Dear Mr President, Pink

This song & lyrics somehow hit home.

Na, na, na, na, na, na, na, na
Dear Mr. President, come take a walk with me
Let's pretend, we're just two people and
You're not better than me
I'd like to ask you some questions, if we can speak honestly

What do you feel when you see all the homeless on the street?
Who do you pray for at night before you go to sleep?
What do you feel when you look in the mirror?
Are you proud?

Chorus:
How do you sleep while the rest of us cry?
How do you dream when a mother has no chance to say goodbye?
How do you walk with your head held high?
Can you even look me in the eye, and tell me why?

Dear Mr President
Were you a lonely boy?
Are you a lonely boy?
How can you say, "no child is left behind"
We're not dumb and we're not blind
They're all sitting in your cells
While you pave the road to hell

What kind of father would take his own daughter's rights away?
And what kind of father might hate his own daughter if she were gay?
I can only imagine what the first lady has to say...
You've come a long way, from whiskey and cocaine!

Chrous

Let me tell you 'bout hard work
Minimum wage with a baby on the way
Let me tell you 'bout hard work
Rebuilding your house after the bombs took them away
Let me tell you 'bout hard work
Building a bed out of a cardboard box
Let me tell you 'bout hard work! Hard work! Hard work!
You don't know nothing 'bout hard work! Hard work! Hard work!!!!!!!!

How do you sleep at night?
How do you walk with your head held high?
Dear Mr. President, you'd never take a walk with me
Hmmm, would you?

please help

Goodbye Barb & Jenna LOL

First Family Shakeup
By Ruth Marcus
Monday, April 17, 2006;

Dear Daughters Jenna and Barbara,

This is a difficult letter for me, your Dad, to write. The two of you have been, your mother and I agree, valuable members of my administration. Yes, there have been a few unfortunate moments -- actually, come to think of it, more than a few: the underage drinking bust; the next underage drinking bust; the sticking-out-the-tongue-at-the-photographers thing; the Valley Girl-style convention speech. Next time, please, girls, run it by Grandma, like she told you to in the first place.

Rambling a bit here. What I'd like to say is that all of us at the White House deeply appreciate your service to your family and your country. It can't have been easy for you, posing for Vogue, getting chauffeured by the Secret Service and all. But, as you know, second terms are a time of transition in any administration. And we think it is the right moment, then, to make a change in First Daughters. Time for some fresh blue blood, you might say.

Please, girls, don't take this personally. Andy didn't, and he's been with the family almost as long. Definitely, we will spin this to the press as your decision entirely. You know, needing a break, this job chews you up, exhausted after five long years of late nights at Smith Point, want a chance to spend more time with your ... never mind, we'll go with the need-a-break part. And no one can take away from your achievements: You have been two of the longest-serving presidential daughter twins in history.

Anyway, the Josh-for-Andy swap didn't play quite as big as we hoped. Now, I'm getting killed with this general-a-day drumbeat on Rummy. So Uncle Don and Uncle Dick came up with this idea of replacing you two.

Naturally, Mommy and I were pretty reluctant, at first. But Uncle Don and Uncle Dick can be awfully persuasive -- especially when Uncle Dick's packing heat.

Your Gammy agrees. "Lose the twins," she said. "My 41 ditched Sununu." And you know there's no arguing with the Silver Fox once she's got her mind made up. She asked me to tell you it's nothing personal -- and for Pete's sake stop showing all that cleavage.

Dick wanted to roll this out the usual way: through Scooter. But Scooter's a little preoccupado, right now, you might say. We thought about leaking it to Woodward, but he'd probably just save it for the next book. So we're thinking Dr. Phil. Great female demographic.

You're probably wondering about the replacement. Grandpa had an idea about that. You know how he's been spending so much time hanging out with Bill Clinton lately that I've started calling him "my new brother"? Well, that got grandpa to thinking.

You probably know where this is heading, so I won't dwell too long on the topic of our new First Daughter.

Chelsea has graciously agreed to start on Friday.

Thanks again, girls, for all you've done. Our thoughts and prayers are with you as you start this new, exciting chapter of your lives. Please be sure to stay in touch.

Sincerely,

George W. Bush Dad

P.S. We want you to know it was a hard call whether to lose you or Karl. He really agonized over it.

© 2006 The Washington Post Company

Ice Queen Rice loves a generous dictator

With Friends Like These . . .
Condoleezza Rice's inglorious moment
Tuesday, April 18, 2006; A18

WITH A LAND mass similar to Maryland's, Equatorial Guinea has the fortune to be Africa's third-largest oil producer. The money from black gold helps to explain how the president, Teodoro Obiang Nguema, has bought large homes in France and Morocco, as well as two in Potomac, and how his son and presumed heir bought a Lamborghini and two Bentleys during a shopping spree in South Africa. But oil has done little to help Equatorial Guinea's 540,000 people, some 400,000 of whom suffer from malnutrition. Those who are hungry know better than to complain. According to State Department reports, the president's goons have urinated on prisoners, sliced their ears and smeared them with oil to attract stinging ants.

So it is uncontroversial to observe that Mr. Obiang is no friend to his people. But he is a "good friend" of the United States, at least according to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, who met with him last week in Washington. "I'm very pleased to welcome the president," Ms. Rice told reporters after the meeting. "Thank you very much for your presence here." Mr. Obiang purred back: "We are extremely pleased and hopeful that this relationship will continue to grow in friendship and cooperation."

In the global rankings of political and civil liberties compiled by Freedom House, only seven countries rate worse than Equatorial Guinea. If President Bush and Ms. Rice want anyone to take their pro-democracy rhetoric seriously, they must stop throwing bouquets to odious dictators. The meeting with Mr. Obiang was presumably a reward for his hospitable treatment of U.S. oil firms, though we cannot be sure since the State Department declined our invitation to comment. But Ms. Rice herself argues that U.S. foreign policy spent too long coddling corruption and autocracy in Arab oil states. Surely she doesn't have a different standard for Africa?

© 2006 The Washington Post Company

The Top 100 Bush Failures That He Should Be Impeached For

Taken from Democrats & liberals Blog from d.a.n.


Since it’s doubtful Bush will resign, I tend to focus my thoughts on how history will look at him. I believe that history will look on the Bush II administration (to distingish him from Bush I, his father) as one one of the most failed presidencies in history, up there with Grant and Hoover.

1. Started and got us bogged down in a pointless war and has already said its the next president’s problem

2. Failed to catch the leader of the group that attacked the U.S. (bin Laden)

3. Failed to pass any significant legislation addressing pressing domestic problems (health care, retirement security, income inequality.)

4. saw the deficit, debt, and trade deficit all explode and did nothing about it.

And I haven’t even begun to talk about the scandals that will be genuinely investigated if the Democrats take back one or both houses of Congress in the elections.

Posted by: Steve K at April 7, 2006 10:22 AM
Libby’s defence is that he was authorized to leak. I doubt this will work for him because he is charged with lying not leaking.
Why doesn’t the President just get the Plame insident behind him before the election. Why doesn’t he just say he authorized the leaking of that womans name and proclaim that the 2nd amendment makes him king during a time of neverending war and not subject to the laws of the United States.

Posted by: jlw at April 7, 2006 10:25 AM
Steve K, Good list.
Let me add to it…

Look at these numerous, collosal failures:
__________________________________
Iraq:

1. Failing to build a real international coalition prior to the Iraq invasion, forcing the US to shoulder the full cost and consequences of the war.

2. Approving the demobilization of the Iraqi Army in May, 2003 �€“ bypassing the Joint Chiefs of Staff and reversing an earlier position, the President left hundreds of thousands of armed Iraqis disgruntled and unemployed, contributing significantly to the massive security problems American troops have faced during occupation.

3. Not equipping troops in Iraq with adequate body armor or armored HUMVEES.

4. Ignoring the advice Gen. Eric Shinseki regarding the need for more troops in Iraq �€“ now Bush is belatedly adding troops, having allowed the security situation to deteriorate in exactly the way Shinseki said it would if there were not enough troops.

5. Ignoring plans drawn up by the Army War College and other war-planning agencies, which predicted most of the worst security and infrastructure problems America faced in the early days of the Iraq occupation.

6. Making a case for war which ignored intelligence that there were no Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq.

7. Deriding “nation-building” during the 2000 debates, then engaging American troops in one of the most explicit instances of nation building in American history.

8. Predicting along with others in his administration that US troops would be greeted as liberators in Iraq.

9. Predicting Iraq would pay for its own reconstruction.

10. Wildly underestimating the cost of the war.

11. Trusting Ahmed Chalabi, who has dismissed faulty intelligence he provided the President as necessary for getting the Americans to topple Saddam.

12. Disbanding the Sunni Baathist managers responsible for Iraq’s water, electricity, sewer system and all the other critical parts of that country’s infrastructure.

13. Failing to give UN weapons inspectors enough time to certify if weapons existed in Iraq.

14. Including discredited intelligence concerning Nigerian Yellow Cake in his 2003 State of the Union.

15. Announcing that “major combat operations in Iraq have ended” aboard the USS Abraham Lincoln on May 1, 2003, below a “Mission Accomplished” banner �€“ more U.S. soldiers have died in combat since Bush’s announcement than before it.

16. Awarding a multi-billion dollar contract to Halliburton in Iraq, which then repeatedly overcharged the government and served troops dirty food.

17. Refusing to cede any control of Post-invasion Iraq to the international community, meaning reconstruction has received limited aid from European allies or the U.N.

18. Failing to convince NATO allies why invading Iraq was important.

19. Having no real plan for the occupation of Iraq.

20. Limiting bidding on Iraq construction projects to “coalition partners,” unnecessarily alienating important allies France, Germany and Russia.

21. Diverting $700 million into Iraq invasion planning without informing Congress.

22. Shutting down an Iraqi newspaper for “inciting violence” �€“ the move, which led in short order to street fighting in Fallujah, incited more violence than the newspaper ever had.

23. Telling Saudi Prince Bandar bin Sultan about plans to go to war with Iraq before Secretary of State Colin Powell.

Counterterrorism:

24. Allowing several members of the Bin Laden family to leave the country just days after 9/11, some of them without being questioned by the FBI.

25. Focusing on missile defense at the expense of counterterrorism prior to 9/11.

26. Thinking al Qaeda could not attack without state sponsors, and ignoring evidence of a growing threat unassociated with “rogue states” like Iraq or North Korea.

27. Threatening to veto the Homeland Security department �€“ The President now concedes such a department “provides the ability for our agencies to coordinate better and to work together better than it was before.”

28. Opposing the creation of the September 11th commission, which the President now expects “to contain important recommendations for preventing future attacks.”

29. Denying documents to the 9/11 commission, only relenting after the commissioners threatened a subpoena.

30. Failing to pay more attention to an August 6, 2001 PDB entitled “Bin laden Determined to Attack in U.S.”

31. Repeatedly ignoring warnings of terrorists planning to use aircraft before 9/11.

32. Appointing the ultra-secretive Henry Kissinger to head the 9/11 commission �€“ Kissinger stepped down weeks later due to conflicts of interest.

33. Asking for testimony before the 9/11 commission be limited to one hour, a position from which the president later backtracked.

34. Not allowing national Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice to testify before the 9/11 commission �€“ Bush changed his mind as pressure mounted.

35. Cutting an FBI request for counterterrorism funds by two-thirds after 9/11.

36. Telling Americans there was a link between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda.

37. Failing to adequately secure the nation’s nuclear weapons labs.

38. Not feeling a sense of urgency about terrorism or al Qaeda before 9/11.

Afghanistan

39. Reducing resources and troop levels in Afghanistan and out before it was fully secure.

40. Not providing security in Afghanistan outside of Kabul, leaving nearly 80% of the Afghan population unprotected in areas controlled by Feudal warlords and local militias.

41. Committing inadequate resources for the reconstruction of Afghanistan.

42. Counting too heavily on locally trained troops to fill the void in Afghanistan once U.S. forces were relocated to Iraq.

43. Not committing US ground troops to the capture of Osama Bin Laden, when he was cornered in the Tora Bora region of Afghanistan in November, 2001.

44. Allowing opium production to resume on a massive scale after the ouster of the Taliban.

Weapons of Mass Destruction

45. Opposing an independent inquiry into the intelligence failures surrounding WMD �€“ later, upon signing off on just such a commission, Bush claimed he was “determined to make sure that American intelligence is as accurate as possible for every challenge in the future.”

46. Saying: “We found the weapons of mass destruction. We found biological laboratories.”

47. Trusting intelligence gathered by Vice President Cheney’s and Secretary Rumsfeld’s “Office of Special Plans.”

48. Spending $6.5 billion on nuclear weapons this year to develop new nuclear weapons this year �€“ 50% more in real dollars than the average during the cold war �€“ while shortchanging the troops on body armor.

Foreign Policy:

49. Ignoring the importance of the Middle East peace process, which has deteriorated with little oversight or strategy evident in the region.

50. Siding with China in February, 2004 against a democratic referenda proposed by Taiwan, a notable shift from an earlier pledge to stand with “oppressed peoples until the day of their freedom finally arrives.”

51. Undermining the War on Terrorism by preemptively invading Iraq.

52. Failing to develop a specific plan for dealing with North Korea.

53. Abandoning the United States’ traditional role as an evenhanded negotiator in the Middle East peace process.

Economic:

54. Signing a report endorsing outsourcing with thousands of American workers having their jobs shipped overseas.

55. Instituting steel tariffs deemed illegal by the World Trade Organization �€“ Bush repealed them 20-months later when the European Union pledged to impose retaliatory sanctions on up to $2.2 billion in exports from the United States.

56. Promoting economic policies that failed to create new jobs.

57. Promoting economic policies that failed to help small businesses

58. Pledging a “jobs and growth” package would create 1,836,000 new jobs by the end of 2003 and 5.5 million new jobs by 2004�€”so far the president has fallen 1,615,000 jobs short of the mark.

59. Running up a foreign deficit of “such record-breaking proportions that it threatens the financial stability of the global economy.”

60. Issuing inaccurate budget forecasts accompanying proposals to reduce the deficit, omitting the continued costs of Iraq, Afghanistan and elements of Homeland Security.

61. Claiming his 2003 tax cut would give 23 million small business owners an average tax cut of $2,042 when “nearly four out of every five tax filers (79%) with small business income would receive less” than that amount.

62. Passing tax cuts for the wealthy while falsely claiming “people in the 10 percent bracket” were benefiting most.”

63. Passing successive tax cuts largely responsible for turning a projected surplus of $5 trillion into a projected deficit of $4.3 trillion.

64. Moving to strip millions of overtime pay.

65. Not enforcing corporate tax laws.

66. Backing down from a plan to make CEOs more accountable when “the corporate crowd” protested.

67. Not lobbying oil cartels to change their mind about cutting oil production.

68. Passing tax cuts weighted heavily to help the wealthy.

69. Moving to allow greater media consolidation.

70. Nominating a notorious proponent of outsourcing, Anthony F. Raimondo, to be the new manufacturing Czar�€”Raimondo withdrew his name days later amidst a flurry of harsh criticism.

71. Ignoring calls to extend unemployment benefits with long-term unemployment reaching a twenty-year high

72. Threatening to veto pension legislation that would give companies much needed temporary relief.

Education:

73. Under-funding No Child Left Behind

74. Breaking his campaign pledge to increase the size of Pell grants.

75. Signing off on an FY 2005 budget proposing the smallest increase in education funding in nine years.

76. Under-funding the Title I Program, specifically targeted for disadvantaged kids, by $7.2 billion.

77. Freezing Teacher Quality State Grants, cutting off training opportunities for about 30,000 teachers, and leaving 92,000 less

teachers trained than the president called for in his own No Child Left Behind bill.

78. Freezing funding for English language training programs.

79. Freezing funding for after school programs, potentially eliminating 50,000 children from after-school programs.

Health:

80. Not leveling with Americans about the cost of Medicare �€“ the president told Congress his new Medicare bill would cost $400 billion over ten years despite conclusions by his own analysts the bill would cost upwards of $500 billion over that period.

81. Silencing Medicare actuary Richard Foster when his estimates for the Administration’s Medicare bill were too high.

82. Letting business associate David Halbert, who owns a company which stands to make millions from new discount drug cards, craft key elements of the new Medicare bill.

83. Underfunding health care for troops and veterans.

84. Allowing loopholes to persist in Mad-Cow regulations.

85. Relaxing food labeling restrictions on health claims.

86. Falsely claiming the restrictions on stem cell research would not hamper medical progress.

87. Reducing action against improper drug advertising by 80 percent.

Environment:

88. Abandoning the Kyoto Treaty without offering an alternative for reducing greenhouse effect.

89. Counting on a voluntary program to reduce emissions of harmful gasses�€”so far only a tiny fraction of American companies have signed up.

90. Gutting clean air standards for aging power plants.

91. Weakening energy efficiency standards.

92. Relaxing dumping standards for mountaintop mining, and opening the Florida Everglades and Oregon’s Siskiyou National Forest to mining.

93. Lifting protection for more than 200 million acres of public land.

94. Limiting public challenges to logging projects and increased logging in protected areas, including Alaska’s Tongass National Forest.

95. Weakening environmental standards for snowmobiles and other off-road vehicles while pushing for exemptions for air pollution proposals for five categories of industrial facilities.

96. Opposing legislation that would require greater fuel efficiency for passenger cars.

97. Reducing inspections, penalties for violations, and prosecution of environmental crimes.

98. Misleading the public about the Washington mad cow case and the likely effectiveness of USDA’s weak testing program.

99. Withdrawing public information on chemical plant dangers, previously used to hold facilities accountable for safety improvements.

Other:

100. Cutting grants to state and local governments in FY 2005, forcing states to make massive cuts in job training, education, housing and environment.

A Sane Response to Marriage

How to end the same-sex marriage debate
By Jonathan TurleyMon Apr 3, 6:53 AM ET

With mid-term elections approaching, politicians are once again returning to one of their favorite themes: protecting the sanctity of marriage. When same-sex marriage is raised, citizens quickly forget about rampant corruption in Congress, towering budget deficits, or even the Iraq war. Not surprisingly, therefore, a constitutional amendment has been cited as a legislative priority by both President Bush and Republican leadership. The message is clear: What politics and religion have joined, let no one pull apart.

The fact is that the same-sex marriage fight is one that advocates on both sides would hate to end. Money is pouring in, membership rolls are expanding, and advocates have an issue that borders on obsession for many Americans.

Since 2004, almost two dozen states have passed constitutional amendments banning same-sex marriage, and additional proposed amendments are planned for this year in Congress and various states. At the same time, gay rights advocates are pursuing their own legislative efforts and numerous court challenges to establish constitutional protections for the right of same-sex couples to marry.

Before we enter yet another election season of spasmodic referendums and debates over same-sex marriage, one question is worth considering: What if we could end this controversy once and for all?

The real problem with same-sex marriage is not the qualifier but the noun. Religious advocates believe that marriage is a term loaded with moral and religious meaning. Gay advocates want to marry for much the same reason: as a social recognition of their equivalent moral standing. It might be the only political war fought over the proprietary use of a single noun. There is a simple solution: Stop using the word "marriage" in government licensing laws in favor of the more relevant term "civil union."

Where it all began

This battle began centuries ago, when the government was aligned with a particular faith in a struggle for sectarian dominance. In England in the 18th century, the Church of England was given exclusive control over legitimate marriages. Thus, unless you were married by the Church, your marriage was illegitimate - and so were any children that were produced in that marriage.

Even when marriage "reform" was legislated in the Declaration of Rights in 1776, the government still limited its recognition of marriages to couples married by Anglican ministers. In colonies such as Virginia, the government continued this preference for Anglican marriages (requiring special licenses for ministers of other religions).

This parochial use of marriage recognition continues in many countries. Indeed, courts in Israel recognize only Jewish marriages performed in Orthodox Jewish ceremonies.

In the USA, most states make it a crime to marry couples without government licenses, making even purely religious "marriages" a potential crime. Thus, in New York, Unitarian Universalist ministers Kay Greenleaf and Dawn Sangrey were criminally charged for officiating at weddings for same-sex couples who could not get marriage licenses. Even when Jason West married couples as mayor of New Paltz, N.Y., he was also charged criminally. Thus, the government will prevent a religion or civic group from performing a marriage, even if the marriage would have no legal effect without a marriage license.

If the role of government in maintaining "legitimate" forms of marriage doesn't make you uncomfortable, it should. In most other areas, the government steadfastly avoids this type of religious squabble, separating governmental functions from religious faiths. Marriage, however, has always been a conspicuous door placed in the wall of the separation between church and state.

The government's distinction between legitimate and illegitimate marriages takes sides in a controversy that has raged since the formation of the first religions. Many religious groups, which include tens of thousands of Americans, believe in plural marriage or polygamy as a human right and divinely ordained.

Other groups insist on endogamy (marriage within a defined group), while others insist on exogamy (marriage outside of a defined group). While many fundamentalists believe that marriage can only be a union of a man or a woman, other Christians reject this interpretation and embrace same-sex marriage.

The reason that marriage licenses are so valued by advocates is precisely the reason it should be expunged from public documents: It conveys a religious or moral meaning. Conversely, the state interest in marriage concerns its legal meaning. It is the agreement itself, not its inherent religious meaning, that compels the registry of marriages by the government. Once married, the legal rights and obligations of the couple change in areas ranging from taxes to inheritance to personal injury to testimonial privileges.

The government's policing role over legitimate marriages also produces curious contradictions. While the government criminalizes the marriage of same-sex couples without official licenses (denied to them as a matter of policy), it does not police religious practices governing divorces.

For example, Orthodox Jews believe that a woman remains married regardless of any civil divorce until her former husband gives her a "get," or voluntary termination of the marriage. Some women have been left "married" for decades by former husbands refusing to recognize the termination of their marriage. Even so, the government still recognizes that they are indeed divorced because we view a registered divorce as ending their civic obligations to each other.

The civil answer

The same approach should apply to marriages, leaving the moral validity of a marriage to religious organizations. For state purposes, couples would simply sign a civil union agreement that confirms their legal obligations to each other and any progeny. Whether they are married in religious ceremonies would be left entirely to them and their faith. The government's interest and role would be confined to enforcing the civil contract, as it would any other civil agreement.

Consenting adults should be able to assume the obligations of a civil union regardless of how their neighbors view their morality. As in other areas, adults should be able to follow the dictates of their own faith so long as they do not endanger or harm others, particularly minors.

Whether damnation awaits monogamists or polygamists or same-sex couples is a matter between citizens and their respective faiths. The government should address that aspect of marriage that concerns its insular needs: confirming the legal obligations of consenting adults. As for our politicians, there are levees to be rebuilt, corruption to end and wars to win.

Of course, this solution would deprive both sides of the debate of a controversy that has been a political and financial windfall. Nonetheless, the public certification of the moral relationships is not the call of government; it is the call of the faithful. It is time we move beyond moral licensing by the government and return marriage to its proper realm: in the churches, temples, mosques, and the hearts of every citizen.

Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University, and he is a member of USA TODAY's board of contributors.

Copyright © 2006 USA TODAY, a division of Gannett Co. Inc.

The Abortion-Rights Side Invokes God, Too

April 3, 2006
The N.Y. Times
Political Memo
The Abortion-Rights Side Invokes God, Too

By NEELA BANERJEE
In any given week, if you walked into one of Washington's big corporate hotels early in the morning, you would find a community of the faithful, quite often conservative Christians, rallying the troops, offering solace and denouncing the opposition at a prayer breakfast.

So you might be forgiven for thinking that such a group was in attendance on Friday in a ballroom of the Washington Hilton. People wearing clerical collars and small crucifixes were wedged at tables laden with muffins, bowing their heads in prayer. Seminarians were welcomed. Scripture was cited. But the name of the sponsor cast everything in a new light: the Planned Parenthood Federation of America.

To its critics, Planned Parenthood is the godless super-merchant of abortion. To its supporters, it is the dependably secular defender of abortion rights. But at this breakfast, God was everywhere, easily invoked by believers of various stripes.

"We are here this morning because, through our collective efforts, we are agents in bringing our fragile world ever closer to the promise of redemption," Rabbi Dennis S. Ross, director of Concerned Clergy for Choice, told the audience. "As clergy from an array of denominations, we say yes to the call before us. Please join me in prayer: We praise you, God, ruler of time and space, for challenging us to bring healing and comfort to your world."

"Amen," the audience responded.

The Interfaith Prayer Breakfast has been part of Planned Parenthood's annual convention for four years. Most ministers and rabbis at the breakfast have known the group far longer.

Margaret Sanger, founder of the organization that became Planned Parenthood, drew clergy members in the early 20th century by relating the suffering of women who endured successive pregnancies that ravaged their health and sought illegal abortions in their desperation, said the Rev. Thomas R. Davis of the United Church of Christ, in his book "Sacred Work, Planned Parenthood and Its Clergy Alliances."

In the 1930's, Jewish and mainline Protestant groups began to voice their support for birth control. In 1962, a Maryland clergy coalition successfully pressed the state to permit the disbursal of contraception. In the late 1960's, some 2,000 ministers and rabbis across the country banded together to give women information about abortion providers and to lobby for the repeal of anti-abortion laws.

"The clergy could open that door because the clergy had a certain moral authority," said Mr. Davis, who is chairman of Planned Parenthood's clergy advisory board but whose book is not sponsored by the group. "They balanced the moral authority of the critics."

As the scrape of silverware quieted at the breakfast, the Rev. W. Stewart MacColl told the audience how a Presbyterian church in Houston that he had led and several others had worked with Planned Parenthood to start a family planning center. Protesters visited his church. Yet his 900 parishioners drove through picket lines every week to attend services. One Sunday, he and his wife, Jane, took refreshments to the protesters out of respect for their understanding of faith, he said.

Mr. MacColl said a parishioner called him the next day to comment: "That's all very well for you to say, but you don't drive to church with a 4-year-old in the back seat of your car and have to try to explain to him when a woman holds up a picture of a dead baby and screams through the window, 'Your church believes in killing babies.' "

Mr. MacColl said of the abortion protester: "She would, I suspect, count herself a lover of life, a lover of the unborn, a lover of God. And yet she spoke in harshness, hatred and frightened a little child."

Mr. MacColl quoted the theologian Reinhold Niebuhr: " 'Sometimes the worst evil is done by good people who do not know that they are not good.' "

The crowd murmured its assent.

Then Mr. MacColl challenged them. "The trouble is, I find myself reflected in that woman," he said. "Because I can get trapped in self-righteousness and paint those who oppose me in dark colors they do not deserve. Is that, at times, true of you, as well?"

This time, people were silent.

It is not lost on Mr. Davis how the passion of the Christian right in its effort to abolish abortion and curtail access to birth control now mirrors the efforts of clergy members 40 years ago to do the opposite.

"They're a religious tradition, too, and they are moved by Scripture," he said, although the Bible says nothing explicit about abortion. "When we understood the suffering in these kinds of situations that women were in, we understood that for reasons of justice, we had to act. We're doing it for theological and Biblical reasons."

A perception may exist that the denominations supporting abortion rights are outnumbered and out-shouted by their more conservative brethren. But that worried Mr. Davis little, he said, for he and other like-minded clergy members were in the minority in the 1960's, too.

Still, some clergy members could barely contain their outrage. "The more we are able to cultivate the capacity in every person — women and men — to make informed ethical judgments both in ourselves and our society, the more we are coming into relationship with the transcendent, with God," said the Rev. Susan Thistlethwaite, president of Chicago Theological Seminary.

"Human existence as a materialistic quest for power and dominance, a crass manipulation of fear and intolerance for political gain, drives us apart both from one another and from God," she said. "For what does it profit you to gain the whole world and lose your soul?"


Copyright 2006 The New York Times Company

The power of prayer could make matters worse

Study tests the power of prayer and finds it could make matters worse
By Rupert Cornwell in Washington
Published: 01 April 2006

"We are praying for you ... you will be in my prayers." In this ostentatiously religious country, such phrases drop routinely from the lips of presidents, politicians and ordinary people when wishing someone well before an operation. But do prayers make any difference? If a major scientific study here is to be believed, the answer is, no. Indeed, if a patient knows there is organised prayer on his or her behalf, such intercession might actually make matters worse.

These are the main, if highly tentative, findings of one of the most ambitious exercises yet to evaluate the power of therapeutic prayer. The $2.5m (£1.4m) study was done over a decade at six major US medical centres and involved 1,800 patients who had heart bypass surgery.

The patients - 65 per cent of whom said they believed in the power of prayer - were split into three groups. Two were prayed for, the third was not. Of those who were prayed for, one group was told so, and the others were told merely that they may or may not be prayed for. Three congregations were recruited to do the praying, one Protestant and two from Catholic monasteries, and given the names of patients.

Prayers began the night before surgery, and continued for two weeks after, using the same intercession, for "a successful surgery and a quick healthy recovery with no complications". After 30 days, researchers went through the results, or lack of them. There was no significant difference between the groups, they found.

This study is no more likely than its many predecessors to resolve the issue. Indeed, sceptics and believers in the power of prayer claim prayer is a supernatural force, beyond the reach of science. Thus, even the most scrupulous research is ultimately pointless.

"God must be smiling broadly," said Sister Carol Rennie, the prioress of St Paul's Monastery in St Paul, Minnesota, one of three praying congregations. "It [the study] tells me frankly that God's way of working with people is a mystery, and that technology can't determine the effects of prayer."

But it has raised intriguing questions about whether people should be told others are praying for them. A slightly higher proportion of whose who knew they were the subject of prayers suffered complications than those who did not.

The difference was very small - 59 per cent compared to 51 per cent - but researchers wonder if the problems among those who knew they were being prayed for reflected in part a "performance anxiety," said Charles Bethea, an Oklahoma cardiologist and an author of the study. "It may have made them uncertain, wondering, 'Am I so sick they had to call in a prayer team?'"

That is conjecture. But two things are certain. A study supposed to be the last word on the subject will be followed by others. And, whether or not it works, Americans will keep on praying.