education

By Jon Ward
THE WASHINGTON TIMES

Montgomery County parents are seeking to gain more influence over how public schools teach their children about sex by applying for advisory committees, and are working on long-term strategies for activism.
    "We see our little organization continuing to grow and addressing issues maybe in a broader range, maybe in the state level," said Michelle Turner, a parent and president of Citizens for a Responsible Curriculum (CRC), which won a federal lawsuit against the school system's new sex-education course.
    "If we can have success here, and some of these issues we have concerns about are coming from the state Board of Education, then maybe we need to take a look at what's happening there."
    Montgomery County's school board last month scrapped its sex-education curriculum after a federal judge had ruled it discriminated against certain religious beliefs. The board also dissolved the 27-member citizens committee that played a central role in shaping the new course.
    The school system is required by law to set up the committee. But school officials have said they intend to ?reconstitute? it, which means all aspects of the panel -- number of members, length of terms, amount of influence -- are subject to change.
    "We'll be watching the whole process very carefully," said Jim Kennedy, a parent and co-founder of Teachthefacts.org (TTF), which supported the curriculum.
    Several parents from TTF and CRC have applied for positions on the committee.
    Mrs. Turner, who served on the original advisory committee, said she does not know if she is eligible for the new one.
    School officials could not say who is eligible for the new panel. However, the committee likely will play a less significant role.
    The school board has tasked Superintendent Jerry D. Weast with developing the new course and voted that "the new Revisions shall be developed by professional educators within MCPS and consultants, appointed by the superintendent."
    The new revisions will be given to the citizens advisory committee "for review and consultation, to the degree deemed appropriate by the superintendent," the board decided.
    TTF is hoping that the public school system doesn't intend to make any substantive changes to the course.
    "They didn't say they would do it any different. They just said they would do it over again," said Mr. Kennedy. "The school district is taking back the power."
    But Mrs. Turner said she is worried that the schools are trying to disentangle themselves from negotiations with CRC and Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays and Gays (PFOX), the group that joined the lawsuit against the curriculum.
    "While the board is obviously feeling the heat from parents ... we feel it is trying to do an end-run around the suit," Mrs. Turner said.
    "In its public statements, the board claims absolute authority over the curriculum. Nowhere does it state a willingness to come together with us parents to make sure the curriculum meets community standards."
    Montgomery County Board of Education President Patricia O'Neill said the lawsuit brought by CRC and PFOX was the reason she voted to scrap the course.
    "We're no less committed to moving forward on the issue of sexual variations," she said.
    Stephen Abrams, the lone Republican on the school board, said it was "clear" that the school board's adoption of Mr. Weast's resolution means that the new curriculum will be constructed "within the professional component of the system, instead of as a negotiation between outside groups."
    The resolution states that the school system "retains the sole right and responsibility for determining the content of all curriculum."
    vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

O050606Md   GOP predicts gains in assembly

By S.A. Miller
THE WASHINGTON TIMES

ANNAPOLIS -- Maryland Republicans expect to make significant gains in next year's elections, incrementally advancing the political realignment they say began with the 2002 election of Gov. Robert L. Ehrlich Jr. -- the state's first Republican governor in more than 30 years.
    Republicans expect to pick up as many as seven seats in the state Senate and 14 seats in the House of Delegates, Maryland Republican Party Chairman John M. Kane told The Washington Times.
    "I'm optimistic because [the Democrats'] voting record in general is out of step with the voters," he said. "I'm optimistic on the internal polling we've done."
    The gains envisioned by Mr. Kane would drastically alter the balance of power in the Democrat-controlled General Assembly, where the majority has enjoyed a greater than 2-to-1 advantage for a generation.
    An increase of seven seats in the state Senate would give Republicans 21 senators to the Democrats' 26. In the House, winning 14 more seats would give Republicans 57 of the chamber's 141 delegates.
    Currently, there are 33 Democrats and 14 Republicans in the Senate, and 97 Democrats and 43 Republicans in the House. Delegate Tony E. Fulton, Baltimore Democrat, died last month and his seat is vacant.
    The change would make it much more difficult for Democratic lawmakers to overturn Mr. Ehrlich's vetoes, block his agenda and push through legislation to diminish the governor's executive powers -- moves that characterized the partisan clash in this year's General Assembly session.
    Maryland Democratic Party spokesman Derek Walker said the Republican chairman was overly optimistic.
    "He should be commended for wishful thinking," said Mr. Walker, adding that his party expects to win an extra seat or two in both chambers next year.
    Mr. Walker pointed out that registered Democratic voters continue to outnumber Republicans nearly 2-to-1 in the state. "Maryland is still incredibly strong for Democrats, and we plan to put the exclamation point on that next year," he said.
    Thomas F. Schaller, a political science professor at the University of Maryland, Baltimore County, said Republicans might win some seats in the legislature next year, but their party's success will be closely tied to Mr. Ehrlich's statewide popularity.
    A strong showing at the top of the ballot by either of the likely Democratic challengers -- Baltimore Mayor Martin O'Malley or Montgomery County Executive Douglas M. Duncan -- would probably keep the status quo in the General Assembly, he said.
    "A lot of their fate depends on Ehrlich," Mr. Schaller said. "There are not many coattails in politics anymore, but because the Republican Party is so new in Maryland, it is still an Ehrlich party."
    Mr. Kane conceded that Democrats would retain control of heavily populated Baltimore city and Montgomery and Prince George's counties. But he said Republican dominance in much of the rest of the state will suffice as the GOP slowly makes inroads to the big three jurisdictions.
    "The red has to be redder and blue has to be paler," he said.
    Some Democratic lawmakers also see tough times ahead.
    "In the next election, there is going to be problems, definitely in the rural areas," said Delegate Kevin Kelly, Allegany County Democrat. "[Voters] don't want to see tax-and-spend policies, and I would certainly think that is a shared sentiment in the suburban districts like Baltimore County and Anne Arundel County."
    Mr. Kane said that in addition to encouraging poll numbers, he was enthusiastic about the party's "72-hour plan," which will incorporate a final campaign blitz for Republican candidates with a statewide get-out-the-vote effort.
    "We have found great success using that [plan] to turn out the voter base," he said. "Ohio had a great model of it [in the 2004 presidential election], and we are going to put together a similar model in Maryland."
    He said the predicted gains were based on "early numbers" and, with 18 months before the election, the party could pick up more seats if U.S. Reps. Chris Van Hollen and Albert R. Wynn, both Democrats, enter the race to replace retiring U.S. Sen. Paul S. Sarbanes.
    Several Democratic state lawmakers would probably step up to replace Mr. Van Hollen and Mr. Wynn, leaving formerly safe General Assembly seats open to a Republican challenge.
    "We are looking forward to an opportunity to have some very competitive races," Mr. Kane said.
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

O050606   Marriages that last until death do them part

By Arlo Wagner
THE WASHINGTON TIMES

Amelia Moir had a one-word answer yesterday when asked why her marriage to Jack, 80, had lasted 61 years.
    "Tenacity," said Mrs. Moir, while her husband grinned and nodded his head in agreement.
    The couple, now living in Kensington, were married in 1944 in Arlington after Mr. Moir was discharged from the Army in World War II. She, like so many young women during that war, had taken a job with the government.
    Now, they have three children and five -- soon to be six -- grandchildren.
    "Our grandson just got back from a year in Iraq," Mrs. Moir said, with more than a hint of thankfulness in her voice.
    The Moirs were among more than 350 couples jammed into reserved front-section seats yesterday at the Basilica of the National Shrine of the Immaculate Conception to renew their vows of marriage made 25 to 69 years ago.
    "Love is what makes our life richer and fuller," said Cardinal Theodore E. McCarrick, archbishop of Washington.
    Others of the more than 1,200 in the shrine, who had been married for less than 25 years, also rose to repeat the vows and hold left hands for the blessing of marriage rings.
    Then came the kisses. Some gentle and delicate. Others, well, ... less delicate.
    There were 19 couples married more than 60 years attending the annual Jubilarian Celebration. Honorees included 133 couples from Montgomery County, 114 from Prince George's County, 33 from Southern Maryland and 21 from the District.
    Many posed for photographs in front of the shrine altar afterward.
    "This is our Christmas card, no question," said one experienced groom proudly.
    "I couldn't resist her," said Paul Finney of Bethesda, who met bride-to-be Martha at a dance in St. Louis. The couple have been married 57 years.
    "She puts up with gruff and never tries it and never tires of it," Mr. Finney said. "All of this is very, very good."
    Yesterday was extra special for Augustine, 82, and J. Kemp Cook, 80. They were married on June 5 exactly 57 years ago, in 1948. They had met just after he had been discharged from the Navy and returned to his hometown. She, from upper New York, was working for the federal government.
    They live in Oxon Hill. Mr. Cook is retired from American Security Bank. They have five children, including a daughter, Margaret, married to Werner Moeller, who were in the shrine celebrating 25 years of marriage.
    Albert and Juanita Johnson, of Hollywood, Md., in St. Mary's County, have been married 50 years. St. Mary's is their lifelong home. He has been a volunteer firefighter most of his life, and she is a longtime member of the department's Ladies Auxiliary.
    A brother-in-law and sister-in-law introduced them, and they were wed 18 months later. Now they have nine children, 19 grandchildren and two great-grandchildren.
    "Marriage is important," said Cardinal McCarrick. Then, commenting on the high rate of divorce, he said: "I think some say: 'I will love you until Wednesday, and that's all.' "
    "Bring happiness, not just to each other, but to all people along the way," the cardinal said. "Be an example for young people who are getting married."
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

O050608Va   250 sex convicts lost insystem

By Kristen Gelineau
ASSOCIATED PRESS

RICHMOND -- Virginia's sex-offender registry is plagued with problems and cannot account for nearly 250 offenders, a preliminary analysis of the registry by the state's newly formed Sex Offender Task Force has found.
    Missing photographs, incorrect addresses and dated information are just a few of the issues the state faces in its effort to revamp the registry, members of the Virginia State Crime Commission's task force were told at the force's first meeting yesterday.
    "The current system doesn't do really anything for prevention," said Delegate Bob McDonnell, Virginia Beach Republican and commission co-chairman.
    The task force was formed in April after a spate of high-profile child abductions and killings by convicted sex offenders, including the case of 9-year-old Jessica Lunsford of Florida.
    Virginia's sex-offender registry, created in 1994, lists 13,265 sex offenders, although about half of those are incarcerated or living outside Virginia.
    More than 500 offenders were not in compliance with registration requirements as of May 20, the task force's initial review shows.
    Of the 4,534 registered sex offenders listed as incarcerated by the Virginia Department of Corrections, 128 could not be located in the prison system.
    Another 117 registered offenders were found in the prison population, even though the registry shows them as living in the community or living out of state.
    Of 643 registered sex offenders with a jail address, 113 could not be found in the jail or prison population.
    "It is troublesome," said Kimberly Hamilton, executive director of the crime commission. "The state police do not have the resources to do this. We've added 1,100 offenders a year, and we're not giving them staff every year to [monitor] those offenders."
    Sex offenders must register within 10 days after they are released from prison, and they have 10 days to report any change of address.
    That grace period is disturbingly long and gives offenders the freedom to slip away before anyone notices, Mr. McDonnell said.
    The registries in several other states provide information that Virginia's does not, Miss Hamilton said. Such information includes the offender's work address, differentiating between child molesters and adult rapists and the risk level of the offender.
    One solution task force members discussed was the use of Global Positioning System (GPS) satellites to track offenders after their release. The state is using GPS devices to track several offenders as part of a pilot program to test their effectiveness.
    Scott McCool, a representative for the Florida-based Pro Tech Monitoring, which created the GPS devices Virginia is testing, attended yesterday's meeting to demonstrate the technology.
    Dots on a map show officials where the offenders are, if they are out past curfew and whether they are in a "hot zone" -- areas such as schools or churches that they may be prohibited from visiting.
    Although the devices can be useful, they are costly and labor-intensive, Department of Corrections officials said. The state has just one official monitoring the Virginia offenders using the GPS system.
    Spot checks of offenders rather than scheduled monitoring also could be helpful, Miss Hamilton said.
    "We are too regulated," she said. "Any system that is that predictable is easy for the offender to get around."
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

R050605L   Brave young men

    Second Lt. Nicholas Jurewicz, the top senior cadet at the Air Force Academy, is an inspiring young man. He is brave and has chosen to stand up to a Christian-intolerant world that would like to shut him up. I find it commendable that he sent out an e-mail proclaiming his trust in Jesus Christ to uplift his fellow cadets, some of whom soon would be putting their lives in harm's way for this country ("Air Force to review senior's religious e-mail," Nation, Thursday).
    This nation is a nation that trusts in God. I praise God that this country has men and women like Lt. Jurewicz serving in its armed forces who do not want to keep silent about their love for their savior. I am inspired by his act of love for his fellow cadets.
    There was another young man whose faith in God led him to stand up and do the unthinkable. This young man was shocked when the military leaders of his nation cowered in the face of an enemy that mocked them and their God. This young man put all of his trust in his God, and, with a faith that could move mountains, stepped forward to take on the most powerful military force on Earth. Through his faith, this young man brought the enemy to its knees and destroyed it. We call this man King David.

    MARK BORCHELT
    Accokeek
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

M050605L   It all adds up

    Although Donald Lambro justifiably criticizes PBS for its ideological programming bent, and though some on the right -- including my organization -- have called for an end to federal funding of PBS, the subsidies continue to flow ("PBS jousting," Commentary, Thursday). Supporters of public media will indeed argue that $400 million is a pittance and, taken in isolation, it will do little to cure our budget and out-of-control spending. This mathematical argument misses the point.
    Rather than just another $400 million line item in the federal budget, funding for PBS should be a litmus test for conservatives. After all, if you can't eliminate federal funding for a media outlet that regularly attacks your party and movement, what programs can you muster the political will to cut? The situation is as if taxpayers were being forced to fund advertising campaigns for John Kerry and Nancy Pelosi and conservatives who control the presidency and both houses of Congress were unwilling or unable to stop it.
    The real problem for taxpayers is that PBS is just one of hundreds -- maybe thousands -- of federal programs that take a small slice out of the budget pie every year but add up to big money. If Republicans tinker around the edges by changing the ideological slant of PBS, it will be just another sign that too many Republicans are OK with big government as long as it is "our" big government. To say the least, that is poor strategy.

    PAUL J. GESSING
    Director of government affairs
    National Taxpayers Union
    Alexandria
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

R050606E   Boundless fury at the judiciary

By Nat Hentoff

    HouseMajority Leader Tom DeLay is part of an angry chorus of Republican critics campaigning against the federal judiciary. These judges, says Mr. DeLay, serve as long as they maintain "good behavior," but "we want to define what good behavior means." He would like the House Judiciary Committee to investigate how well certain judges are behaving.
    Until now, as conservative commentatorCharles Krauthammer points out, this condition for lifetime tenure has meant "honesty and propriety." But what Mr. DeLay and his allies apparently had in mind by "good behavior" is whether judges' constitutional opinions match their own. Under that standard, definitions of judges' "good behavior" could change depending on which political party dominates the judiciary committee and Congress.
    Former Solicitor General Theodore Olson, whom no one would accuse of being a left-wing radical, wrote in the April 21 Wall Street Journal: "If a judge's decisions are corrupt or tainted, there are lawful resources (prosecution or impeachment); but congressional interrogations of life-tenured judges, presumably under oath, as to why a particular decision was rendered, would constitute interference with and intimidation of the judicial process. And there is no logical stopping point once this power is exercised."
    Mr. DeLay's fury at certain federal judges is apparently boundless. In an April 14 interview with editors and reporters at The Washington Times, the House majority leader, a commander in this campaign, blamed Congress for not fulfilling its constitutional responsibility to exercise oversight of the courts. He charged: "The reason the judiciary has been able to impose a separation of church and state that's nowhere in the Constitution is that Congress didn't stop them. The reason we had judicial review is because Congress didn't stop them. The reason we had a right to privacy is because Congress didn't stop them (from finding such a right)."
    Would the majority leader consider it constitutional for the principal of a public school to mandate official prayer in classes? If so, prayers of which religion, and whose God? And would nonbelieving students be allowed to sit, as pariahs, in silence or be placed in temporary exile in the principal's office? As for judicial review, does DeLay believe that Chief Justice John Marshall was guilty of "bad behavior" in his 1803 ruling in Marbury v. Madison that the judicial power of the United States has the authority to strike down congressional laws repugnant to the Constitution?
    Without judicial reviews, would official segregation in the public schools of certain states have remained lawful, and constitutional, until Congress changed its mind? With regard to the right to privacy, I thought that the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution not some vaporous "penumbra" of the Constitution provided Americans with safeguards to preserve that fundamental right.
    As a schoolboy, I was much taken with what William Pitt said of the right to privacy so long ago in the British House of Commons: "The poorest man may, in his cottage, bid defiance to all the forces of the crown. It may be frail; its roof may shake; the wind may blow through; the storm may enter; but the King of England may not enter; all his force dares not cross the threshold of the ruined tenement."
    In this country, the FBI may not enter our tenements, ruined or otherwise, unless its agents adhere to the requirements of the Fourth Amendment. Or that's what the Constitution says, but parts of the Patriot Act increasingly diminish this vital privacy amendment. Maybe the House majority leader could ask the courts to address that escalating violation of the Constitution by this government?
    Joining those attacking the federal judiciary, Congressman Steve King, Iowa Republican, says: "We have the constitutional authority to eliminate any and all inferior courts." Mr. DeLay emphatically agrees: "We (the Congress) set up the courts, (Article I, Section 8, of the Constitution). We can unseat the courts."
    Rep. James Sensenbrenner, Wisconsin Republican and chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, reminded Mr. DeLay and his fellow anti-courts warriors in a May 12 interview in The Washington Post that "In the early days of the Republic, the precedent was set that judges are not impeached for unpopular opinions." Mr. Sensenbrenner intends to uphold that precedent, but he also has in mind the establishment of an inspector general for the federal judiciary, just as other agencies of the executive branch, like the Justice Department, have.
    The inspector general could be empowered to deal with complaints against judges, because, says Mr. Sensenbrenner, no branch of the government "should be given a blank check without oversight on their operations." But will judges' actual opinions in cases be entirely excluded from that official oversight of "complaints"? If not, the separation of powers will be undermined, and the Constitution will be overruled.
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

L050607E   Infanticide in Virginia

What happens when a court constitutionalizes infanticide? We ask the question because a federal appeals court in Virginia appears to have done just that.
    In a contentious 2-1 decision last week that places Virginia in the hot seat of the abortion debate, the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond threw out Virginia's partial-birth abortion ban, sanctioning the actions of an abortionist plaintiff who crushes the heads and dismembers the arms and legs of infants as they emerge from the womb. The law the court struck down was similar to the partial-birth abortion ban Congress passed in 2003 and was one of the most reasonable attempts by a state legislature anywhere to end this barbaric procedure. But the court blocked it, thus giving its approval to a practice a large majority of Americans rightly regard as murder.
    Unlike a much-discussed Nebraska bill that would have prohibited a number of abortion procedures, this Virginia law focused narrowly on protecting the infant itself as it is being delivered. It allowed several procedures that the Nebraska law would have banned and made an exception for cases where the mother's life is at risk. None of that stopped the court from ruling that the law's clause to protect the life of mothers was inadequate.
    The "infanticide" claim doesn't originate with us; it comes from Judge Paul V. Niemeyer, one of the three justices who sits on the court. In his 27-page dissent, Judge Neimeyer calls the ruling "a bold, new law that, in essence, constitutionalizes infanticide of a most gruesome nature." In some uncommonly harsh words for his colleagues, Judge Niemeyer called the ruling "unfit for the laws of a people of liberty" and said it "unnecessarily distances our jurisprudence from that of the Supreme Court and from general norms of morality." To give readers a sense of the other side, Judge Niemeyer quotes the plaintiff, Dr. William Fitzhugh, describing his work. "My job on any given patient is to terminate that pregnancy, which means that I don't want a live birth."
    The public has spoken on partial-birth abortion. Time and again in polls, between half and two-thirds of Americans say they oppose the practice. The numbers change depending on how the question is phrased or when it is asked, but there's no denying a massive base of opposition exists. It's more than the religious right: According to one 2003 Los Angeles Times poll, 53 percent of Democrats and 56 percent of independents favored laws to make partial-birth abortion illegal. Clearly the public doesn't want what the 4th Circuit is content to sanction. Virginia lawmakers need to craft another partial-birth abortion ban.
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

E050607L   Parents, not outsiders

    Your article "Montgomery parents seek more say on sex education" (Metropolitan, Sunday) ends with a disturbing comment by the only Republican on the board: that the new curriculum will be constructed "within the professional component of the system, instead of as a negotiation between outside groups."
    The parents who are members of the Citizens for a Responsible Curriculum (CRC) should be outraged to be classified as one of the "outside groups." The resolution from the county Board of Education states that the school system will "retain the sole right and responsibility for determining the content of all curriculum." Didn't the board hear the successful "we demand to be heard" cry the first time around? Are not parents part of the school system?
    The CRC should be so concerned that their long-term solution should be to change the "lone Republican" on the school board to ensure that "outside groups" are continually represented with the proud title of "parent."

    BILL NETHERLAND
    Severna Park, Md.
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

R050608E   Intolerance in the Bible Belt

How many parents have pleaded with their child to read? Anything? In Knoxville, Tenn., a 10-year-old chose to spend his recess time reading the Bible with fellow classmates. In the opinion of most sensible observers, the studious boy represents a refreshing departure from usual grade-school behavior. Instead of bullying, fighting or other typical recess pastimes, Luke Whitson was reading. But his choice of literature has stirred the constitutional and cultural sensitivities of a public school principal.
    According to a lawsuit filed by the Alliance Defense Fund, Karns Elementary School Principal Cathy Summa "abruptly interrupted certain fourth-grade students while they were in the midst of a Bible discussion during recess, demanded that they stop their activity at once, put their Bibles away and, from that point forward, cease from bringing their Bibles to school." So, the Pentagon buys Korans and prayer carpets for Islamist terrorists, but a fourth-grader isn't allowed to read the Bible during recess? What wonderful ways our society condones stupendous hypocrisy.
    The Knoxville school system argues that recess is not "free time," during which, apparently, students are considered out of the classroom environment and allowed to engage in harmless pursuits, like playing, gossiping and -- yes -- reading. An ADF attorney representing Luke and his parents said, "Our position is the Constitution says yes to Bible reading and discussion outside class time. The principal and other school officials have contended that recess is not free time. We disagree." One of course must wonder when a student can enjoy "free time," if not during recess.
    On a national level, the principal's zealotry is a sad, but inevitable, consequence of decades of butchering the constitutional clause -- which isn't in fact in the Constitution -- that separates church from state. It's a fine mess that liberal activists have made for us: Defend the right to practice all religions -- except Christianity. They fight to fund government agencies that support artists who dip the cross in urine or splatter Mary with cow feces, but call upon the Constitution and the Geneva Conventions whenever a Koran is accidentally "kicked." It's unfortunate that young Luke has received such an early lesson in liberal intolerance.
    One needn't be a Christian to appreciate that Luke and his friends were -- during their "free time" -- reading about themes well ahead of the average course work of a fourth-grader. It far surpasses the intellectual demands of, say, Harry Potter or Tom Sawyer. So, we say to Luke, read on -- grown-ups don't always know as much as they think they do.
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

L050609E   Howard Dean's abortion myth

Howard Dean's comments about Republicans have received a lot of attention recently, as well they should. But something the Democratic National Committee chairman said on NBC's "Meet the Press" last month, though barely reported, demands an immediate retraction.
    On May 22, Mr. Dean said, "You know that abortions have gone up 25 percent since George Bush was president?" Host Tim Russert let the unsubstantiated assertion go unchallenged, so we'll save everyone the suspense. Abortions actually have decreased during Mr. Bush's presidency.
    The Alan Guttmacher Institute reported this rather unstartling bit of news three days before Mr. Dean's "Meet the Press" interview. Using the most recent data from 44 states, Guttmacher found that abortions decreased in 2001 by 0.8 percent and again in 2002 by 0.8 percent. This follows the near 20-year decline in abortion rates, which were at a 24-year low in January 2001 -- the month Mr. Bush took office. The non-partisan Annenberg Political FactCheck.org highlighted these findings soon after Mr. Dean's appearance. It noted that Guttmacher, while widely regarded as the best source on abortion data, describes its mission as being "to protect the reproductive choice of all women and men in the United States and throughout the world."
    As FactCheck.org reports, the myth of rising abortion rates originated with an opinion piece in the online magazine last fall by Glen Harold Stassen, an ethics professor at Fuller Theological Seminary. "Under President Bush, the decade-long trend of declining abortion rates appears to have reversed," Mr. Stassen wrote. "Given the trends of the 1990s, 52,000 more abortions occurred in the United States in 2002 than we would have expected before this change of direction."
    Conservative writers like Michelle Malkin were quick to shred Mr. Stassen's sloppy analysis, which used abortion data from just 16 states. But that didn't stop the myth from spreading. In a widely reported speech in January, Sen. Hillary Clinton said that "the rate of abortion in on the rise in some states." In a January appearance on "Meet the Press," Sen. John Kerry said, "And do you know that in fact abortion has gone up in these last few years?" Seven days after the Guttmacher study, Mrs. Clinton repeated the myth on CNN's "Inside Politics with Judy Woodruff." "And I would just add that during the Clinton administration, abortions went down," she said. "And they've gone back up under the Bush administration." Using Mr. Stassen's numbers, New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof argued in March that abortions have increased "significantly" under Mr. Bush.
    Which brings us back to Mr. Dean. There's a major difference between what he said and what the other Democrats have said. Mr. Dean didn't just repeat the myth; he went one better by adding the "25 percent" increase. However, even if Mr. Stassen's study were accurate, and there had been 52,000 more abortions in 2002, that would still only increase the nationwide rate by less than 4 percent.
    So, where did Mr. Dean get that number? FactCheck.org isn't sure, and neither are we.
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

R050606E   Boundless fury at the judiciary

By Nat Hentoff

    HouseMajority Leader Tom DeLay is part of an angry chorus of Republican critics campaigning against the federal judiciary. These judges, says Mr. DeLay, serve as long as they maintain "good behavior," but "we want to define what good behavior means." He would like the House Judiciary Committee to investigate how well certain judges are behaving.
    Until now, as conservative commentatorCharles Krauthammer points out, this condition for lifetime tenure has meant "honesty and propriety." But what Mr. DeLay and his allies apparently had in mind by "good behavior" is whether judges' constitutional opinions match their own. Under that standard, definitions of judges' "good behavior" could change depending on which political party dominates the judiciary committee and Congress.
    Former Solicitor General Theodore Olson, whom no one would accuse of being a left-wing radical, wrote in the April 21 Wall Street Journal: "If a judge's decisions are corrupt or tainted, there are lawful resources (prosecution or impeachment); but congressional interrogations of life-tenured judges, presumably under oath, as to why a particular decision was rendered, would constitute interference with and intimidation of the judicial process. And there is no logical stopping point once this power is exercised."
    Mr. DeLay's fury at certain federal judges is apparently boundless. In an April 14 interview with editors and reporters at The Washington Times, the House majority leader, a commander in this campaign, blamed Congress for not fulfilling its constitutional responsibility to exercise oversight of the courts. He charged: "The reason the judiciary has been able to impose a separation of church and state that's nowhere in the Constitution is that Congress didn't stop them. The reason we had judicial review is because Congress didn't stop them. The reason we had a right to privacy is because Congress didn't stop them (from finding such a right)."
    Would the majority leader consider it constitutional for the principal of a public school to mandate official prayer in classes? If so, prayers of which religion, and whose God? And would nonbelieving students be allowed to sit, as pariahs, in silence or be placed in temporary exile in the principal's office? As for judicial review, does DeLay believe that Chief Justice John Marshall was guilty of "bad behavior" in his 1803 ruling in Marbury v. Madison that the judicial power of the United States has the authority to strike down congressional laws repugnant to the Constitution?
    Without judicial reviews, would official segregation in the public schools of certain states have remained lawful, and constitutional, until Congress changed its mind? With regard to the right to privacy, I thought that the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution not some vaporous "penumbra" of the Constitution provided Americans with safeguards to preserve that fundamental right.
    As a schoolboy, I was much taken with what William Pitt said of the right to privacy so long ago in the British House of Commons: "The poorest man may, in his cottage, bid defiance to all the forces of the crown. It may be frail; its roof may shake; the wind may blow through; the storm may enter; but the King of England may not enter; all his force dares not cross the threshold of the ruined tenement."
    In this country, the FBI may not enter our tenements, ruined or otherwise, unless its agents adhere to the requirements of the Fourth Amendment. Or that's what the Constitution says, but parts of the Patriot Act increasingly diminish this vital privacy amendment. Maybe the House majority leader could ask the courts to address that escalating violation of the Constitution by this government?
    Joining those attacking the federal judiciary, Congressman Steve King, Iowa Republican, says: "We have the constitutional authority to eliminate any and all inferior courts." Mr. DeLay emphatically agrees: "We (the Congress) set up the courts, (Article I, Section 8, of the Constitution). We can unseat the courts."
    Rep. James Sensenbrenner, Wisconsin Republican and chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, reminded Mr. DeLay and his fellow anti-courts warriors in a May 12 interview in The Washington Post that "In the early days of the Republic, the precedent was set that judges are not impeached for unpopular opinions." Mr. Sensenbrenner intends to uphold that precedent, but he also has in mind the establishment of an inspector general for the federal judiciary, just as other agencies of the executive branch, like the Justice Department, have.
    The inspector general could be empowered to deal with complaints against judges, because, says Mr. Sensenbrenner, no branch of the government "should be given a blank check without oversight on their operations." But will judges' actual opinions in cases be entirely excluded from that official oversight of "complaints"? If not, the separation of powers will be undermined, and the Constitution will be overruled.
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

O050605   Billboards aim to shame 'johns'

OAKLAND, Calif. (AP) -- A controversial ?shaming campaign? aimed at fighting prostitution here will include photos on some billboards of men who have been convicted of soliciting sex.
    The billboards will carry the headline: ?How Much Clearer Do We Have To Make It??
    At a press conference Wednesday, city officials stood under a 10-by-22-foot billboard with the images of four convicted men intentionally blurred so they could not be recognized.
    ?We're warning everyone: Next time, the image won't be blurred,? City Council President Ignacio De La Fuente said. The billboards will only show images of people convicted of soliciting sex, he said.
    City officials say the measure is necessary at a time when prostitution is on the rise, particularly among girls as young as 11.
    Operation Shame, which started in February, has been praised by residents and merchants tired of prostitution traffic -- and criticized by others as too punitive.
    Most suspects arrested for soliciting sex -- a misdemeanor -- ultimately plead guilty to a lesser infraction of disturbing the peace and serve little if any jail time.
    Oakland interim Police Chief Wayne Tucker said officers arrest about 70 ?johns? and prostitutes a week, many from out of the area.
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

H050606   NEW MEXICO    Council overrides veto of same-sex ban
    ALBUQUERQUE -- The Navajo Nation's tribal government voted Friday to override its president's veto of a measure banning same-sex "marriage" on the nation's largest Indian reservation.
    The measure defines marriage as a relationship between a man and a woman. It also prohibits plural marriages as well as marriage between parents and children, grandparents and grandchildren, brothers and sisters and other close relatives.
    "In the traditional Navajo ways, gay marriage is a big no-no," said Kenneth Maryboy, a delegate from Montezuma Creek, Utah. "It all boils down to the circle of life. We were put on the earth to produce offspring."
    The Tribal Council vote was 62-14, with 12 delegates abstaining or absent, to override Navajo President Joe Shirley Jr.'s veto last month.
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

L050607   Ethics anyone?
    It's time for our annual look at those prominent Washington journalists who arguably are crossing the ethics line by lending their names in support of the Women's Campaign Fund (WCF), which raises money to elect "pro-choice" women to Capitol Hill.
    This year's celebrity guests for eight individual dinner parties, to be held in the homes of prominent Washingtonians on June 15, include Time editor and CNN analyst Margaret Carlson, Newsweek's Eleanor Clift, political commentator Bill Press, syndicated columnist Helen Thomas, PBS host Bonnie Erbe, People magazine's Jane Podesta, NPR radio host Diane Rehm and Charlie Cook of the Cook Political Report.
    When we drew attention to last year's list of "journalist celebrities" attending the dinners, only Washington radio station WTOP demanded that its popular political commentator, Mark Plotkin, not break bread with the WCF.
    Among those hosting dinners in their homes next week are Sen. Mary L. Landrieu, Louisiana Democrat; Rep. Judy Biggert, Illinois Republican; and Rep. Susan A. Davis, California Democrat.
    And when the WCF claims it's nonpartisan, it's not kidding. Numerous Republicans are attending the fundraisers, which are sponsored in part this year by Republicans for Choice.

    More or less?
    While we're on the subject of abortion, Rep. Christopher H. Smith, New Jersey Republican, is calling attention to a "myth" that's been circulating about abortions increasing since President Bush was elected in 2000.
    The myth, the congressman says, got legs when Glen Stassen, an ethics professor at Fuller Theological Seminary, and journalist Gary Krane co-authored an article last October headlined, "Why abortion rate is up in Bush years."
    It "attempted to make the case that President Bush's pro-life policies have not been effective in decreasing abortion," Mr. Smith states. "This mantra was picked up and repeated by many public figures and organizations who do not hold pro-life positions, but the facts simply do not support their claims.
    "In fact, abortion has continued to decrease while President Bush has been in office, as demonstrated by an Annenberg Political Fact Check."
    Posted in recent days, the Annenberg report is titled, "Abortions rising under Bush? Not true. How that false claim came to be and lives on."
    In summary, it states that Democratic politicians, including New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts and Democratic National Committee chairman and former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean, all now contend that abortions have increased since Mr. Bush took office.
    Rather, the report cites a study of 43 states by the Alan Guttmacher Institute showing that abortions "have actually decreased" across America.
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

R050607   U.S. most religious of 10 nations

ASSOCIATED PRESS
    Americans are far more likely to consider religion central to their lives and to support giving clergy a say in public policy than people in nine countries that are close allies, an AP-Ipsos poll shows.
    Religion and public policy often mix in the United States. Examples include the bitter fight over the appointment of judges and the fate of Terry Schiavo, the brain-damaged woman whose feeding tube was removed to enable her to starve despite efforts by Congress to overturn court orders.
    When politicians in the United States try to blend religion and politics, they find a comparatively receptive climate.
    Nearly all U.S. respondents said faith was important to them and only 2 percent said they do not believe in God, according to the polling conducted for the Associated Press by Ipsos.
    Almost 40 percent in the United States said religious leaders should try to sway policy-makers. That number was notably higher than in other countries.
    "Our nation was founded on Judeo-Christian policies and religious leaders have an obligation to speak out on public policy; otherwise, they're wimps," said David Black, a retiree from Osborne, Pa., who agreed to be interviewed after he was polled.
    About 61 percent said religious leaders should not influence government decisions.
    "I think religion and politics are too closely intertwined in this country," said Dillon Hickman, a businessman from Uniontown, Ohio, near Akron. "A lot of religious leaders take too active a position in politics."
    In Western Europe, where Pope Benedict XVI complains that growing secularism has left churches unfilled on Sundays, people are the least likely to believe among the 10 countries surveyed for the Associated Press by Ipsos.
    Only Mexicans come close to Americans in embracing faith, among the countries polled. Unlike Americans, Mexicans strongly object to clergy lobbying lawmakers.
    The polling was conducted in May in the United States, Australia, Britain, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Mexico, South Korea and Spain.
    "The United States is a much more religious country than other similar countries, looks a lot like what you call developing countries, like Mexico, Iran and Indonesia," said John Green, a researcher on religion and politics at the University of Akron.
    In the United States, some of the most pressing policy issues involve moral questions — such as same-sex "marriage," abortion and stem-cell research — that understandably draw religious leaders into public debate, Mr. Green said.
    The poll found Republicans are much more likely than Democrats to think clergy should influence government decisions in the United States.
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

R050607   Cloture vote expected on Brown nomination
 

By Charles Hurt
THE WASHINGTON TIMES

Senate Democrats are expected to surrender their filibuster of a second Bush judicial nominee today when they agree to a final vote on California Supreme Court Justice Janice Rogers Brown, nominated nearly two years ago to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.
    A cloture vote, which shuts off debate on the nominee, is scheduled for noon. It will be the first opportunity to end debate on Justice Rogers — and thus the filibuster against her — since seven Democrats and seven Republicans agreed last month to defy their respective parties' leadership to end the standoff on judicial nominees.
    After convening yesterday afternoon, the Senate spent several hours debating Justice Brown's nomination. Republicans applauded her rise from humble beginnings and her judicial wisdom, while Democrats accused her of "judicial activism" and criticized statements she's made in speeches.
    If cloture — which requires 60 votes to occur — is approved, a final confirmation vote on Justice Brown will follow later today or possibly tomorrow.
    Immediately after that vote, the Senate will take up the nomination of former Alabama Attorney General William H. Pryor, who is nominated to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit. A final vote on Judge Pryor, who serves on that panel in a temporary capacity, is expected later this week.
    Justice Brown and Judge Pryor are two of three Bush nominees guaranteed final votes under last month's agreement. The first nominee to see the filibuster against her lifted was Texas Supreme Court Justice Priscilla Owen, who was sworn in yesterday to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit.
    "The heated rhetoric, unfounded attacks, and distortions of Justice Priscilla Owen's record over the past four years have ended, and this outstanding jurist will finally take her place on the 5th Circuit," Sen. John Cornyn, Texas Republican, said after Justice Owen was sworn in. "The president made an outstanding choice when he nominated Justice Owen, and her confirmation was long overdue."
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

O050607   Abstinence courses faulty, report says
 

By Cheryl Wetzstein
THE WASHINGTON TIMES

Ohio abstinence-education programs contain false information and disregard the needs of sexually active or homosexual youths, according to a new report from a public health professor.
    One abstinence program, for example, tells teens they should "be prepared to die" if they use condoms because the contraceptives are likely to slip off or break, Scott Frank, a professor at Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland, said in a report released yesterday.
    However, "an authoritative study" by Consumer Reports magazine found that "with correct use," condoms break as little as 2 percent of the time and slip off as little as 1 percent of the time, said Dr. Frank, a family physician who directs the university's public health division.
    Abstinence-until-marriage programs also fail to provide information needed by youths who are sexually active and homosexual youths, Dr. Frank said.
    Abstinence is an important part of sex education, he added, but the federal definitions for abstinence education too often "tie the hands of educators."
    Congress should consider broadening the definitions so federal funds can be used to meet "a full range of teen needs," he said, adding that abstinence curricula should be reviewed by experts and abstinence teachers should be credentialed in sexual and reproductive health.
    Abstinence supporter Libby Gray said the Case report was "another veiled attempt" to steer schools and communities back to failed sex-education programs.
    Project Reality and other abstinence programs give teens medically accurate information about disease and pregnancy, and teach refusal skills and life skills — not "condom skills," said Miss Gray, who directs Project Reality in Glenview, Ill.
    The Case report is, itself, "riddled" with inaccuracies about abstinence programs, said Catherine Tijerina, executive director of the Ridge Project, which oversees abstinence education in 11 Ohio counties.
    Dr. Frank's suggestions that abstinence education doesn't work or that teens are denied contraceptive-style sex education are untrue, she said. Research shows that teen birthrates are falling more because of sexual abstinence than contraceptive use, she said.
    But others are applauding Dr. Frank's work.
    Dr. Frank's report "provides yet more evidence to Congress that the [Bush] administration is failing miserably on oversight of these [abstinence] programs," said Bill Smith, public policy leader of the Sexuality Information and Education Council of the United States, which supports comprehensive sex education.
    Later this week, Mr. Smith said, a congressional committee led by Rep. Ralph Regula, Ohio Republican, is slated to consider new federal funding for abstinence education. Mr. Regula and his colleagues "have an incredible opportunity to send a clear message of 'no new money'" for abstinence programs, he said.
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

O050608   GOP'ers for porn?

    Two pornographers will be among the guests at a Republican fundraising event next week, WorldNetDaily.com reports.
    "Last week, Carl Forti, communications director for the National Republican Congressional Committee, explained ... that self-described pornographer Mark Kulkis and his date, porn star Mary Carey, will be attending the two-day event, 'The 2005 President's Dinner and Salute to Freedom,' next Monday and Tuesday because their money is just as good as anyone else's."
    Miss Carey, a blonde featured in such productions as "Girls School 4" and one of the candidates to replace California Gov. Gray Davis in the 2003 recall election, informed WND writer Ron Strom: "I'm especially looking forward to meeting Karl Rove. Smart men like him are so sexy.
    "I know that [Mr. Rove is] against gay marriage," she added, but suggested she might try to convince the president's chief political adviser otherwise.
    Mr. Kulkis, who gave $300 to Democrats last year, has given $500 to the National Republican Congressional Committee this year, according to Federal Election Commission records.
    Asked about these two guests at the Republican event, Mr. Forti told WND: "They've paid their money. No matter what they do, the money is going to go to help elect Republicans to the House."
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

R050608   Brown filibuster finally broken

By Charles Hurt
THE WASHINGTON TIMES

Democrats surrendered their filibuster yesterday against California Supreme Court Justice Janice Rogers Brown, who was nominated to the federal bench nearly two years ago.
    Yesterday's 65-32 vote to end debate paves the way for a final vote today on her nomination to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.
    Ten Democrats -- including six who switched their positions from an earlier vote to filibuster Justice Brown -- joined all Republicans to allow her nomination to proceed to final consideration.
    The successful vote is the second filibuster to fall since last month's deal to end some of the leadership-led filibusters. Two weeks ago, the Senate confirmed former Texas Supreme Court Justice Priscilla Owen to the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, four years after she was nominated.
    Although the Owen nomination was approved with votes to spare, Democrats hope that opposition to Justice Brown will be stiffer and that she might lose a final confirmation vote, scheduled for 5 p.m. today.
    "If there was ever a nominee whose views are different than yours, it is Janice Rogers Brown," Sen. Charles E. Schumer, New York Democrat, told Republicans. "She is so far out of the mainstream that she makes [Supreme Court Justice Antonin] Scalia look like a liberal."
    Defenders dismissed such charges, pointing out that Justice Brown was recently retained on the California Supreme Court in a popular vote, with 76 percent support from the state's voters. They also noted that Justice Brown tied for second -- behind only the court's chief judge -- for writing the most majority opinions on the California high court.
    Justice Brown, who is black and grew up the daughter of sharecroppers in segregated Alabama, has roiled the passions of several black organizations.
    The conservative Congress on Racial Equality is running TV ads in support of Justice Brown and notes that she is the first black woman to serve on the California Supreme Court.
    "We want every senator to know that we will be watching their vote this week on the nomination of Judge Janice Rogers Brown," said CORE national spokesman Niger Innis.
    "This highly qualified African-American woman, the daughter of an Alabama sharecropper, has received appalling treatment by a group of hypocrites in the Senate, who always claim to support equal opportunity, yet refused to allow her nomination to even see the light of day."
    Other black organizations that traditionally applaud appointments of blacks to high government posts denounced Justice Brown.
    The Congressional Black Caucus (CBC) and the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People oppose her nomination. Sen. Barack Obama, Illinois Democrat and the chamber's only black member, voted yesterday against giving Justice Brown a final vote.
    D.C. Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton, a Democrat and a member of the CBC, said Mr. Bush "hasn't fooled us" by nominating Justice Brown. "She's cut from the same cloth as [Supreme Court Justice] Clarence Thomas."
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

R050609   Dean's loose lips

    " 'I'm beginning to see through the Republican spin,' a GOP Hill staffer instant-messaged me the other day, 'and now I don't think it's spin anymore. Howard Dean is just totally nuts,' " David Freddoso writes at National Review Online (www.nationalreview.com).
    "Under Dean's leadership, the Democratic National Committee is different now from last year only in that it can't keep up in fund-raising, and its chairman calls Republicans 'evil,' 'corrupt' and 'brain-dead liars' who 'never made an honest living in their lives' and 'are not nice people,' " said Mr. Freddoso, a reporter for the Evans-Novak Political Report.
    "Republicans, Dean said this week in San Francisco, are 'pretty much a monolithic party. They all behave the same. They all look the same. It's pretty much a white Christian party.' If you belong to the GOP, he said in Washington last week, then you 'are all about suppressing votes: two voting machines if you live in a black district, 10 voting machines if you live in a white district.' If you are a Republican, Dr. Dean says you offer a 'dark, difficult and dishonest vision ... for America.'
    "But Dean assures us, 'We're not going to stoop to the kind of divisiveness that the Republicans are doing.' Quite a relief!
    "There is much legitimate debate over what makes for a good party chairman, but one criterion that nearly everyone can agree on is that he should not be his party's greatest liability. On that score, Howard Dean is really getting out of hand."
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

O050610   NEW HAMPSHIRE   Photos result in child-porn arrest

    MANCHESTER -- A man was arrested on child-pornography charges after he brought sexually explicit pictures of his 2-year-old granddaughter to a drugstore to have prints made and a clerk saw the images stored electronically in the machine he used, police said.
    Fearing the girl was in danger and not knowing her identity, police released photos of the toddler. Her father saw the pictures Wednesday on national television and called authorities, according to an affidavit filed in Manchester District Court.
    The grandfather, Richard Hawes, 63, of New Boston, was being held in lieu of $200,000 bail.
    The girl and her family live in Florida. Mr. Hawes apparently took the photos of his granddaughter during a visit to Florida this spring, police said.
    Police said they were led to Mr. Hawes by a clerk at a CVS drugstore in Manchester. Mr. Hawes came to the store to print the photos from his digital camera, police said. The clerk found the photos when she went to clear a backlog of digital images from the store's self-serve photo kiosk.
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

R050610   Frist's victory

    "On the morning after a group of 14 senators made a deal to end the standoff over Democratic filibusters of Bush judicial nominees, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist found himself taking flak from all sides," Byron York writes at National Review Online (www.nationalreview.com).
    "Depending on who was speaking, Frist had wimped out, was unable to control his troops, or could not muster the support to trigger the 'nuclear option' to put an end to the filibuster problem entirely.
    "And that was just from conservatives. ...
    "All in all, it was a tough period for the majority leader. But did he really deserve all the criticism? Republicans came out of the filibuster showdown with six previously filibustered nominees headed for confirmation, and, perhaps more important, in a strong position ultimately to break all the Democratic judicial filibusters, should it come to that. And much of the credit for that, according to interviews with several people closely involved in the fight, belongs to Bill Frist."
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

R050609   Senate OKs Brown for judgeship

By Charles Hurt
THE WASHINGTON TIMES

The Senate approved California Supreme Court Justice Janice Rogers Brown yesterday nearly two years after President Bush nominated her to the U.S. Court of Appeals.
    The 56-43 vote makes Justice Brown the second nominee to be freed from a Democratic filibuster under last month's deal brokered among seven Democrats and seven Republicans.
    Justice Brown, viewed as a contender for the Supreme Court, will sit on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, the second-highest court in the land and considered a proving ground for future Supreme Court justices.
    "Today, principle has won a victory over partisan judicial obstruction," Majority Leader Bill Frist said. "After almost two years, the Senate has finally given Janice Rogers Brown the respect and the up-or-down vote that she deserves."
    Sen. Ben Nelson, Nebraska Democrat, joined all Republicans in voting to confirm Justice Brown. She was supported by Sen. Lincoln Chafee, Rhode Island Republican, who has voted against a handful of other Bush judicial nominees.
    Sen. James M. Jeffords, Vermont independent, did not vote.
    During yesterday's vote, House members of the Congressional Black Caucus gathered at the back of the Senate chamber to watch Justice Brown -- who made history as the first black woman to serve on the California Supreme Court -- be confirmed.
    But they weren't there to lend support. The caucus opposes elevating Justice Brown because its members -- all Democrats -- view her as too conservative.
    Last month's deal already paved the way for the confirmation last month of Judge Priscilla R. Owen, who now sits on the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
    The deal also guarantees a vote for former Alabama Attorney General William H. Pryor, whose filibuster was broken last night on an 67-32 vote. He will get a final confirmation vote today, more than two years after Mr. Bush first nominated him.
    Democrats attacked Justice Brown for speeches in which she talked about what she regards as the dangerous and expansive nature of government. She has argued that government weakens family bonds and encroaches into all aspects of life if not kept in check.
    "The D.C. Circuit is too important to the nation for the Senate to weaken it by putting such a loose cannon on its bench," said Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, Massachusetts Democrat.
    Mr. Kennedy irked some conservatives when he lamented that the Senate has spent so much time lately debating judges.
    "If it weren't for Kennedy, the Democrats might never have adopted the reckless judicial filibuster strategy in 2003," said Sean Rushton, executive director of the Committee for Justice, a group that supports Mr. Bush's nominees. "Responsibility for time consumed this week on what properly should have occurred years ago belongs to none more than Kennedy himself."
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

R050609   Warring Anglicans talk 'divorce'

By Julia Duin
THE WASHINGTON TIMES

Twenty Episcopal bishops at odds over homosexual clergy will attempt to reconcile their differences next month, but church conservatives say the meeting's real business is to start discussions on how to divide their assets in the event of a split.
    If differences between Episcopal liberals and conservatives are quickly determined to be "irreconcilable," says retired Diocese of Florida Bishop Stephen Jecko, the discussion will switch to engineering a breakup without running up millions of dollars in lawsuits.
    The Los Angeles gathering would be the first admission of schism by the 2.2-million-member denomination.
    "It'll be who gets the money and who gets the kids," Bishop Jecko said. "I hope it will be an amicable divorce. ... Those of us on the [theologically] orthodox side have no interest in going to court."
    The July 18-22 meeting is billed officially as a continuation of a March bishops' meeting that placed a one-year moratorium on consecrating all U.S. bishops until the 2006 Episcopal General Convention in Columbus, Ohio.
    That action came after a majority of the 70-million-member worldwide Anglican Communion have broken ties in some fashion with the Episcopal Church because of its 2003 consecration of V. Gene Robinson of New Hampshire as the denomination's first openly homosexual bishop.
    The meeting's agenda, crafted by D.C. Bishop John B. Chane, was under wraps until a few days ago when David Virtue reported in the Living Church, an Episcopal weekly, that assets would be on the table in Los Angeles.
    The denomination's New York headquarters alone has $300 million in assets, with billions more in about 7,220 parishes across the country.
    Bishop Jon Bruno and his Los Angeles diocese, which is host to the meeting, quickly moved to counteract the story.
    "It's just a meeting among bishops of different ideologies who just want to get together and discuss things among themselves," spokeswoman Janet Kawamoto said. "Everything else is pretty much not public. They are working together, and they don't think it's necessary to publicize any of it."
    Jim Naughton, spokesman for the Episcopal Diocese of Washington, said bishops "just want to see if they can figure out what everyone needs to stay in this together. There may be no satisfying of some folks. I don't think anyone in particular wants lawsuits."
    Except in a few parts of the country, conservatives "aren't a critical mass," he said.
    The Washington diocese has few conservative parishes, but the largest two parishes in the Diocese of Virginia are conservative congregations sitting on historic sites.
    The Falls Church, Episcopal and Truro Episcopal Church in Fairfax are not expected to give up their respective $17 million and $10 million in assets without a fight.
    "I'd be surprised if that kind of stuff isn't discussed," said Jim Dela, spokesman for another participant, Southwest Florida Bishop John B. Lipscomb.
    Any decisions about assets made by the ad hoc group of 10 conservative and 10 liberal prelates invited to the gathering would be unofficial, he added.
    Other attending bishops will include Ohio Bishop Mark Hollingsworth Jr. and Pittsburgh Bishop Robert Duncan.
    Bishop Duncan is the moderator of the Anglican Communion Network (ACN), a conservative group of nine dioceses and 200,000 laity representing about one-tenth of the Episcopal Church that opposed the Robinson consecration.
    At stake are millions of dollars worth of real estate, not to mention stained glass, pews, gold and silver goblets for Holy Communion and other property.
    Canon law rules that a congregation that departs from the Episcopal Church must leave its property and assets behind. However, several dioceses are contesting this law in civil court. Three such parishes trying to leave the Diocese of Los Angeles have their cases in Orange County Superior Court.
    Wicks Stephens, the ACN's legal adviser, said more court battles are planned.
    "A strong team of clergy, laity and lawyers are seeking to prepare for the times ahead," he said, if some sort of advance settlement is not worked out.
    "I'd hope sanity would prevail as lawsuits are not the best way to resolve church conflicts."
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

R050610   Three judges receive Senate confirmation

By Charles Hurt
THE WASHINGTON TIMES

The Senate yesterday confirmed three more judicial nominees -- one of whom had been guaranteed up-or-down votes under last month's deal to break some of the filibusters -- but moments later, Democrats on the Judiciary Committee blocked a panel vote on yet another nominee.
    On a 53-45 vote yesterday afternoon, former Alabama Attorney General William H. Pryor was approved for the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals -- as per the filibuster deal -- over strenuous objection from Democrats.
    Two more nominees -- Michigan Appeals Court Judge Richard A. Griffin and Federal District Judge David W. McKeague -- were unanimously confirmed to the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
    Immediately after the Pryor vote, members of the Senate Judiciary Committee gathered in a small room off the Senate chamber to send to the floor another nominee.
    But in the midst of the heated meeting, Sen. Charles E. Schumer, New York Democrat and panel member, charged in and complained that Federal District Judge Terrence W. Boyle, who was nominated more than four years ago to the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, was being rushed through the committee.
    After Mr. Schumer and other Democrats said they wanted one more week to review Judge Boyle's unpublished legal opinions, Sen. Arlen Specter, Pennsylvania Republican and chairman of the committee, acquiesced.
    In an earlier committee meeting, Minority Whip Richard J. Durbin, Illinois Democrat, urged Republicans to consider "what some of the groups have said about Terry Boyle," a reference to the outside liberal interest groups.
    One group, he said, called Judge Boyle an "equal opportunity meanie." Sen. Patrick J. Leahy, Vermont Democrat, accused Judge Boyle of having a reversal rate far higher than the national average.
    A few minutes later, Mr. Specter pointedly corrected Mr. Leahy. The inflated "reversal rate" cited by Mr. Leahy, he said, included cases in which a Boyle decision had been criticized by a higher court but not reversed.
    In fact, Mr. Specter said, Judge Boyle's reversal rate is 7.5 percent and lower than the national average of 8.6 percent.
    At that, Mr. Leahy sniffed audibly, popped a mint into his mouth and leaned back in his armchair without a word.
    The Pryor vote mostly followed party lines. Sens. Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island and Olympia J. Snowe and Susan Collins of Maine were the only Republicans to vote against Judge Pryor, and Sens. Ben Nelson of Nebraska and Ken Salazar of Colorado were the only Democrats to back him.
    Republicans clearly were pleased with yesterday's votes.
    "These three nominees have waited a combined total of over eight years for their votes," President Bush said. "I applaud the Senate for today giving these fine nominees the up-or-down votes they deserve."
    Democrats harshly criticized Judge Pryor for his conservative views.
    He has referred to Roe v. Wade, the case that established abortion rights, as "the worst abomination of constitutional law in our history." He also has been criticized by Democrats for rearranging a summer vacation at Walt Disney World with his children to avoid "Gay Day."
    Mr. Schumer criticized Judge Pryor for opposing a federal bill aimed at curbing domestic violence.
    "To be so opposed to preventing women from being beaten by their husbands and taking remedies to deal with women who are beaten makes no sense to me," he said.
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv