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
L050125      Bush backs proposed pro-life bills
L050125      Bush buoys pro-lifers
L050125      Supreme Court refuses 'Terri's Law'
L050125      Thousands protest Roe v. Wade
L050125C    Fate and Roe v. Wade
L050126      Hillary in the middle on values issues
L050126L    Who's 'out of step'?
L050127      Woman settles with clinic in suit over abortion risks
L050128      Abortion anchor

HOMOSEXUAL BEHAVIOR/PERVERSION
H050125     GLAAD-handing
H050125     Try, try again
H050126     Bush backpedal on marriage irks right
H050126Va Proposal would ban gays from adopting children
H050127     Gays make taxing choice
H050128      Not so GLAAD
H50126Md  Protesters call for marriage amendment

RELIGION/RELIGIOUS PERSECUTION
R050124       MICHIGAN
R050124       NEW HAMPSHIRE
R050125       Republicans more resolute, poll finds
R050125       Scalia's advice
R050125L     Founding Fathers of faith
R050126       Priest warned boy not to 'tell'
R050127       Virginia Episcopals to discuss ordination
R050130Va  Virginia Episcopalians 'express regret'

EDUCATION
E050126     Sex-ed courses called flawed

MEDIA
M050126     Oscar nods overlook 'Fahrenheit 9/11'
M050126     Rolling Stone relents on Bible-ad rejection
M050127     Spellings wants PBS money back
M050128     Super Bowl show vows to keep it clean
M050128     Lefty 'centrists'

OTHER
O050125      Republicans, Democrats offer rival Senate agendas
O050127C    Second-term values agenda
O050128E    Metro must accept pro-marijuana ads
O050128E    Sex, truth and videotape
O050128L    Liberals don't get it
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

R050127   Virginia Episcopals to discuss ordination
 

By Julia Duin
THE WASHINGTON TIMES

Virginia Episcopalians, who at 89,000 make up the country's largest Episcopal diocese, will meet tomorrow and Saturday in Reston to discuss finances and whether the denomination needs to stop ordaining homosexual clergy.
    Things are looking up a bit for the Diocese of Virginia this year, as contributions, also known as pledges, are up 5 percent from last year, when a financial boycott by conservatives caused a $860,000 drop in the 2004 diocesan budget.
    Thus, this year's budget, which delegates will vote on, is $4.05 million, up $160,374 from last year's $3.89 million budget. One cost-saving measure will be $40,000 from the salary of Assistant Bishop Frank Gray, who will retire July 1. As the bishop will do some part-time work, there are no immediate plans to replace him.
    However, several of the diocese's largest — and most conservative parishes — are withholding contributions to the diocese because of the Episcopal Church's decision in August 2003 to ordain a homosexual bishop.
    A majority of the Diocese of Virginia's delegates agreed with that vote when it was taken at the church's General Convention.
    "The decisions that will be made in the next couple of months will determine the direction for the future of the Episcopal Church and the Anglican Communion," said the Rev. Tom Herrick, vicar of Christ the Redeemer Church in Centreville. "The gravity of these decisions call for seeking God's wisdom, discernment of God's will, and the courage to follow it."
    Three of the 19 resolutions up for vote deal with how Episcopalians should give to their diocese. Two recommend either forcing parishes to tithe their earnings or return to their pre-2003 giving levels.
    This same issue arose at last year's diocesan convention, resulting in the formation of a diocesan "task force on giving." After several months of hearings, it recommended Dec. 15 that the Diocese of Virginia rely on voluntary, not forced giving.
    The 979 clergy and laity attending the diocesan meeting, at the Hyatt Regency Reston, also will elect deputies and alternates to the 2006 Episcopal General Convention in Columbus, Ohio, the 2.2-million-member denomination's decision-making body.
    Also among the 19 resolutions, the diocese council will consider six on the "Windsor Report," a document issued in October by a task force set up by the archbishop of Canterbury, head of the 70-million-member Anglican Communion.
    The report sought to resolve the Anglican Communion's crisis over authority and homosexuality, by criticizing blessings of same-sex unions in U.S. and Canadian churches and the 2003 consecration of New Hampshire Bishop V. Gene Robinson, a divorced man living with a male lover.
    To date, U.S. Episcopal bishops have expressed only "regret" for the "pain, hurt and damage" caused by the consecration, according to a Jan. 13 statement.
    One church has taken the meeting especially to heart, calling for a 21-day churchwide fast for its 300 members. The parish-wide fast for Christ the Redeemer Church ended Sunday.
    "We'd like to see true repentance, not just 'regret' for the church's actions," Mr. Herrick said.
    A report also will be given about the findings of a "reconciliation commission," set up last year to work out differences between liberal and conservative Virginia Episcopalians.
    The commission's chairman, the Rev. Andrew Merrow, did not return calls asking for comment.
    The Rev. Richard Crocker, associate rector at Truro Church in Fairfax, noted that Diocesan Bishop Peter Lee "is trying to keep everyone at the table" in a diocese split between liberals and conservatives.
    This has been appreciated widely, Mr. Crocker said, adding, "but it's a temporary peace because the fundamental differences still exist."
    "There are not many people happy with this holding position," he said.
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

L050127   Woman settles with clinic in suit over abortion risks
 

By Joyce Howard Price
THE WASHINGTON TIMES

An Oregon woman who underwent an abortion when she was 15 has settled out of court in a lawsuit against the Portland clinic where the procedure was performed. The lawsuit said workers failed to advise her that the procedure would put her at increased risk for breast cancer.
    In paperwork completed before her May 2001 abortion, the girl informed officials at the All Women's Health Services clinic that both cancer and "breast disease" ran in her family, her attorney, Jonathan Clark, said yesterday.
    "My client pointed out that her mother, her grandmother, an aunt and an uncle all had had cancer and that her grandmother had had breast disease, which, in fact, was breast cancer," Mr. Clark said.
    But clinic staffers did not advise the girl, whom he did not identify, that she faced both psychological risks and an increased breast cancer risk by having the abortion, Mr. Clark said.
    When All Women's Heath Services closed its doors in August 2003, the clinic had $150,000 in unpaid bills.
    Last fall, attorneys for the former clinic notified Mr. Clark that it was offering his client a financial settlement, and Multnomah County Judge Dale Koch signed an agreement to that effect on Monday. The amount of the judgment is confidential.
    "In Oregon," Mr. Clark said, "there is no statute that requires" that abortion providers disclose that the procedure "increases the risk for breast cancer." But he said patients "do need to be told of individual risks they might face."
    David R. Foster, a Portland lawyer who represented the clinic in the case, said the clinic is bankrupt. Asked why it agreed to settle, he said that decision was made by the insurance firm for the defunct business, "based on the [probable] cost of a defense."
    "I predict we would have won if it had gone to trial," he said.
    In the lawsuit, Mr. Clark had cited 1994 medical research by doctors at the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center in Seattle that found that girls younger than 18 who had abortions in the first trimester had a 150 percent greater risk of developing breast cancer than those who did not have abortions.
    The report, published in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute, found the risk was higher if the pregnancy had advanced beyond eight weeks or if the girl had a family history of breast cancer.
    Pro-choice groups have never given credence to the study, especially its claims that, overall, women who had abortions were 50 percent more likely to develop breast cancer. The cancer institute called the findings "inconclusive" in news stories at the time of publication.
    Mr. Clark said his client, who is now 19 and does not have breast cancer, was seven weeks pregnant at the time of her abortion.
    He pointed out that the girl's parents did not learn of her pregnancy or its termination until months afterward.
    "In Oregon, a 15-year-old can consent to a medical or dental procedure" without parental notification, Mr. Clark said.
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

H050127   Gays make taxing choice

BOSTON (AP) — As if tax season isn't stressful enough, homosexual "newlyweds" in Massachusetts have a new question to consider: Do they check "married" or "single" on their federal tax forms?
    A landmark court ruling made Massachusetts the first state to sanction same-sex "marriage" nearly a year ago, but homosexuals will have to untie the knot in April — on paper at least — because the federal government doesn't recognize their unions.
    But some aren't ready to declare themselves "single" to the Internal Revenue Service (IRS).
    "I fully intend to file a married joint return, regardless of the fact that we're not supposed to," said Arthur Henneberger, 46, of Springfield. "If they kick it back, fine; we'll go to court."
    Although Mr. Henneberger might expect to get the full backing of homosexual rights groups, the Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders isn't looking to pick a fight with the IRS.
    "It's not something that should be done quickly or precipitously," GLAD spokeswoman Carisa Cunningham said. "We wouldn't advise anyone to try to do it alone."
    Instead, the group is advising the state's estimated 4,900 same-sex couples who "married" in the past year to file federal returns as if they are single but to note — either through an attached letter or on the return itself — that they were "married" in Massachusetts. Same-sex couples who are residents of Massachusetts can file joint state returns.
    The IRS won't say how aggressively it will examine tax returns to spot those filed by same-sex couples. But agency spokesman William Cressman said if these couples are caught filing as "married," "the status would be changed and they would be notified of that."
    The IRS would bill the filer for any overdue amount, plus interest, and might levy a fine. Mr. Cressman said, however, if people pay up with interest, they probably wouldn't be fined.
    Filers are permitted to write comments on their returns, but those comments are ignored when it comes time to calculate tax payments or refunds, Mr. Cressman said.
    The issue has cropped up this year because seven homosexual couples who had been denied marriage licenses across the state sued, leading to the landmark ruling by the state Supreme Judicial Court that legalized same-sex "marriage." The "weddings" began taking place May 17.
    Julie and Hilary Goodridge, the lead plaintiffs in the lawsuit, plan to follow GLAD's advice and file separate single returns to the IRS, along with a letter noting their "marriage."
    The issue of what to do has troubled Bob Murch and Gary Halteman.
    "It's hard enough to be different," Mr. Murch said. "I don't understand why the government needs to see me as gay. I pay my taxes, I go to work, I'm a good person."
    Mr. Murch and Mr. Halteman's tax preparer advised them to file "single" federal returns, but to include a certified letter and copy of their marriage certificate. But the men, who live in Salem, haven't decided what they will do.
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

M050127   Spellings wants PBS money back
 

By George Archibald
THE WASHINGTON TIMES

Education Secretary Margaret Spellings has asked the Public Broadcasting Service to refund taxpayer dollars used to create and distribute an episode of a cartoon program that features lesbian parents, saying the subject matter was inappropriate and undermines the show's effort to promote literacy.
    The "PBS for Kids" episode of its popular "Postcards From Buster" program, originally scheduled to air Feb. 2 in classrooms across the country, had been pulled for review after some affiliates of PBS complained about its content. It was produced with Education Department grant money from a literacy initiative.
    In a letter to PBS President and Chief Executive Officer Pat Mitchell, Mrs. Spellings insisted that all references to Education Department funding and sponsorship be deleted from the program credits and "any materials about the program," such as teacher guides and student workbooks.
    "Congress' and the department's purpose in funding this programming certainly was not to introduce this kind of subject matter to children, particularly through the powerful and intimate medium of television," Mrs. Spellings wrote in a letter sent Tuesday.
    PBS Chief Operating Officer Wayne Godwin yesterday said that the public television system already had decided not to provide the episode to member stations and that the Education Department's financial contribution to the episode "will be used to fund the production of a replacement show."
    "After considerable reflection and discussion within the public television system over the last weeks, PBS concluded there are elements of the 'Postcards From Buster' episode that parents should have the option of addressing with their young children at a time and manner of their own choosing," Mr. Godwin said.
    Lea Sloan, a PBS spokeswoman, downplayed the furor yesterday, saying Boston PBS affiliate WGBH, which produces the show, still would air the episode on an unspecified date.
    "There will be no reference to PBS or Department of Education or Ready-to-Learn support," she said.
    PBS will deliver 40 "Postcards From Buster" episodes under a $99.7 million department grant that began in 2000, as agreed, "and will not include the 'Sugartime!' episode," Miss Sloan said, referring to title of the disputed episode.
    Religious and pro-family groups have complained about children's TV programming and videos that promote tolerance of homosexuality.
    "What's at stake is the forced normalization of homosexuality in the public schools," said Tom Minnery, vice president of government and public policy at Focus on the Family in Colorado.
    Mr. Minnery was speaking of a private foundation's production and distribution to 61,000 public and private elementary schools of a "diversity and unity" video featuring Nickelodeon's SpongeBob SquarePants and PBS' Big Bird, Barney and others singing the disco-era hit song "We Are Family."
    Focus on the Family founder James Dobson warned parents that the video and accompanying classroom booklet "may put materials in teachers' hands that could prompt them to teach kids that homosexuality is equivalent to heterosexuality."
    He said SpongeBob SquarePants is one of 100 popular animated characters that "may have been co-opted by an innocuous-sounding group to promote acceptance of homosexuality to children."
    The scrapped "Postcards From Buster" episode was produced by WGBH-TV in Boston with a grant from the Education Department's $23 million Ready-to-Learn program, a literacy initiative of first lady Laura Bush.
    It features a lesbian couple with adopted children in Vermont who accompany Buster to a sugarhouse, where maple syrup is made, and to a dairy farm, where they watch a cow being milked.
    The half-hour "Postcards From Buster" show blends animation and live action starring Buster, an 8-year-old bionic rabbit. Buster's dad, a pilot, is flying a rock group called La Viajeros on a North American tour and has taken Buster with his video camera to record new friendships and discoveries for "video postcards to his mom and friends back home."
    In each episode, Buster visits live children and questions them about their way of life.
    Miss Sloan told the Boston Globe in Saturday's editions that Mrs. Mitchell reviewed the show last week and was "satisfied with its contents."
    "We are aware that this is sensitive subject matter," she told the Globe. The PBS president "wanted to make sure that the episode was handled in a way that is appropriate. She's seen it. We now feel comfortable."
    PBS did not say whether the network decided against distributing the show after receiving Mrs. Spellings' letter on Tuesday.
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

L050126   Hillary in the middle on values issues
[MDFVA Comment:  BEWARE OF WOLVES IN SHEEP'S CLOTHING...CLINTONS ARE MASTERS OF SURVIVAL]

By Joseph Curl
THE WASHINGTON TIMES

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton is staking out centrist positions on values issues that helped decide last year's presidential election, positioning herself to the right of her party's base on abortion, faith-based initiatives and immigration.
    In the past few weeks, the New York Democrat has embraced the role of religion in addressing social ills, decried abortion as "sad, even tragic" and complained about the influx of illegal aliens — all stances that run counter to liberal party leaders, but which are popular among voters.
    "I think what we're seeing is, at least rhetorically, the attempt of the ultimate makeover," said Gary Bauer, president of the American Values organization and a former Republican presidential candidate.
    "She clearly wants to sit in the Oval Office. She's a bright lady, and I think she watched her party throw everything, including the kitchen sink, at the president and still lose. She's made her own calculation that values in the broadest sense of the word was the reason for that loss," he said.
    Considered by many Democratic Party leaders to be the front-runner for the 2008 presidential nomination, the senator is raising eyebrows among the party's liberal elite, who moved left after the surprising Democratic losses in the 2002 midterm elections.
    Although the party appears poised to continue on that path — just one of the seven candidates to head the Democratic National Committee, Timothy J. Roemer of Indiana, is pro-life — Mrs. Clinton has sought to position herself as a more moderate alternative.
    But Philippe Reines, press secretary for Mrs. Clinton, said his boss is not attempting to remake herself. Instead, he said, she is simply repeating positions that she has set out in the past.
    "The times may have changed, but her beliefs have not," he said.
    Some conservatives, however, saw a change when Mrs. Clinton delivered a speech on Monday, two days after the 32nd anniversary of the landmark Supreme Court decision Roe v. Wade that made abortion a constitutional right. In her remarks, she offered some conciliatory language on the divisive issue.
     "Yes, we do have deeply held differences of opinion about the issue of abortion, and I, for one, respect those who believe with all their hearts and minds that there are no circumstances under which any abortion should ever be available," the former first lady said.
    "There is an opportunity for people of good faith to find common ground in this debate. We should be able to agree that we want every child born in this country to be wanted, cherished and loved," adding that abortion "represents a sad, even tragic choice to many."
    The story was splashed across the front page of the New York Times and included the conclusion by the reporter that Mrs. Clinton "appeared to be reaching out beyond traditional core Democrats who support abortion rights."
    Mr. Reines said that Mrs. Clinton's stance was not new and probably didn't deserve to be on the front page.
    "As Senator Clinton has done for over a decade, she emphasized her desire to focus on making abortions safe, legal and rare, and she emphasized that we should be able to find some common ground," the spokesman said.
    Nancy Keenan, the new president of NARAL Pro-Choice America, also said she saw nothing new in what Mrs. Clinton said Monday.
    "Senator Clinton's remarks yesterday were a perfect statement of the pro-choice position. ... She reiterated time and time again her support for Roe, she outlined ways to reduce unintended pregnancies," she said.
     Mr. Bauer, however, said he had never heard Mrs. Clinton be so "nuanced on abortion."
    "Some of her most offensive speeches have been in front of pro-choice groups," he said, adding that Mr. Reines' contention "safely fits into the spin category."
     Mrs. Clinton has used moderate rhetoric on other issues as well.
    She said last week, "There is no contradiction between support for faith-based initiatives and upholding our constitutional principles."
    However, Democrats have fought proposals by President Bush that would expand the role of religious groups in delivering social services.
    Although some liberals have belittled religious people who populate the "red states," the senator said America is big enough for people to "live out their faith in the public square."
    She also has taken a hard line on immigration — in some ways one that is more conservative than the president, who has proposed a "guest-worker" program that many Republicans charge would amount to amnesty for the up to 12 million illegals in the country.
    She said last week that Mr. Bush has not "protected our borders," and said last February: "I am, you know, adamantly against illegal immigrants."
    Although some pundits mused that Mrs. Clinton's seizure of the middle ground is politically savvy this far out from an election, Republican pollster Frank Luntz said otherwise.
    "The most dangerous thing for a politician is to go through the buzzsaw of hypocrisy. It is actually better to be principled and extreme than to be contradictory and mainstream," Mr. Luntz said.
    Charlie Black, a Republican consultant with close ties to the Bush White House, agreed.
    "She's trying to follow a lesson from Kerry's loss, which is that the party is perceived as too liberal. But she's ignoring another lesson from Kerry's loss: That he suffered badly for flip-flopping and being perceived as an opportunist," he said.
    Still, Mr. Black noted that Democrats have learned a lesson from the 2004 election: They've got to "be able to talk to conservatives and people of faith."
    Mary Anne Marsh, a Democratic consultant, said Mrs. Clinton's rhetoric represents "not a change in position as much as an example of change in the way Democrats can talk about things, and especially anything about values."
    "What Democrats are learning is there's a way to talk about it in a way that is respectful of the values of people on both sides of the issues," she said, addressing the sense of intolerance among the Democratic Party that many pundits said was a shortcoming in the '04 election.
    "Democrats have been less willing to talk about values openly, but I think most people now realize it must be done," Mrs. Marsh said.
    But Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council, said voters are "smart enough to be able to look at people's records. I mean, they did with John Kerry."
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

M050126   Oscar nods overlook 'Fahrenheit 9/11'
 

By Gary Arnold
THE WASHINGTON TIMES

The Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences, challenging conventional notions of Tinseltown as a knee-jerk liberal monolith, snubbed "Fahrenheit 9/11," Michael Moore's hostile documentary on President Bush, in this year's Oscar nominations, which were announced yesterday in Beverly Hills, Calif.
    Mel Gibson's visceral re-enactment of the Crucifixion, "The Passion of the Christ," earned just three nominations in minor categories, including best cinematography. The independently released feature had stunned the film world with its breakout worldwide box office success.
    In the major Oscar categories, there were fewer surprises.
    Three biographical features — "The Aviator," "Finding Neverland" and "Ray" — were nominated for best picture, along with director Alexander Payne's unsentimental buddy movie "Sideways" and the boxing tear-jerker "Million Dollar Baby."
     "The Aviator," which recalls the youthful Howard Hughes, led all contenders with 11 nominations, including director Martin Scorsese and cast members Leonardo DiCaprio, Cate Blanchett and Alan Alda.
    "Finding Neverland," starring Johnny Depp as author James M. Barrie at the time he wrote "Peter Pan," and "Million Dollar Baby," directed by and co-starring Clint Eastwood, shared the runner-up spot with seven nominations each.
    A finalist for best direction, a category he won in 1992 for "Unforgiven," Mr. Eastwood also placed himself and two other cast members, Hilary Swank and Morgan Freeman, in the acting races.
    Perhaps overreaching in the wake of a Cannes Film Festival grand prize and the phenomenal summertime success of "Fahrenheit 9/11," Mr. Moore declined to submit the paperwork that would have made the film eligible as best documentary feature.
    He had won the category two years ago for "Bowling for Columbine" and used his acceptance speech to berate the president soon after American troops invaded Iraq.
    While spurning a likely nomination for best documentary, Mr. Moore waged a fruitless campaign to land "Fahrenheit" a best picture nod.
    Frank Pierson, Academy president, declined to comment on what Mr. Moore's reaction would be, telling reporters: "I'll have to call him and ask."
    Although Mr. Gibson's equally contentious "The Passion of the Christ" failed to secure nominations in major categories, it made the finals for best makeup and original score, in addition to cinematography. In contrast to Mr. Moore, Mr. Gibson declined to make a major lobbying effort for Oscar recognition.
    "Hollywood has had three months to weigh its role in the election," reflected Andrew Breitbart, a frequent contributor of movie commentary to the Drudge Report. "They went out on a limb for the Democrats and became more partisan than ever before. Arguably, Moore lost the election for them. They don't want to see it sawed off again. They would gain nothing by reaffirming him. This is a billion-dollar industry dominated by liberals who would now prefer to play it conservative and forget about the messy politics of 2004. By ignoring both Michael Moore and Mel Gibson, they can neutralize controversy and get away from the red state/blue state memories."
    When finalists in the major categories were announced by Mr. Pierson and actor Adrien Brody, some radio and TV commentators were quick to jump to the conclusion that "The Passion of the Christ" had been snubbed. A prodigious international success, "The Passion" was financed and made entirely outside the Hollywood orbit. Both the content and the marketing of the film defied conventional approval within the film industry.
    These maverick features about the film prompted Barbara Nicolosi, executive director of the Act One training program for writers and executives in Hollywood, to say that Mr. Gibson was locked out of the major categories such as best film and best director for religious reasons.
    "Everybody loves to say they hate what studios are doing to the artist. Gibson just said 'I'll make the movie my way,' " she said, pointing out that the film was the fifth-biggest hit of the year and the most successful independent film to date.
    "It's just because the subject matter of the movie was devout Christian that the movie was not considered a courageous act, but instead considered anti-heroic," she said. "Instead of saying, 'How daring,' they said, 'How dare he.' "
    "I don't know any other way to explain it but religious bigotry," said Miss Nicolosi, whose program focuses on training religious people for Hollywood careers.
    Nevertheless, "The Passion" did as well in the nominations as "The Phantom of the Opera," "The Polar Express" and "Spider-Man 2."
    Jamie Foxx, who portrayed singer Ray Charles in "Ray," joined a rare company of actors nominated in two categories the same year. He looms as the favorite for best actor, in a group that includes Mr. Eastwood, Mr. DiCaprio, Mr. Depp and Don Cheadle, nominated for "Hotel Rwanda."
    Cited as best supporting actor for his performance in the suspense thriller "Collateral," Mr. Foxx would need to outpoll Mr. Alda, Mr. Freeman, Thomas Haden Church in "Sideways" and Clive Owen in "Closer" to record an unprecedented double victory.
    The major stumbling block could be Mr. Freeman, who has yet to win an Oscar despite being widely regarded as one of the most accomplished film actors for decades.
    Miss Swank, who won as best actress early in her career for "Boys Don't Cry," contends with Annette Bening in "Being Julia," English actress Imelda Staunton in "Vera Drake," Kate Winslet in "Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind" and Colombian newcomer Catalina Sandino Moreno in "Maria Full of Grace."
    Miss Sandino's nomination ensured that all four of the acting categories have at least one ethnic minority among the nominees. In addition to Miss Sandino, five of this year's acting nominations are for blacks, besting the previous mark of three in one year.
    If one of the sub-themes of the balloting is "Better Late Than Never," the inside track may belong to Miss Bening, who has been nominated in acting categories twice before and already lost one Best Actress race, for her performance in 1999's "American Beauty," to Miss Swank.
    This tendency could also favor Mr. Scorsese.
    Though a finalist for "The Last Temptation of Christ," "Raging Bull," "GoodFellas" and "Gangs of New York" in previous years, Mr. Scorsese has never won the Academy Award. In addition to being a prominent director for more than 30 years, he has been one of the industry's most active crusaders for film preservation and scholarship.
    Miss Blanchett may emerge as the favorite as best supporting actress for her portrayal of screen legend Katharine Hepburn in "The Aviator." Two other finalists portrayed dramatized versions of real women: Laura Linney in "Kinsey" (the film's only nomination) and the Nigerian-English actress Sophie Okonedo in "Hotel Rwanda." Virginia Madsen as a waitress and wine connoisseur in "Sideways" and Natalie Portman as a neurotic stripper in "Closer" round out the category.
    Perhaps the most glaring omission among the performers is Miss Madsen's romantic opposite in "Sideways," the glamour-proof character actor Paul Giamatti, who also was denied a nomination last year for "American Splendor."
    "Sideways" director Mr. Payne did make the Oscar finals, where he will be considered a long shot against Mr. Scorsese and Mr. Eastwood but probably a better bet than Taylor Hackford for "Ray" and English filmmaker Mike Leigh for "Vera Drake."
    Mr. Payne also was nominated with his writing partner Jim Taylor for best adapted screenplay. The duo are pitted against "Finding Neverland," "Million Dollar Baby," "The Motorcycle Diaries" and "Before Sunset."
    The nominees for best original screenplay are "The Aviator," "Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind," "Hotel Rwanda," "Vera Drake" and "The Incredibles," which is no doubt the prohibitive favorite for best animated feature, where it contends with "Shrek 2" and "Shark Tale."
    Award winners will be revealed at the 77th annual Oscar ceremony on Feb. 27, at the Kodak Theater in Hollywood, Calif. ABC will telecast the event, starting at 8 p.m.
    •Victor Morton contributed to this report.
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

R050126   Priest warned boy not to 'tell'

CAMBRIDGE, Mass. (AP) — Former priest Paul Shanley told a 6-year-old boy, "If you tell, no one will believe you," before molesting him at a parish in the early 1980s, a prosecutor said yesterday .
    But the defense said his story was concocted in order to bring a lawsuit.
    The boy didn't tell anyone for nearly 20 years, recovering his memories of the purported abuse only after hearing of press reports about the sex scandal in the Boston Archdiocese, Assistant District Attorney Lynn Rooney said during opening statements in Mr. Shanley's child rape trial in Middlesex Superior Court.
    "Those memories were buried deep inside," she said.
    Mr. Shanley's lawyer, Frank Mondano, said the accuser made up the accusations against Mr. Shanley to get in on the multimillion-dollar settlements for victims in the scandal.
    Miss Rooney acknowledged that the man received $500,000 in a civil settlement with the archdiocese last year, but she said his willingness to testify publicly about being repeatedly raped by Mr. Shanley shows that he is motivated by more than money.
    Mr. Shanley, who turned 74 yesterday, faces three charges of raping a child and two charges of indecent assault and battery on a child. The maximum sentence is life in prison.
    The priest was defrocked by the Vatican last year after being charged with sexually abusing boys at St. Jean's parish in Newton, Mass., from 1979 to 1989.
    The case originally involved accusations by four persons, but it has been whittled down to the one man, now 27, who says he was sexually abused by Mr. Shanley from 1983 to 1989, when he was between the ages of 6 and 12.
    Miss Rooney said the boy was taken out of religious education classes and raped by Mr. Shanley in the church bathroom, the pews and in the confessional.
    Mr. Shanley sometimes summoned the boy to the rectory to play cards.
    "The defendant would say, 'You lose, take off your clothes,' " and then molest him, Miss Rooney said.
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

H050126   Bush backpedal on marriage irks right
 

By Ralph Z. Hallow
THE WASHINGTON TIMES

Some social conservatives are angry with President Bush for saying a proposed constitutional ban on same-sex "marriage" lacks the requisite votes for approval in the Senate.
    Mr. Bush has acknowledged no such obstacle for his proposal to add personal investment accounts to the Social Security program, even though that plan also lacks support among some Republican lawmakers.
    "Are the votes there for privatizing Social Security?" asked Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council.
    Mr. Perkins has joined with several other prominent social conservative leaders in warning the White House that if the president backs away from the marriage amendment, he will lose the support and trust of social conservatives on other issues, including Social Security reform.
    Sadie Fields, president of the Georgia Christian Coalition, says Mr. Bush's job is to bring along recalcitrant Republicans in the Senate for the marriage amendment that he strongly supported when running for re-election last year.
    "For the president to say we don't have the votes raises the question: 'Don't we have a majority of Republicans in the Senate?' " Mrs. Fields said. "That's where presidential leadership comes in. That's when you call your people together and tell them, 'This is something I want,' and you set about to make sure that happens."
    "Nothing is more threatening to the foundation of our country than the radical homosexual agenda and its assault on marriage and the family," Mrs. Fields said.
    But at least one social conservative organization took a different view, saying it is up to Republican leaders in Congress, not the president, to get the marriage amendment passed so it can move on to the states for possible ratification.
    "I don't think the fact [that he is] not taking the lead on the amendment means he no longer supports it," said Concerned Women for America chief counsel Jan LaRue. "Putting all the pressure on the president gives cover to these reluctant senators. I think it's wiser politically to put pressure on the senators who are dragging their feet."
    Mr. Perkins said he joined other social conservative leaders, including Paul Weyrich, James Dobson and Jerry Falwell, all part of the Arlington Group coalition, in writing a letter, dated Jan. 18, to Bush senior political adviser Karl Rove.
    The letter noted that opposition to same-sex "marriage" was a winning issue in the last election, while Social Security privatization deeply divides voters.
    "We were making the point that the president's broadest support on policy is on the issue of marriage, and if he moves away from that, he narrows his base of support," Mr. Perkins said. "I would not say social conservatives are for or against partially privatizing Social Security. It's just not what brought a lot of people to their feet during the campaign."
    Social conservatives cite other points of irritation with Mr. Bush besides the marriage amendment.
    "Conservatives are angry about amnesty for illegal aliens, the president's guest-worker program and the failure to close our borders," Phyllis Schlafly said. "The president says he will use his political capital to get his guest-worker program passed, but not for the marriage amendment."
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

M050126   Rolling Stone relents on Bible-ad rejection
 

By Jennifer Harper
THE WASHINGTON TIMES

Rolling Stone has relented.
    The music magazine has accepted a Bible advertisement, reversing a previous decision that brought it unwanted publicity and critical press.
    The half-page pitch for "Today's New International Version" of the Bible — TNIV for short — will appear in the next issue of Rolling Stone, on newsstands Feb. 11. The magazine had rejected the ad two weeks ago, citing a company policy prohibiting commercial religious content.
    But Rolling Stone changed its tune once the decision grew into a national news story, and quietly renewed its original contract Monday with Zondervan, the Michigan-based publisher that hoped to showcase a new Bible aimed at 18- to 34-year-old readers in a hip, secular venue.
    "The outcome proves to us that the Bible remains the biggest best seller of all time. And we are thrilled with the decision. We are very encouraged," Zondervan spokesman Doug Lockhart said yesterday.
    "We already knew that the Bible was relevant to this age group, that they were spiritually curious," he continued. "In the last few days, we've gotten calls from people thanking us for approaching Rolling Stone. One young man said he never would have considered buying a Bible until this situation unfolded."
    The touchy situation, however, prompted a national dialogue on religious content.
    The Bible ad mentions neither God nor theology, but instead features a pensive young man and the slogan, "Written in today's language, for today's times — and it makes more sense than ever."
    The approach passed muster in similar youthful markets: Music cable channels MTV and VH1, America Online, Modern Bride magazine and the satirical political magazine the Onion accepted TNIV ads without hubbub.
    Rolling Stone's decision to ban what it called "a religious message" even though the current issue includes an ad for a Jesus Christ-themed T-shirt did not escape the press.
    "For a magazine that has long trumpeted freedom of speech and artistic expression, the decision to ban the Bible ad seems a bit hypocritical," noted music editor Mark Moring in Christianity Today.
    Cathleen Falsani of the Chicago Sun-Times called the magazine "thoroughly shortsighted."
    " ... In the struggle to stay hip, relevant and edgy, a half-page ad for a Bible may be the least of Rolling Stone's worries."
    Evangelist Jerry Falwell had urged the magazine to reconsider its decision "in the spirit of freedom of the press," adding, "In the alleged culture of 'diversity,' we are actually seeing a burgeoning atmosphere of repression when it comes to faith."
    "The book that's too hot for Rolling Stone," quipped MSNBC.
    CNN, ABC and other networks also covered the story.
    But all's well that ends well.
    "There has been a groundswell of consumer support, and we've had so many calls from potential advertisers that we've actually moved the publication date for TNIV up a few weeks. It will now be available Feb. 1," Mr. Lockhart said.
    Calls to Rolling Stone for comment were not returned yesterday.
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

L050125   Bush backs proposed pro-life bills
 

By Bill Sammon
THE WASHINGTON TIMES

President Bush supports congressional proposals requiring abortionists to warn some women that their unborn children will feel pain and banning adults from helping pregnant minors cross state lines to circumvent abortion laws requiring parental notification, the White House said last night.
    "President Bush supports both pieces of legislation," said White House deputy press secretary Trent Duffy.
    The support signals Mr. Bush's decision to continue with his incremental opposition to abortion during his second term, at least until the issue explodes over expected vacancies on the Supreme Court.
    Although Mr. Bush believes that Americans are not ready to ban all abortions, he is expected to nominate Supreme Court justices in the next four years who might overturn Roe v. Wade, the 1973 ruling that made abortion a constitutional right.
    But until there is a vacancy on the court, the president appears content to continue chipping away at the legality of abortion — through proposals such as the 2003 ban on partial-birth abortion and the fetal-pain and state-line proposals — rather than launching an all-out assault.
    That strategy was reflected in his annual phone call yesterday to the March for Life in Washington, which was led by pro-life activist Nellie Gray.
    "The America of our dreams, where every child is welcomed ... in life and protected in law, may still be some ways away," he acknowledged from Camp David. "But even from the far side of the river, Nellie, we can see its glimmerings."
    The president made it clear that despite the polarizing nature of the abortion debate, he places a premium on politeness.
    "I want to thank you, especially, for the civil way that you have engaged one of America's most contentious issues," he told the pro-lifers in remarks broadcast on the Mall. "A true culture of life cannot be sustained solely by changing laws. We need, most of all, to change hearts."
    That statement was widely interpreted as a reluctance to challenge Roe v. Wade directly, a posture the president first articulated in a 2003 press conference.
    "I don't think the culture has changed to the extent that the American people or the Congress would totally ban abortions," he told reporters in the Rose Garden then.
    But pro-life activist Stephen Peroutka, who participated in yesterday's march, said, "That's a tough thing to say to the 4,000 babies who will be aborted tomorrow — that this is not the right time to outlaw abortion.
    "When is the right time — when public opinion polls say it's the right time?" he asked. "Shouldn't he be a leader and make it the right time? Let's stop leading by public-opinion polls."
    Mr. Peroutka credited the president with reigniting the debate over abortion, even if he hasn't gone far enough in banning the practice. He called for Mr. Bush to adopt a take-no-prisoners approach to abortion in his second term.
    But White House press secretary Scott McClellan suggested that the president will continue to take a nonconfrontational approach to the abortion issue.
    "I think that he's made it very clear that whether we agree or disagree on the issue of abortion, that we can all work together to take practical steps to reduce the number of abortions," the spokesman said yesterday.
    According to the White House, those steps include passage of the Child Custody Protection Act and the Unborn Child Pain Awareness Act.
    The first measure would make it illegal for an adult to transport a minor across state lines to avoid a parental-notification law in the girl's home state.
    The second measure would require abortion doctors to inform mothers how painful an abortion will be to an unborn child at least 20 weeks old and to offer anesthesia for the fetus.
    Mr. Bush already enacted several pro-life pieces of legislation during his first term. For example, he signed a law giving victim status to unborn children who are injured or killed in violent crimes.
    The president also signed a ban on partial-birth abortion, although the ban has been challenged by several federal judges. The Bush administration is fighting those challenges in various jurisdictions.
    Also during his first term, the president curtailed federal funding of research on stem cells from human embryos. Although Mr. Bush allowed research to continue on existing stem-cell lines, researchers announced Sunday that those lines are contaminated with a foreign molecule from mice that might make them risky for use in medical therapies.
    "The human embryonic stem cells remained contaminated ... even when grown in special culture conditions," said researcher Dr. Ajit Varki of the University of California at San Diego.
    Mr. McClellan said the study came as no surprise to the Bush administration, including the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and Food and Drug Administration.
    "We were very well aware from the beginning that these lines contained that trait," he said. "But NIH has made it clear that these lines are adequate to supply us with the kind of basic research that needs to be done."
    Mr. Bush has said his decision to curtail stem-cell research is part of a multifaceted effort to create a "culture of life."
    For example, he once praised his brother, Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, for preventing the removal of a feeding tube from Terri Schiavo, a Florida woman in a persistent vegetative state.
    But yesterday, the Supreme Court refused to reinstate a Florida law that has kept her hooked to the feeding tube. It was not clear when the tube might be removed.
    "The strong have a duty to protect the weak," Mr. Bush said yesterday. "In a culture that does not protect the most dependent, the handicapped, the elderly, the unloved or simply inconvenient become increasingly vulnerable."
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

O050125   Republicans, Democrats offer rival Senate agendas
 

By Stephen Dinan
THE WASHINGTON TIMES

Senate Republicans yesterday introduced their top 10 priorities for the 109th Congress, including President Bush's campaign promises on Social Security and taxes and continuing last year's fights over energy and tort reform, as Senate Democrats presented their own 10-bill platform that reflected many of the policies of their presidential candidate, Sen. John Kerry.
    "These 10 bills are aimed at what the American people expect and what they deserve, and that is for us to govern with meaningful solutions," said Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist as he introduced the Republican package.
    "The bills reflect the aims of the Republican Conference. They are bills that will directly improve the lives of Americans across this great country in meaningful ways," he said.
    Democrats, meanwhile, said they understand that Republicans control the chamber with 55 seats, but said their package better matches the agenda of Americans.
    "When I was campaigning, people didn't tap me on the shoulder and say, 'Senator Schumer, what about private accounts for Social Security? Senator Schumer, what about bringing democracy to the far corners of the world? Senator Schumer, what about reforming the tax code?' " said Sen. Charles E. Schumer, New York Democrat.
    "I heard about good-paying jobs, good health care, good education and keeping our country safe and secure. That is what we are talking about today," he said.
    Both Democrats and Republicans included bills to expand access to health care, and though both parties target education, Republicans want to advance the No Child Left Behind education law Mr. Bush pushed through in 2001, while Democrats are calling for more education funding and a re-examination of the measure.
    Both parties also focused on abortion, with Republicans wanting penalties to prevent adults from transporting pregnant minors across state lines to avoid a state's parental-notification law. Democrats, meanwhile, called for reducing the number of abortions by expanding access to family planning and contraception, and including information about contraception in school sex education.
    Despite the president's call for an immigration bill this year, it did not make either party's top 10 list.
    Mr. Frist, Tennessee Republican, said that a constitutional amendment defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman didn't make the list because it is a resolution rather than a bill, but he said it will be the first resolution introduced and he promised to hold a vote on it in the next two years.
    Neither side had a cost estimate for its package, partly because most of the bills haven't been written yet.
    But Democrats did include a bill in their package to impose rules on the Senate that would control the deficit by making it harder to enact new spending or new tax cuts.
    Many of the ideas behind the Democrats' package, from the increases in active-duty troop strength and 2,000 new Special Forces troops, to cracking down on companies moving jobs overseas, to college-tuition tax credits, were raised by Mr. Kerry during the presidential campaign.
    Democrats said Mr. Kerry's defeat did not mean those weren't good ideas, nor did Mr. Bush's election mean he will win his legislative package.
    "Let's not get carried away with the mandate of President Bush," said Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, Nevada Democrat, adding that the Democrats had a net gain of 74 seats in state legislatures in the last election, balancing their losses at the national level. "We did fine around the country. So there is no mandate."
    Mr. Reid also said they stand by much of what Mr. Kerry, of Massachusetts, ran on in his campaign.
    "The issues that Senator Kerry ran on ... are good issues, and we're going to carry those forward. These are important issues, important to the American people," he said.
    For his part, Mr. Frist said he didn't want to claim a mandate.
    "I stay away from the word, specific word 'mandate' because it suggests in too many people's minds that we're just going to be trying to railroad things through," he said, adding that he wants these bills to go through the regular give-and-take of the committee process.
    Still, he said, "I do feel that the American people spoke pretty loudly in these elections in terms of their support for this president and this Republican Congress."
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

L050125   Supreme Court refuses 'Terri's Law'
 

By Joyce Howard Price
THE WASHINGTON TIMES

Florida's role in keeping alive a woman in a persistent vegetative state ended yesterday when the U.S. Supreme Court refused to reinstate a Florida law, passed with Republican Gov. Jeb Bush's backing, to keep Terri Schiavo connected to a feeding tube.
    Some other legal cases brought by Mrs. Schiavo's parents still are pending, and a stay currently in place would have to be dissolved before steps could be taken "to permit starving Terri to death," said Ken Connor, a Virginia-based lawyer who represented Mr. Bush in the case.
    "If this decision is allowed to stand, Terri Schiavo will die from starvation and dehydration pursuant to the equivalent of a judicial death warrant," Mr. Connor said yesterday.
    George J. Felos, a Florida lawyer who represented Michael Schiavo, Terri's husband and guardian who wants the feeding tube removed, said that "this effectively ends the governor's interference in this case.
    "It means that the decision by the Florida Supreme Court — that this law was unconstitutional — still stands," he said.
    The case now goes back to state Pinellas Circuit Judge George Greer, who already has ruled that Mr. Schiavo can remove his wife's feeding tube.
    "Terri's Law," the 2003 statute that the high court yesterday refused to reactivate, was enacted by the state legislature and signed by Mr. Bush nearly a week after Judge Greer ruled that Mr. Schiavo can remove his wife's feeding tube.
    Feeding resumed, but a unanimous decision last fall by the Florida Supreme Court found the new law unconstitutional.
    Florida's highest court said that once any court has issued a decree regarding the care and treatment of an incompetent person, neither the legislative nor the executive branch can take independent steps on behalf of that person.
    Mr. Bush appealed the Florida Supreme Court ruling in December, but the Supreme Court rejected him without comment yesterday.
    "The case is at an end for the governor," Mr. Connor said. "Courts have long recognized states' compelling interest in protecting the handicapped ... so this is a very sobering and troubling result for handicapped Floridians, and for handicapped people all over the country."
    Mrs. Schiavo, 41, went into a persistent vegetative state in 1990 after her heart temporarily stopped beating. She can breathe on her own, but she depends on a feeding tube to stay alive, as she cannot swallow. As long as she can get food and water, Mrs. Schiavo is in no danger of dying.
    Mrs. Schiavo's father, Robert Schindler, has insinuated that his son-in-law put her into a coma. Mr. Schindler and his wife, Mary, argued in a court filing that Mr. Schiavo is trying to rush his wife's death, so he can inherit her estate or her insurance and marry another woman by whom he already has had two children.
    Mr. Felos vigorously denies the money accusations, saying that "all the money is gone, and there is no insurance."
    Issues still in dispute, which are to be resolved in other filings by the Schindlers, include whether Mrs. Schiavo is in a vegetative state with no chance of recovery and whether she previously indicated she did not want machines to keep alive by machines. Another will examine whether she was denied the right of independent counsel.
    Mrs. Schiavo left no living will or any other written directive, but her husband has said she told him privately that she did not want to live hooked up to machines.
    In another development yesterday, the Supreme Court refused to consider whether states may offer license plates with messages such as "Choose Life."
    By denying certiorari, the Supreme Court left lower courts divided on whether such programs in a dozen states represent an unconstitutional restriction of dissenting views.
    Without comment, the high court let stand a lower-court decision that said South Carolina's license plates, which bear the phrase "Choose Life," violate the First Amendment because pro-choice advocates were not given a similar forum.
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

R050125   Republicans more resolute, poll finds
 

By Jennifer Harper
THE WASHINGTON TIMES

The old bumper-sticker adage "my country right or wrong" still appeals to Republicans, according to a survey of public values released yesterday by the Pew Research Center.
    Among Republicans, 66 percent said we should be willing to fight for America, "whether it is right or wrong."
    The figure stood at 33 percent among Democrats and 42 percent among independents — prompting the Pew researchers to conclude that the GOP "is more hawkish and the Democrats are more dovish than at any time in the past few decades."
    Indeed, more than three-quarters of Democrats think diplomacy is the best way to ensure peace, compared with only 32 percent of Republicans. Sixty-six percent of Republicans said military force is the best way to defeat terrorism, compared with 17 percent of Democrats.
    Meanwhile, 43 percent of the American public felt press criticism of the military actually weakens our defenses — up from 28 percent in 1991.
    Those who regularly attend church and have traditional religious views increasingly vote Republican, a trend that the Pew researchers deemed "a powerful new reality," adding that "religious practice is the most important demographic characteristic in shaping electoral behavior."
    Almost two-thirds of President Bush's supporters said they attended church more than once a week — compared with 35 percent of those who voted for Sen. John Kerry, the Massachusetts Democrat who was Mr. Bush's opponent in November's election.
    While many Americans favor separation of church and state, Pew said the survey also revealed "an equally strong belief that religion should have a substantial presence in public life."
    A full 72 percent of Americans want their president to have strong religious beliefs and 52 percent said churches should express views on political matters — though 69 percent said churches should not endorse political candidates.
    Forty-five percent said that Hollywood was "unfriendly" towards religion; only 16 percent said Tinseltown was "friendly" toward faith, while 31 percent said it was neutral. Thirty-four percent said the news media also were hostile to religion, with 16 percent deeming the media "friendly" and 41 percent neutral.
    "Public discontent with the news media has increased dramatically," the Pew report said, adding that 58 percent of Americans had at least "some" confidence in the media — compared with 86 percent in 1973. Almost a third — 32 percent — believe the press is "immoral," compared with 13 percent in 1995.
    Fifty-three percent said there was a liberal bias in reporting; only 29 percent said the press attempted to remove bias from stories. Thirty-six percent said news organizations got the facts straight; 62 percent said the press covers up its mistakes.
    Among Republicans, 65 percent see the news media as liberal, and 41 percent of Democrats agreed. The survey found only 7 percent of journalists and 26 percent of news organizations called themselves conservative.
    "The relatively small number of conservatives in journalism raises concerns over the potential for liberal group-think in the nation's newsrooms," the researchers observed.
    The Pew findings, released yesterday as a reference volume called "Trends 2005," were compiled from polls conducted last year by six of the District-based nonpartisan group's research divisions. The data can be viewed at the group's Web site (www.pewresearch.org).
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

H050125   Try, try again
    Senate Republicans say they will push ahead with last year's failed constitutional amendment to protect traditional marriage, in part because voters' concern over marriage in the last election has given Republicans political capital.
    "I think it'd be foolhardy to back off when we've got a good head of steam coming in from the last election," said Sen. Wayne Allard, the Colorado Republican who yesterday reintroduced his constitutional amendment defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman.
    He and other Republicans said federal courts are clearly trying to redefine marriage, and Congress must step in. Voters in 11 states passed state ballot initiatives in November to protect traditional marriage, and some analysts said the issue helped Republicans win key victories on Election Day.
    "Democrats are re-evaluating their positions on many social issues; my bet is that this is one," said Mr. Allard, who cited at least five more votes for the amendment from new Republican senators.
    Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, Tennessee Republican, promised a Senate vote on the amendment and said he is hopeful it will pass the 109th Congress.
    Democrats called the push for the amendment "political payback."
    "The only reason Washington Republicans would introduce a measure that has already failed is to appease a small group of right-wing extremists who are now running their party," said Terry McAuliffe, chairman of the Democratic National Committee. "The Democratic Party is still opposed to this amendment. It is wrong to write discrimination into the U.S. Constitution."
    Last year, the amendment failed by a 227-186 margin in the House in September and a 48-50 procedural vote in the Senate in July. It would require two-thirds majorities in both houses of Congress, followed by ratification by three-fourths of the states to take effect.
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

R050125   Scalia's advice
    Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia said Saturday that people of faith should not fear being viewed by "educated circles" as "fools for Christ."
    The justice was in Baton Rouge, La., to address the Knights of Columbus Council 969 centennial celebration. He told a crowd of 350 that there's nothing wrong with "traditional Christianity," Penny Brown Roberts reports at www.theadvocate.com.
    "To believe in traditional Christianity is something else," Justice Scalia said. "For the son of God to be born of a virgin? I mean, really. To believe that He rose from the dead and bodily ascended into heaven? How utterly ridiculous. To believe in miracles? Or that those who obey God will rise from the dead and those who do not will burn in hell?
    "God assumed from the beginning that the wise of the world would view Christians as fools ... and he has not been disappointed."
    Justice Scalia praised "traditional Catholics" who say the rosary, go on pilgrimages, kneel during the Eucharist and "follow religiously the teaching of the pope," adding that "intellect and reason need not be laid aside for religion."
    "It is not irrational to accept the testimony of eyewitnesses who had nothing to gain. There is something wrong with rejecting, a priori, the existence of miracles."
    The justice added: "If I have brought any message today, it is this: Have the courage to have your wisdom regarded as stupidity. Be fools for Christ. And have the courage to suffer the contempt of the sophisticated world."
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

H050125   GLAAD-handing
    "Is it possible for a [homosexual] leader to be paid too much money?" maverick San Francisco AIDS activist Michael Petrelis asks, upon learning what the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation has been paying its executive director, Joan Garry.
    Relying on public forms filed by the nonprofit homosexual rights group, Mr. Petrelis provides a breakdown of Miss Garry's total pay package for the past six years, calculating that her compensation more than doubled, from $108,302 in 1998 to $228,417 in 2003.
    Increasing her salary by 111 percent during that span, Miss Garry's annual raise averaged more than 16 percent. Her largest yearly raise (from $122,657 in 1998 to $165,032 in 1999) was about 35 percent. Her smallest raise, in 2003, was about 9.5 percent.
    By comparison, the average U.S. worker got a 2.4 percent raise in 2004, according to the federal Bureau of Labor Statistics.
    "Add up her salary over the years and the total comes to $1,016,253," says Mr. Petrelis. "Let's put GLAAD's budget and compensation for its leader in some perspective. In 2003, GLAAD's total revenue was $6,193,332 and Garry made $228,417."
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

L050125   Thousands protest Roe v. Wade
 

By Joyce Howard Price
THE WASHINGTON TIMES

Thousands will gather today in Washington to protest abortion, at a time that many see as a watershed in the battle over the issue.
    Pro-life leaders say they are encouraged by the Nov. 2 elections, when President Bush won a second term with a record 62 million votes and Republicans increased their Senate majority from 51 to 55 seats.
    To those who take part in the annual March for Life, that means improved chances of persuading the Senate to confirm pro-life judges to the federal judiciary and to enact new restrictions on abortion. The march, timed each year to coincide with the Jan. 22 anniversary of the Supreme Court's 1973 Roe v. Wade ruling, drew about 100,000 participants last year.
    "The pro-life movement is definitely strong right now," said Wendy Wright, senior policy director for Concerned Women for America (CWA). "We've got more pro-life representatives and senators in Congress than in the past. We've got a pro-life president, and a number of state legislatures are likely to pass laws" that restrict abortions.
    Both sides of the issue are watching South Dakota, where last year, Republican Gov. Mike Rounds vetoed a bill that would have banned most abortions. Some of the state's legislators say they will try to pass similar legislation.
    "There were certainly serious flaws in the bill passed last year," the governor's spokesman, Mark Johnston, said last week. If state lawmakers pass a ban this year, Mr. Johnston said, "The governor certainly would give it his due consideration."
     Gloria Feldt, president of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America, readily concedes that these are tough times for pro-choice activists.
    "There is definitely a war on choice. George W. Bush is the commander in chief, and he has plenty of willing soldiers," she said. "The human right to make our own child-bearing decisions is in mortal risk."
    Nellie Gray, president of the March for Life Education and Defense Fund, says the annual event is a "family affair that shows our deep interest in saving babies and saving this country."
     Before the march on Constitution Avenue, pro-lifers will rally at noon on the Ellipse, south of the White House. The march will pass the Supreme Court before ending at the Capitol.
    Mr. Bush has been invited to the rally, Miss Gray said. No president has addressed the March for Life in person; Mr. Bush has addressed the event by telephone.
     Few observers expect that the Supreme Court will overturn Roe v. Wade anytime soon. Three of the sitting justices, including Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, a staunch abortion opponent, widely are viewed as being pro-life. But Chief Justice Rehnquist's recent illness has sparked speculation that he may retire, and some senators have sworn to block any pro-life nominees to the high court.
    In addition for pushing for pro-life judicial nominees, activists also want Congress to pass several bills aimed at limiting abortion, including one that would make it a federal crime to transport a minor across state lines to circumvent state laws requiring parental consent for an abortion. They also support a measure that would require doctors to inform women who are more than 20 weeks pregnant and seeking abortions that their unborn child could feel pain during the procedure.
     Vicki Saporta, president and chief executive officer of the National Abortion Federation, says lawmakers "need to be careful about how far they think they can go" in restricting abortion.
    "Abortion was not an issue in the election," she said. "We do have an anti-choice Congress and administration, but they are out of step with most Americans."
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

R050124   MICHIGAN   School coach ordered to stop prayers
    AUGUSTA TOWNSHIP — A Washtenaw County school district ordered a high school coach to stop leading his wrestlers in prayer.
    The district issued the order after the American Civil Liberties Union threatened to sue unless Daren Schaller stopped the prayers, which came after practices and before meets. The whole team participated in the prayers, which the district said were voluntary.
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

R050124   NEW HAMPSHIRE   Low attendance closes gay bishop's parish
    ROCHESTER — An Episcopal parish that lost most of its worshippers after the diocese elected an openly homosexual bishop announced it will close after Easter.
    Remaining parishioners decided to close the Church of the Redeemer, saying there aren't enough worshippers and that the parish leaders are overburdened. The church has operated for more than 100 years.
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

L050125   Bush buoys pro-lifers
 

By Jon Ward and Amy Doolittle
THE WASHINGTON TIMES

Thousands of pro-life demonstrators yesterday rallied on the frozen, snow-covered Ellipse, and then marched to the Supreme Court as part of the 32nd annual protest against the high court's 1973 Roe v. Wade decision, which legalized abortion.
    The "March for Life" protesters were buoyed by President Bush, who has espoused pro-life views and likely will appoint at least one Supreme Court justice during his second term.
    In a telephone address to the demonstrators from Camp David in Maryland, Mr. Bush said "the strong have a duty to protect the weak."
    "We are working to promote a culture of life, to promote compassion for women and their unborn babies," the president said. "We're making progress in Washington."
    During Mr. Bush's first administration, Congress passed a ban on a late-term procedure called "partial-birth" abortionand outlawed as a separate crime harming a fetus during an assault on a pregnant woman.
    "On ... one of our coldest days, I encourage you to take warmth and comfort from our history, which tells us that a movement that appeals to the noblest and most generous instincts of our fellow Americans ... will not fail," Mr. Bush said during the two-hour rally.
    Mr. Bush has addressed the rally by telephone each year he has been in office.
    John Audretsch, 62, of Clare, Mich., stood with a large handmade banner that read: "Michigan loves our pro-life president." Mr. Audretsch, who was attending his 21st march, said he was "more hopeful" than in the past.
    "But I also believe we're doing God's work to protect the unborn, and I'll trust God to take care of the results," he said.
    With temperatures in the teens, some protesters said the cold made it difficult to concentrate on the stream of speakers who addressed the crowd from a stage on the Ellipse.
    "We can't feel anything," said Mary Abert, 13, of Phillipsburg, N.J., who had boarded a bus at 6 a.m. with classmates from Saints Philip and James Catholic School.
    "I think abortion is wrong and cruel," said Astrid Hernandez, 13, a classmate of Mary's.
    Many Catholic youths attended the rally and march with their parish youth groups or with leaders from their Catholic schools.
    Mark Cameron, 25, of Fairfax, said more and more young people are getting involved in the pro-life movement.
    "We're making progress," said Mr. Cameron, a march volunteer from the Catholic men's service group Knights of Columbus. "A lot more people are becoming aware on this issue."
    After the rally, the pro-life demonstrators marched to the Supreme Court, where they were met by about two dozen pro-choice activists — all employees or interns for the National Organization for Women (NOW). The pro-choice activists stood by silently and waved blue-and-white "Keep Abortion Legal" signs in a counterdemonstration.
    "We're just here as a silent presence," NOW employee Leanne Libert said. "We had a vigil and rally on Saturday. Now we are letting them have theirs."
    Mr. Bush is expected to name a replacement for Supreme Court Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, who is battling thyroid cancer and appeared feeble during Mr. Bush's swearing-in ceremony last week.
    Yesterday's rally and march were the culmination of a weekend of pro-life activities that included activism and training by Rock for Life, a group that educates and mobilizes young people for pro-life causes.
    Sen. Sam Brownback spoke at the rally, along with several other members of Congress.
    The Kansas Republican has introduced the Unborn Child Pain Awareness Act, which would require doctors to read a statement informing mothers of the pain felt by unborn children and to give them a brochure with more detailed information before performing abortions.
    "The end of abortion-on-demand has started," Mr. Brownback said.
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

E050126   Sex-ed courses called flawed
 

By Jon Ward
THE WASHINGTON TIMES

Critics of a new sex-education curriculum in Montgomery County public schools say the program teaches that homosexuality is not a choice without including scientific information to the contrary.
    "It's inadequate," said Warren Throckmorton, an associate professor of psychology at Grove City College in Pennsylvania. "It's an exercise in social advocacy, primarily."
    Mr. Throckmorton, who works with former practicing homosexuals, says in a recently published 33-page critique that some good changes have been made to the curriculum, but that the negatives far outweigh the positives.
    "The changes undermine any abstinence message the curriculum may offer," he said. "And its treatment of homosexuality is an exercise in social advocacy as opposed to education."
    Mr. Throckmorton's opinion supports that of some members of an advisory committee that reviewed the changes and said homosexuality is a preference or choice, not a genetically predetermined condition.
    The members also said their scientific evidence was rejected. The county school board unanimously approved the curriculum Nov. 9.
    David Fishback, a Rockville lawyer who leads the citizens advisory committee, said he had not read Mr. Throckmorton's criticism of the curriculum but was familiar with his work.
    "The bottom line for Dr. Throckmorton is that homosexuality is a sin or a disease," he said.
    Mr. Fishback said that Mr. Throckmorton's view "that people can change their sexual orientation and sexual desires if they really, really want to and really, really try is risky, risky business."
    Mr. Fishback has told reporters he joined the advisory committee in part because his two grown sons declared themselves homosexuals after hiding it for much of their adolescence.
    "People, too often, are put through hell to fit the conception of how people think is the only way people can be," he said.
    The new curriculum will be tested in three middle schools and three high schools in mid-April. The six schools have not been chosen, said Brian Edwards, the spokesman for the Montgomery County public schools.
    The advisory committee will collect feedback from teachers, parents and students in the schools, then present the school board this summer with the results of the pilot program and recommend any adjustments.
    The board members will then vote on whether to approve the proposed changes and whether to continue the program throughout the school district.
    The new curriculum would be implemented in the fall in county eighth and 10th grades.
    Mr. Fishback rejects the claim by Michelle Turner and others committee members who say their evidence on homosexuality was ignored.
    Mrs. Turner has four children in public schools and has helped organize a parent group working to stop the new curriculum.
    She says most of the committee members "favor a pro-gay agenda and see homosexuality as a perfectly acceptable, if not normal lifestyle, that should be taught to our children at an early age."
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

H050126Va   Proposal would ban gays from adopting children
 

By Christina Bellantoni
THE WASHINGTON TIMES

RICHMOND — Lawmakers will consider a bill that would forbid homosexuals from adopting children.
    Delegate Richard H. Black has proposed a bill that would add new criteria for adoption reports filed with the circuit court. The Loudoun County Republican's bill amends the state's adoption law by adding a phrase that states: "No person under this statute may adopt if that person is a homosexual."
    Current law permits any person or married couple residing in the state to petition to adopt.
    Herb Lux, Mr. Black's legislative assistant, said the measure would require investigators during the screening process to ask an adoption candidate whether he or she is a homosexual.
    Investigators also check out, among other things, an adoption candidate's health, whether he or she has a criminal record and whether he or she is fit to be a parent.
    The bill is pending in the House Health, Welfare and Institutions Committee.
    Equality Virginia, the state's primary homosexual rights group, opposes Mr. Black's bill.
    "Our primary concern is that it would keep hundreds if not thousands of adoptable children from good homes," said Dyana Mason, the group's executive director. "It's a disingenuous argument to make that two loving people can't commit to raising a healthy child. That's just wrong."
    Miss Mason also said studies show that "children being raised in homes with gay parents are turning out just fine, thank you very much."
    Delegate Robert G. Marshall, Manassas Republican who is a co-patron of the bill, said the proposed restriction is necessary.
    "The order of nature strongly suggests a father and mother are necessary for proper development of a child and that means a heterosexual relationship," he said.
    On its Web site, Equality Virginia claims that the state courts have discriminated against homosexual parents in the past by ruling that because the parent was a homosexual, it was not in the child's best interests for the parent to have custody.
 
    A measure to write a ban on gay "marriage" into Virginia's Constitution advanced easily yesterday to the full Senate despite the passionate, often poignant appeals by opponents.
    The Senate Privileges and Elections Committee endorsed the legislation on an 11-3 vote, rejecting opponents' arguments that the constitutional amendment could create legal headaches in Virginia.
    The panel also voted 9-5 to kill another proposed constitutional amendment that would allow Virginia governors to serve two consecutive terms.
    Sen. Stephen D. Newman, Lynchburg Republican, said his resolution to define marriage in the state constitution as the union of a man and woman is a defensive maneuver after courts in other states recognized homosexual "marriage."
    Voters in 11 states last year approved constitutional amendments similar to Mr. Newman's.
    "I do not believe that we are here because those individuals who want to defend marriage brought us here. We are here because there is another element in America today that has made it very clear that going after the current definition of marriage and changing that definition of marriage is a stated goal," Mr. Newman said.
    Four measures similar to Mr. Newman's are pending in the House and could be taken up by the House Privileges and Elections Committee by the end of this week.
 
    Many of Virginia's "official" emblems evoke images of the state's beauty: the official state flower, the dogwood; the state bird, the cardinal; and even the state insect, the tiger swallowtail butterfly.
    Delegate Jackie T. Stump, Buchanan Democrat, wants to add to the list Corynorhinus townsendii virginianus, more commonly known as the Virginia big-eared bat.
    A House committee gave preliminary approval yesterday to Mr. Stump's bill designating the species as the official state bat.
    Mr. Stump told the General Laws Committee that the goal is to educate people about Virginia's caves and the positive role played by the bats that inhabit them. He said one bat can devour 600 mosquitoes per hour, helping prevent the spread of West Nile virus.
    The idea originated with Claire Ward, a member of the Virginia Cave Board. She told the committee that the Virginia big-eared bat, found in only a few caves in Virginia, West Virginia, Kentucky and North Carolina, is on the federal endangered species list.
 
    A lobbying organization for college-age Virginians is urging the General Assembly to pass legislation targeting the high price of textbooks at campus bookstores.
    "As any student or parent with a child in college knows, the price of textbooks has gotten out of control," Virginia Tech student body President Sumeet Bagai, representing Virginia21, said at a press conference Monday.
    He said the price of college textbooks and supplies averages $817 per semester, a 238 percent increase over the past decade. Representatives of textbook publishers and college bookstores disputed Virginia21's numbers, saying the average is closer to $400 per semester.
    Mr. Bagai said students are hit with "a serious case of sticker shock" when they buy their required textbooks. Students typically can't find out which books they will need until the first day of classes, making comparison shopping impossible, he said.
    Virginia21 released a list of 23 textbooks and their prices at campus bookstores and from Internet sources. The online prices were 5 percent to 46 percent cheaper, with an average savings of 32 percent.
    Delegate Glenn Oder, Newport News Republican, is sponsoring legislation that would require campus bookstores to make the list of required textbooks available to students as soon as they receive it.
    The bill also prohibits publishers from offering kickbacks to professors for assigning certain books to their students. Mr. Oder and Virginia21 representatives said this is a necessary protection even though kickbacks have not been a problem in Virginia.
    • This article is based in part on wire service reports.
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

H50126Md   Protesters call for marriage amendment
 

By Jon Ward and Zack Stieber
THE WASHINGTON TIMES

ANNAPOLIS — Lawmakers and clergy held a rally outside the state Capitol yesterday to support an amendment to the state constitution that would define marriage as being only between a man and a woman.
    About 500 people stood in frigid temperatures, holding signs, cheering speeches by pastors and politicians, and praying in unison.
    "We are in a moral war," said the Rev. Harry Jackson, pastor of Hope Christian Church in College Park. "The bombs are not aimed at our military outposts. They are aimed at our families."
    The crowd was predominantly Christian and an even mix of blacks and whites. It responded collectively to Mr. Jackson's sermon, which urged every church to oppose same-sex "marriage" and reject the comparison between the homosexual movement and "the black struggle for civil rights."
    "Civil rights are not the same as sacred rights," he said.
    Delegate Don Dwyer Jr., Anne Arundel Republican, urged voters to hold their elected officials accountable for how they vote on the issue.
    Mr. Dwyer, who has led the legislative effort against homosexual "marriage," did not exempt churches from criticism. He "condemned" their past response to homosexuals.
    "The church has failed miserably to embrace the homosexual and to love him as a sinner," he said. Homosexuals "are no different than us."
    Mr. Dwyer said churches "must open their doors" to homosexuals "so they can see God's saving grace."
    Tonya Gross, 38, came with three busloads of fellow members from Rock City Church in Baltimore.
    "It's not hard to take a stand on this issue," she said, holding a sign that stated: "Maryland opposes same-sex marriage."
    "We had to take a stand," she said. "It's moral decay. Two men cannot reproduce. It's not what God intended it to be."
    John Leck, 44, of Frederick, Md., said marriage has been between a man and a woman "for centuries."
    "Gay people have a choice to be gay," he said. "They are not born that way. I have no problem with gays living together. Marriage is different."
    The proposed constitutional amendment is expected to be introduced in the House's Judiciary Committee.
    House Speaker Michael E. Busch, Anne Arundel Democrat, said yesterday that an amendment was not needed.
    "I think the statute in Maryland is very clear on that," he said. "I don't think there is any need for a change in the statute in the state of Maryland."
    An amendment to the state constitution must be passed by three-fifths of the members of both houses of the General Assembly. The amendment then would go to the voters as a ballot question and become incorporated in the constitution if it is passed by a majority of voters.
    Maryland's constitution does not have a provision authorizing resident-initiated ballot measures, and the governor cannot veto an amendment to the constitution.
    Gov. Robert L. Ehrlich Jr., a Republican, has said he opposes homosexual "marriage" and considers traditional marriage the "cornerstone of society."
    Supporters say the amendment is needed to head off a lawsuit challenging Maryland's 1973 marriage law, which states that "only a marriage between a man and a woman is valid."
    Maryland was the first state to strictly define marriage, but it also is one of a handful of states to outlaw discrimination based on sexual orientation.
    Nine homosexual couples sued the state this year after court clerks refused to issue them marriage licenses. The lawsuit, which is being pursued with the aid of the American Civil Liberties Union and the homosexual rights group Equality Maryland, says the state's definition of marriage is unconstitutional.
    A hearing is scheduled for March 14 in Baltimore. The ministers said yesterday that they also plan a March 10 demonstration to draw attention to the hearing.
    State constitutional amendments to uphold marriage as the union of a man and a woman easily passed Nov. 2 in all 11 states where they were on the ballot — Arkansas, Georgia, Kentucky, Michigan, Mississippi, Montana, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon and Utah.
    Same-sex "marriage" was first allowed in the United States in November 2003, when the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court issued its landmark "Goodridge" ruling. The decision, which passed 4-3, stated that the Massachusetts Constitution guaranteed an equal right to marry for couples, regardless of sex.
    Massachusetts officially began "marrying" same-sex couples on May 17, though only couples who live in that state or intend to live there can "marry."
    As with Vermont civil unions and other state domestic partnerships, Massachusetts' marriage licenses to same-sex couples are not recognized by other states, though a few lawsuits seeking such recognition are under way.
    •  Robert Redding Jr. and Cheryl Wetz-stein contributed to this report.
    vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

O050128E   Metro must accept pro-marijuana ads
 

By Jim McElhatton
THE WASHINGTON TIMES

Metro officials must accept advertising that promotes the legalization of marijuana now that the Justice Department has opted not to defend the transit agency's ban on such ads.
    Justice officials had until Wednesday to appeal a federal court decision that struck down a law recently passed in Congress stating that transit agencies would lose federal funding if they accepted ads advocating the legalization or medical use of such illicit drugs.
    Metro has yet to receive pro-marijuana ads since the Justice Department's decision, but a spokesman said the agency would not reject such ads unless they "showcased profanity."
    "The transit agency is not in the business of picking and choosing what can and cannot go up," Metro spokesman Steven Taubenkibel said.
    The government "does not have a viable argument to advance in the statute's defense," acting Solicitor General Paul D. Clement said in a letter to Senate attorneys last month that explained his decision.
    He said the law also could have banned transit agencies from posting ads with anti-drug messages and other public service announcements.
    U.S. Rep. Ernest Istook, Oklahoma Republican, pushed for the law last year after Metro ran a series of ads by Change the Climate Inc., a Boston group that promotes the legalization of marijuana.
    One ad touting marijuana legalization showed a young couple embracing, with the caption "Enjoy Better Sex!"
    Mr. Istook had no comment Wednesday on the Justice Department's decision, a spokeswoman said.
    D.C. Council member Jim Graham, who serves on the board of directors for Metro, said he agreed with the Justice Department's decision, though he did not care for the marijuana ads.
    "I think that any decision that favors the First Amendment right to freedom of expression is a good one," said Mr. Graham, Ward 1 Democrat. "Some of these ads are hard to swallow, but what we're talking about is freedom of expression. And sometimes we just have to gulp."
    The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) sued the federal government last year when Metro rejected a Change the Climate ad with the headline "Marijuana Laws Waste Billions of Taxpayer Dollars to Lock Up Non-Violent Americans."
    Metro officials cited the new federal law when rejecting the ad, saying the cash-strapped agency could not risk losing $170 million in federal subsidies.
    Joseph White, executive director for Change the Climate, said the group has not ruled out another round of pro-marijuana ads for the Metro system.
    "I expect that we will be launching a campaign when we decide where that would be most effective," he said. "It's a little too early to say right now."
    ACLU officials were surprised yesterday but lauded the Justice Department's decision.
    "It's very unusual," said Graham Boyd, director of the group's drug law reform project. "I think it is a surprisingly frank admission that the First Amendment requires an evenhanded treatment."
    Anti-drug advocates were disappointed by the decision not to defend the case.
    "It's very distressing news that it appears we're not fighting back on this," said Joyce Nalepka, president of the District-based Drug-Free Kids. "Washington, D.C., really needs to make a statement. There must be a way to stop these ads."
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

L050125C   Fate and Roe v. Wade

On Jan. 23, 1973, the day after the Supreme Court ruled on Roe v. Wade, the New York Times ran this headline: "Supreme Court Settles Abortion Issue." That was 32 years ago, and if the thousands who rallied yesterday in downtown Washington for the annual March for Life are any indication, then perhaps the NYT would now consider running a correction.
    "Settled" is how many pro-choicers considered the issue then — and still do — when in fact nothing could be further from the truth. For example, imagine if in 1986 — 32 years after the Supreme Court decided Brown v. Board of Education, ending public school segregation — there was still a strong and growing segregationist movement in the United States. Imagine if segregationists were being elected to Congress, or that a segregationist held the White House. Rather, in a relatively short time, the sweeping changes decided by Brown came to be seen by the public as both constitutionally and morally right. The same cannot be said of Roe, a fact that says more about the decision than pro-choicers would care to admit.
    If anything, Roe succeeded only in forming a coalition of otherwise politically disinterested voters that has significantly strengthened the Republican Party. For Democrats, Roe has become a political liability: If they aren't sufficiently pro-Roe, their base will ignore them; yet if they are, they cannot hope to make inroads into red states. This has led to the untenable and absurd position held by many Democrats (and a few blue-state Republicans), who say that they are personally against abortion, but in favor of Roe.
    This anniversary also marks what could be a contentious few years on the fate of Roe. Other than the president, the second most-watched person at the inauguration ceremony on Thursday was Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, who has cancer. Since removing himself from public view last year, the health of Justice Rehnquist has been widely speculated. We wish we could say that this was solely for his own well being. Other than Justice Rehnquist, there are at least three more justices facing retirement in the not-distant future: John Paul Stevens, Sandra Day O'Connor and Ruth Bader Ginsberg are all over the age of 70. The two most pro-life justices, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas, are being eyed to replace Justice Rehnquist as chief justice.
    One justice retirement is always a big political event, but with a potential of four during Mr. Bush's second term, the pro-life marchers had an extra reason to be excited yesterday. Far from ever being "settled," they know, as do the pro-choicers, that Roe was never more in doubt.
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

R050125L   Founding Fathers of faith
    With President Bush's statement that he doesn't "see how you can be president without a relationship with the Lord" ("President outlines role of his faith, " Page 1, Jan. 12) came many criticisms. One letter writer to this paper even went so far as to say that the Founding Fathers were not men of personal faith but were rather deists and agnostics.
    This is revisionist history at its worst because it seeks to deny the very foundation without which our form of government cannot long endure. The facts of history and the statements of the men themselves clearly show that this nation was founded upon the truths of the Bible and the Christian religion. Inherent in Christian truth is every man's need for a personal relationship with his creator and judge.
    Patrick Henry said, "It cannot be emphasized too often or too strongly that our nation was founded not by religionists, but by Christians, not on religions but on the Gospel of Jesus Christ." In 1813, the American Bible Society published Volume 1 of compilations of their evangelistic tracts.
    Many of these were written by Founding Fathers. The Founding Fathers were brought up in an educational system that had used, since 1690, the New England Primer as its primary textbook.
    They learned the alphabet from the primer, with a Bible verse for each letter: "A — A wise son makes a glad father, but a foolish son is the heaviness of his mother." B — Better is a little with the fear of LORD, than great treasure and trouble therewith. C — Come unto Me (Jesus Christ), all ye who labor and are heavy-laden, and I will give you rest. D — Do not the abominable thing, which I hate, saith the Lord."
    John Jay, who was one of the three men most responsible for our Constitution and the first chief justice of the Supreme Court, spoke to the vital importance of not forgetting our foundation and of continuing to build thereon: "Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers, and it is the duty, as well as the privilege and interest of our Christian nation, to select and prefer Christians for our rulers."
    These are just a few examples among thousands available to anyone who is willing to make the effort to seek out the truth. Say that you do not believe in the Lord, but do not say that our Founding Fathers did not. Let them speak for themselves.
 
    DEBORAH TREFZGER
    Sterling, Va.
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

L050126L   Who's 'out of step'?
    After reading the article "Thousands protest Roe v. Wade" (Nation, Monday), I couldn't help but want to respond to National Abortion Federation President and CEO Vicki Saporta's comments. They reflect how out of touch with reality she and other pro-choice advocates are.
    Miss Saporta conceded, "We do have an anti-choice Congress and administration," then continued, "but they are out of step with most Americans." If so, Miss Saporta has some explaining to do.
    The American people re-elected President Bush, pro-life, with a majority of the popular vote (more than 60 million). They raised the Senate's Republican majority from 51 to 55. They increased the House Republican majority, as well. Also, there are more Republican governors than Democratic.
    Given these facts, how can Miss Saporta make such an irresponsible assertion? Is she calling American voters uneducated? Is it merely a fluke that they elected pro-life candidates to office at all levels of government?
    The American people have spoken loud and clear that they want to advance a pro-life agenda. Maybe Miss Saporta should think again about who is "out of step with most Americans."
 
    RYAN CONRAD
    Yonkers, N.Y.
 
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

O050127C   Second-term values agenda
 

By Joel Mowbray

Of all the pre-Inauguration celebrations last week, one shone more brightly than the rest: the Christian Inaugural Eve Gala, with the presence of "The Architect" Karl Rove, Republican National Committee Chairman Ken Mehlman, Attorney General John Ashcroft, White House Public Liaison Tim Goeglein and former Congressman J.C. Watts, among others.
    But many of the 800-plus in attendance were tepid — or worse — in their assessments of the start of President Bush's second term.
    The black-tie affair, held at the Ritz-Carlton, was a mix of Beltway insiders and religious activists from around the country, yet the cynicism could be found among both sets.
    Several people at the event talked openly, though off-the-record, of their frustration that President Bush today is not the George W. Bush who was on the stump. One prominent conservative activist pointed to the star-studded lineup and wondered if it was merely a "symbolic show of support."
    The sole point of agreement was that Mr. Bush was going to be strong on appointing conservative judges to the federal bench, and hopefully, to the Supreme Court as well. Those who felt that Social Security reform was a moral issue — and many did — believed Mr. Bush might make some headway on that issue as well.
    But what most concerned attendees at the event was their feeling that Mr. Bush was abandoning his support for a federal amendment banning gay marriage.
    Mr. Bush had certainly given them reason at least to question his commitment. Only days earlier, Mr. Bush had sounded unusually pessimistic about the prospects for the federal marriage amendment in an interview with The Washington Post.
    When asked how hard he would push the amendment to ban gay marriage, he responded