EGYPT TO PROSECUTE ISRAELI SPY SUSPECT<
CAIRO, Egypt (NYT)—Despite an apparent appeal from thevisiting Israeli prime minister, President Hosni Mubarak of Egyptsaid Wednesday that he would not intervene in the case of anIsraeli accused of spying who is scheduled to stand trial in aCairo court soon.
Before traveling to Egypt Wednesday, Prime Minister BenjaminNetanyahu of Israel complained that the suspect, Azam Azam, hadbeen ``jailed on false charges,'' and said an attempt to resolvethe case would be ``at the top of my agenda.'' But after meetingwith Netanyahu, Mubarak said he had no option but to allow thecourts to pass judgment on the charges against Azam, 35. Egyptianprosecutors say Azam worked along with an Egyptian man and twoIsraeli women in supplying unspecified information to the Israeliintelligence service Mossad.
SWITZERLAND PROPOSES FUND FOR HOLOCAUST VICTIMS<
BERN, Switzerland (NYT)_ The Swiss government on Wednesdayproposed the creation of a $4.7 billion fund that would earninterest to be used to help victims of the Holocaust and othercalamities, vastly increasing Switzerland's financial commitment.
The proposal, under which Switzerland's gold reserves would berevalued to reflect current market value, was the boldest financialmaneuver by the Swiss to gain moral high ground in the dispute overdealings with Nazi Germany in World War II. At the same time, theSwiss National Bank offered to donate some $70 million to aseparate fund set up last week for short-term help to Holocaustsurvivors, doubling the value of that fund.
Both ideas require Parliament's approval to take effect. Butthey could also face major political opposition if right-wing Swisspoliticians seek to campaign against them.
IRISH DEBATE ON ABORTION INTENSIFIES<
DUBLIN (NYT)—On Wednesday the Pro-Life Campaign, the principalanti- abortion group in Ireland, stepped up the national debate over abortion by announcing that it would lobby for a new constitutionalamendment making any abortion in Ireland unlawful. Current law inthis overwhelmingly Roman Catholic country allows abortions only incases where a woman's life is endangered by a pregnancy.
The debate, stimulated by a published report that an illegalabortion had been done in Dublin two years ago, has promptedwidespread calls for a new national referendum on the issue and forlegislation to redefine legal and illegal abortion.
On Monday, Prime Minister John Bruton said he had no intentionof introducing a referendum or abortion legislation this year. Butpressure for action persisted as politicians, including DesmondO'Malley, a former trade minister and a leader of the oppositionProgressive Democrats, called for new abortion legislation.
c. 1997 Cox News Service
Janet Benshoof grew up in a small Minnesota town and thenhurried off to Harvard Law School, where she A) met Ruth BaderGinsburg and B) fell in love with the law.
She's 49 years old, a politically smart New York City lawyerwith a quick sense of humor and a propensity for delicately placedswear words. Nothing too nasty, just enough to make a point. Ortwo.
``Now, if a woman walks into a Catholic hospital, and theyrefuse to treat her and she gets pregnant, she can sue their(delicately placed swear word) off.''
Thank you, Ms. Benshoof.
The Food and Drug Administration this week did something reallyunusual. David A. Kessler, head of the FDA, bypassed manufacturersof birth-control pills and told American women that, yes, there issomething you can do to prevent pregnancy the morning afterunprotected sex.
Specific doses of regular old birth-control pills will usuallydo the trick, said Kessler, just before heading off to become headof Yale University School of Medicine. The pills might cause somenausea and some tenderness in the breasts. But there's a goodchance—a really good chance—you won't be pregnant.
It's that simple.
``What I cannot emphasize enough is that every single man andwoman who is sexually active should have them in their medicinecabinet,'' says Benshoof, who, as president of the Center forReproductive Law and Policy, led the fight for post-coital contraception on behalf of two dozen special interest groups.
And finally, the secret is out. Public record. Recommended bythe highest of highest-placed sources.
The FDA made its recommendation after pressure from Benshoof'sgroup. But the data has been there for years, the agency admits.Birth-control pills taken within 72 hours of unprotected sex canprevent pregnancy. Here's how it works:
—A woman takes two pills within 72 hours of unprotected sex.Doses vary depending on the pill manufacturer, but two of the oneswith the highest estrogen levels are usually what's prescribed.
—Another dose is taken 12 hours later. The government says thisprevents pregnancy 75 percent of the time, but at least one Harvardstudy reports an even higher success rate.
The upshot of all this, Benshoof says, is the prevention of alot of unwanted pregnancies. And a lot of abortions. According tosome research, the so-called morning-after pill could prevent up to2.3 million unplanned pregnancies each year, and about half thatmany abortions.
The practice of using birth-control pills to prevent pregnancyafter sex is not new. For years, American doctors have known thatthe technique works with no serious side effects, and many havequietly recommended it to plenty of panicked women. But many otherdoctors were not inclined to prescribe this technique because itwas not FDA-approved, Benshoof said.
But overseas, the practice is quite common. France, Switzerland,Belgium, the United Kingdom—all of those countries allow pills tobe sold in small packages, just the four or so it takes for themorning-after treatment.
So why did it take so long to get the FDA recommendation here?
Basically, like almost anything else that has to do with women'sreproductive rights, it's politics. The data is there. Thepresidential election is over. And Kessler is headed out the door,so he won't be there to deal with the heat.
And Janet Benshoof put up a (delicately placed swear word) of afight.
``I don't think the FDA has ever stepped in and found a drugsafe to use (for an alternative treatment) when the companiesweren't behind it,'' she says. ``But Kessler saw this as a bighealth priority, and Clinton backed him fully.
``I think they've been wimpy on some things, but on this, youhave to give them an A-plus.''
Of course, their timing would rate a ``needs improvement.''
``American women are really bad off in terms of reproductivehealth care. And the government and the companies have beenallowing this,'' Benshoof says. ``If the United States was No. 10in getting a man on the moon, all of a sudden we'd have expandedscience courses in every high school. But the fact that we're onthe bottom of the list when it comes to reproductive rights forwomen? That's just accepted.''
One of the obstacles to FDA approval is that time-honoredAmerican pastime: lawsuits. Drug manufacturers hesitate torecommend ``off-label'' uses of birth-control pills in case a womandoes experience serious side effects. (And in fact, even after theFDA recommendation this week, at least one pill manufacturer hassaid it still will not provide this information in its packageliterature for fear of lawsuits.)
Then there's concern about pro-life protests. So far, thepro-lifers haven't made much of a stink about the FDA announcement,but they are expected to oppose the method just as they do abortions.
But the morning-after method is not a chemical abortion. Itprevents the microscopic egg from implanting in the uterus, thusstopping a pregnancy before it begins. It is not the same as theFrench ``abortion pill'' RU-486, which induces miscarriages up totwo months into a pregnancy.
Benshoof says the next fight is to get those tiny packets ofpills in everyone's medicine cabinet. ``Your doctor should behanding them out in his waiting room, all wrapped up in foil,'' shesays. As easy to get as condoms at a Planned Parenthood clinic.
And now that the secret's out, she hopes the public will bringpressure on pill manufacturers to change their labeling, making iteasier for women to get the dosage information without having totrack down a doctor.
So I get curious. The guy who delivered my baby six years ago,will he, and doctors like him, start prescribing the morning-afterpill?
``Patients are always calling in with a contraceptiveaccident,'' Dr. Jeffrey Litt says. ``We've been doing it foryears.''
But Litt prefers not to call it the morning-after pill. Hethinks it's simply good medicine.
``I don't see the controversy. You talk to the pro-lifers, andthey call it a pro-choice thing,'' he says. ``I think it's just areasonable way of treating a contraceptive mistake.''
I knew he was a good man when he delivered my baby boy with acan of Diet Pepsi balanced on his knee.
Now if he'd just put those foil-wrapped pill packets in hiswaiting room.
(Emily J. Minor writes for The Palm Beach Post.)
^New America News Service@=
It was the fourth bombing in Atlanta since July.
Nearly two weeks ago a bomb filled with 3-inch nails exploded inthe patio of the Otherside Lounge, an Atlanta nightclub that servesprimarily a lesbian clientele.
The force of the blast sent nails and shrapnel through a glasspanel into the bar's main area and sent debris as far away as threeblocks.
Five patrons were injured, including one woman who requiredsurgery for nail-puncture wounds in her arm.
To his credit, Atlanta Mayor Bill Campbell was among the firstto denounce the violence.
Campbell told The New York Times that the bombing was ``eerilyreminiscent of last summer (at the Olympics) and last month (twoblasts at an abortion clinic). We clearly believe that we aredealing with a deranged killer, but one who is very clever aswell.''
It took prodding from the Human Rights Campaign (HRC), thenation's largest gay political organization, to get PresidentClinton to say the club bombing was ``wrong.''
Similarly, HRC spokeswoman Candace Gingrich, House Speaker NewtGingrich's half-sister who is a lesbian, had to nudge her brotherbefore he spoke out.
HRC's Executive Director Elizabeth Birch even wrote to theChristian Coalition's Executive Director Ralph Reed.
All three condemned the violence, which U.S. Attorney GeneralJanet Reno declared ``another despicable act of public terrorism.''
According to a report in the gay press, there are three strikingsimilarities between the blasts at the Otherside and an abortionprovider in the suburbs.
First, nails were used to produce flying shrapnel—shrapnelintended to kill or maim people over a wide area.
In both instances, a follow-up bomb was set to explode an houror so later. Presumably, the second bomb was planted to injureinvestigators and journalists responding to the initial blast.
Unlike the follow-up bomb at the abortion clinic, which didexplode, police investigators were able to detonate the second bombwhich was in the club's parking lot.
Finally, in both cases women were the ultimate targets ofviolence.
At first, that connection got lost in the media, according toKim Mills, HRC's deputy communication's director.
Referring to initial broadcast reports, Mills said most coverageoverlooked the fact that Otherside is a women's bar.
``Now I know that hate hates indiscriminately,'' Mills said,``but in this case there seems to be a misogynic link.''
So far two groups have claimed responsibility—Sons ofConfederate Klan (SOCK), a new Los Angeles-based neo-Nazi KKKorganization, and the Army of God, a militant Christian group.
Both the Klan and the Army espouse extreme, far right-wingideology in defense of the white male patriarchy.
While experts in domestic terrorism doubt the legitimacy of theSons of the Confederate Klan, FBI agents continue to investigate aletter purportedly from the Army of God, which also claimedresponsibility for the abortion-clinic blasts.
But nobody really knows for sure what the Army of God is, saysChip Berlet, a senior analyst at Political Research Associates, aMassachusetts-based think tank that monitors right-wing hate-groupactivity.
Here's what is known: The Army of God has been around since the15th century. Although it's probably not an actual organizationthat one joins, people pledge adherence to the group's philosophy _which is detailed in a training manual for violent anti-abortionrights procedures—by taking action.
During the 1980s, those actions were aimed solely at abortionclinics. The new twist in the Atlanta bombing is the Army of God'sexpanding violence to include homosexuals.
On that point, the Army of God's correspondence could not havebeen clearer. According to the letter (misspellings included), theOtherside bombing ``was aimed at the sodomite bar ... We willtarget sodomites, there organizations, and all those who push theiragenda.''
That's why the HRC is seriously investigating this matter.
As the Atlanta bombing horrendously exemplifies, violenceagainst lesbian and gay Americans is on the rise.
According to the FBI, hate crimes based on sexual orientation in1995 accounted for 12.8 percent of all hate crimes statistics—upfrom 8.9 percent in 1991.
These days, hate-based violence abounds, particularly againstracial and religious minorities and women. Arsonists torch blackchurches and synagogues throughout the South. Shooters targetclients and personnel of abortion clinics.
Think about it: shattering glass and flying nails batter womenwho are gay. What a sharp reminder of the awfulness of hate.
(Chuck Colbert earned his bachelor's degree from Notre Dame in1978. He is a founder of the Gay and Lesbian Alumni of NotreDame/St. Mary's College.) c. 1997 Chuck Colbert
c. 1997 Chuck Colbert
^(Distributed by New York Times Special Features)@=
c.1997 The Arizona Republic
PHOENIX—A proposed welfare reform in Arizona could wipe outchild-care subsidies for thousands of working-poor families andpossibly push them onto welfare rolls, child advocates say.
A bill before the state Legislature would put more parents onwelfare to work, increasing their need for child-care subsidies,Carol Kamin, executive director of the Children's Action Alliance,said Wednesday at a press conference.
That would leave little for parents who work at such low-payingjobs that they qualify for state aid for day care.
``Without this kind of support for working families, we will beback to the same problem welfare reform was supposed to solve,''said Rep. Herschella Horton, D-Tucson. ``Even parents who earnsignificantly more than minimum wage will be worse off than parentsreceiving welfare.''
For example: Gloria, a single mother with three children, ages10, 9 and 7, said she might as well give up her job without statehelp with child care.
``I'd be working to pay the baby-sitter,'' she said. ``How wouldI pay my bills?''
Gloria works full time in an office, doing accounts, filing andanswering the phone, for $6 an hour.
With help from the state, she pays $20 a week for child care forall three kids, instead of the estimated $3,000 to $5,000 a year itcosts for each of her children.
``I work very hard for peanuts, and it just seems like I can'tget ahead,'' Gloria said. ``I don't do drugs. I don't drink, andI'm in an area where that's all there is because that's all I canafford. I've put my children in an area where I have had to teachthem to be afraid.''
Without the child-care subsidy, her eldest son would have tostay home alone after school, something she would prefer to avoid.
^``I want to know that my children are safe,'' Gloria said.
Kamin urged lawmakers to add $50 million to the proposed statechild-care budget to provide vouchers for working families. Thatwould cover about 27,000 more children of low-income workingparents than proposed now.
``These are people who struggle every day to make it, to stayoff welfare and to feed their families,'' she said. ``We can'tpenalize them for that.''
Rep. Carolyn Allen, R-Scottsdale, a sponsor of thewelfare-reform legislation, hopes to provide more money for childcare by spending $9 million from the state's $100 million budgetsurplus.
``Child care must be the centerpiece of any effort to movefamilies from welfare dependency to work independence,'' Allen saidin a written statement. ``But the need is equally great forlow-income working families who can't possibly afford thechild-care price tag of $3,000 to $5,000 per child.''
^Right now, about 11 percent of parents on welfare are eitherworking or training for jobs and receiving child-care subsidies.That covers about 12,000 children.
Under the proposed welfare reform, 25 percent of welfare parentswould go to work, increasing the demand for child-care subsidies tocover 21,000 of their children.
That would leave just enough money for child-care subsidies for10,000 children in working-poor families, 5,000 fewer than receiveit now.
``Not only is this less than the need, it is less than what wewere serving before,'' said Dana Naimark, a senior programassociate with Children's Action Alliance.
And, if 50 percent of welfare parents go to work—a long-termgoal of the reform—it would would all but end any child-caresubsidies for working-poor families, leaving just enough to cover250 children.
^To qualify for the subsidy, a family must have an annual incomeof no more than 135 percent of the federal poverty level, or$17,400 for a family of three.
Currently, $28 million is set aside in the state's budget forchild-care subsidies. The proposed plan sets aside $24 million.<
Go back to SOCIOLOGY 260 -- Sociology of Marriage and the Family Page
If you have any questions or comments please email: