Category: Politics

Constitutional Law, Justice, Lawyering, Politics

Charles Bakaly III and Telling What Isn’t Secret

The New York Times

July 17, 2000

The contempt trial of Charles Bakaly III is something of a curiosity in Washington. In a town where leaks flow like a powerful torrent down every avenue, the prosecution of a spokesman based on an innocuous disclosure seems almost comically misplaced. Nevertheless, Mr. Bakaly, who was the spokesman for the independent counsel Kenneth Starr, is facing a criminal conviction for denying that he was the source for a New York Times reporter in January 1999.

For defense attorneys, the prosecution of a government lawyer would have been welcome if it were for leaking information that could not legally be made public. Government lawyers routinely leak facts from grand jury proceedings and commit other ethical violations with no response from most federal judges.

But Mr. Bakaly is not in the dock on such a charge; he is accused of criminal contempt under a rule that punishes false statements that delay or obstruct a court. The statements and the delay, however, came after a legal error of the court itself, which misinterpreted a federal law. The decision to initiate an inquiry into confidential communications raised serious concerns for lawyers who handle high-profile cases. The decision to pursue a criminal case against Mr. Bakaly only magnifies those concerns. Continue reading “Charles Bakaly III and Telling What Isn’t Secret” →

Justice, Lawyering, Politics

Our Prison Profiteers

The New York Times
August 3, 1990

They run the new correctional ”hotels,” and some of their daily rates would make Leona Helmsley blush.

Across the country, local sheriffs are turning brisk profits as suppliers of precious cell space to desperate prisons. These cell owners charge whatever the market will bear, and today the market will bear a lot.

Thirty-eight states and the District of Columbia are under court order to reduce overcrowding. Their only alternative to early release is to rent cells from other prisons. Fees are set by a little-known market, with each jail offering bids that are often well above cost. Continue reading “Our Prison Profiteers” →

Justice, Politics

Prisons Aren’t Nursing Homes — The Older Prisoner Crisis

The New York Times
October 9, 1989

BYLINE: By Jonathan Turley; Jonathan Turley, assistant professor of law at Tulane University, directs the Project for Older Prisoners.

On June 7, 1973, a 50-year-old homeless man named Quenton Brown walked into a bread store in Louisiana and, at gunpoint, stole $100 and a 15 cent pie. He then crawled under a nearby house where he remained until the police arrived. After his arrest, the state found that Mr. Brown had an I.Q. of 51 – the intelligence of a three and one-half year old child. After a one day trial, Mr. Brown was given a 30-year sentence without chance of parole. Now 66 years old, Mr. Brown has been at Angola State Penitentiary for 16 years.

Mr. Brown is an example of an emerging national scandal: the failure to release geriatric, low-risk prisoners to make room for younger, more dangerous ones. Even as prisons turn away hundreds of drug dealers because of overcrowding, they continue to hold Prohibition-era felons. Nationwide, there are at least 20,000 inmates over the age of 55. Continue reading “Prisons Aren’t Nursing Homes — The Older Prisoner Crisis” →

Congress, Politics

Get Congress Out of the Page Business

October 4, 2006 New York Times

MEMBERS of Congress have been falling over themselves this week to assign blame to other people in the aftermath of the resignation of their colleague Mark Foley, the Florida Republican who has acknowledged sending improper e-mail messages to a former House page. The fact is, however, that they are all to blame to different degrees for this latest page scandal.

I served as a House leadership page in 1977 and 1978 under the sponsorship of Sidney Yates, an Illinois Democrat. This was during the dark ages when male pages were simply given a salary and told to find their own housing. (Female pages were housed at the Y.W.C.A.) It goes without saying that pages grew up fast and had to learn self-discipline and survival skills.

During my tenure, I was taken by other pages to the home of a man who lived on Capitol Hill — not a member of Congress — and who would give male pages alcohol and drugs. He was clearly a pedophile. On weekends, he brought boys into the woods to drink, shoot guns and pose for semi-nude pictures for his ”collection.” I knew enough to leave, but, given the extent of his ”collection,” some clearly did not.

It later became obvious, however, that some of the greatest dangers lurked inside, not outside, the halls of Congress. In 1983, two members were censured for having had sexual relationships with House pages. Dan Crane of Illinois was defeated after he said he had sex with a 17-year-old female page in 1980. Gerry Studds of Massachusetts refused to apologize for a 1973 relationship with a 17-year-old male page, saying that the page was above the age of consent. Mr. Studds was elected five more times.

Like the rest of society, Congress has always had sexual deviants and sexual predators who cultivated images of themselves as churchgoers with family values. Mr. Foley was a co-chairman of the House Caucus of Missing and Exploited Children and an author of various bills about abuse of children. For a member with dark predilections, the presence of trusting and vulnerable pages can be an irresistible temptation.

There are aspects of the representative-page relationship that can unfortunately provide ample opportunities for sexual predators. Pedophiles often assume fatherly roles, reassuring pages living far from their parents. The subordinate position of pages also fulfills power fantasies for some pedophiles.

What is at risk is something truly unique. Since the 1820’s, pages have been an official part of Congress, but there were probably pages even in the first Congress, in the 1790’s. For these young men and women, being a page is an experience that will resonate with them for the rest of their lives. (It is therefore particularly galling that, as in 1983, the misconduct of members often leads to calls to abolish the page service — removing the temptations rather than deterring the abuses.)

As a 16-year-old page, I served such iconic figures as Barbara Jordan and heard addresses from leaders like Hubert Humphrey. I still remember the first time I had to hoist the flag on top of the House of Representatives, walking over a narrow plank of rotted wood that was probably 200 years old. I stood on top of the windy Capitol holding that flag and having my own ”Titanic” moment: I felt as if there was no limit to this country or its promise. When I sat to catch my breath I noticed a spot near the door where pages had recorded their names for over a century. You could feel a connection that ran for generations, as if pages were part of the Capitol itself.

Pages also serve as reminders to members of Congress of the idealism that first drove them to choose public service. In the hallways of the Capitol they seem like antidotes to the Abramoffs, the Cunninghams and the general stifling cynicism that has taken over government. That is why many of us are so angry with the failure, yet again, to protect our pages.

The 1980’s scandals led to some important reforms on housing and schooling (including the creation of a page dormitory). These reforms, however, fell short of the needed changes.

The most glaring problem is that the House Page Board, which supervises the pages, is made up mostly of members of Congress (the Senate Page Board is composed of only two Senate officials, with no members). The representatives on the board have built-in conflicts of interests in moving against members accused of harassment. Political and social alliances complicate the process and many members would prefer to remain in blissful ignorance when rumors arise. Indeed, some (including the House speaker, Dennis Hastert) are accused of having known about Mr. Foley’s inappropriate messages months ago but allowing the matter to be addressed only informally and without serious action.

The solution is simple: the alumni of the page program need to protect their own ranks. Some of Washington’s most powerful figures in politics, media, business and the law are former pages. They are neither intimidated by members of Congress nor hesitant to drag a member to account. They are protective of pages and have the clout to match their concern.

Congress should create a Congressional Page Board composed of former pages. This board would have the ability to report infractions directly to the respective Ethics Committees for each house, which would be required to investigate and act upon any complaint submitted by the board.

One of the benefits of such a board is that former pages are likely to have a greater connection and rapport with current pages. Indeed, what is unusual about this case is that the page actually came forward — reports suggest that other pages had known of Mr. Foley’s conduct for years. They were wrong in not coming forward with the information. But that’s a difficult thing to do. It might have been easier if the voice on the other end of a telephone line was a former page.

If members are truly outraged, they will help us protect pages from predators in their own ranks. Power and pedophilia are by no means inevitable allies, but it is ridiculous and reckless to ignore their historical relationship. As former pages, we are happy to leave the Foleys, Cranes and Studdses to Congress. But Congress should leave the welfare of the pages to us.

Columns, Congress, Constitutional Law, Politics

Ronald Reagan and the Dangers of a Cult of Personality

June 10, 2004 Thursday

HEADLINE: Replacing Giants On Currency Is A Bill Too Far

BODY:
As the nation mourns the death of Ronald Reagan, there are some who are intent on marking his passing with more than heartfelt tributes and tears. A massive memorial on the Mall and other projects are currently being proposed to immortalize this conservative icon. However, two proposals appear to be moving quickly through the halls of Congress: One would replace Alexander Hamilton on the $10 bill, while the other would replace Franklin Delano Roosevelt on the dime.

The move to bump Hamilton and Roosevelt raises serious historical and symbolic questions – but few of these questions are likely to be discussed, let alone answered, during this period of mourning. While many Americans fiercely opposed Reagan and his policies, most of these critics have remained silent in deference to their fellow citizens who embraced Reagan as a political revolutionary.

The problem is that tossing great leaders such as Hamilton and Roosevelt off our currency risks turning a “celebration of life” into a cult of personality. There is no question that Ronald Reagan deserves memorials and praise. However, since he left office, the appetite for memorials among his disciples has been insatiable. Continue reading “Ronald Reagan and the Dangers of a Cult of Personality” →

Columns, Congress, Politics

Tom DeLay and Congressional Ethics

November 22, 2004 Monday
HEADLINE: In Congress, Justice DeLayed Is Justice Denied

Power and principle have rarely coexisted well in Washington. However, even in a city that long ago lost the ability to blush, last week’s vote by Republican House Members on Majority Leader Tom DeLay’s (R-Texas) possible indictment left many breathless.

The GOP did away with an ethics rule that would have forced him to resign from his post if he, as some expect, is indicted in Texas for criminal acts related to fundraising. It is only the latest act of collusion in support of DeLay, who has become the Teflon Don of Beltway politics.

It was only a few weeks ago that the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct reprimanded DeLay for violating ethics rules in a different controversy. It was vintage Beltway theater. The reprimand was crafted to avoid any real punishment of DeLay, who immediately claimed a curious victory and thanked the committee for offering “guidance” on such issues.

Now, DeLay faces the possibility of an actual criminal charge in Texas. Close associates of DeLay have been indicted in Austin for illegal solicitations and campaign contributions. DeLay wanted the GOPto take control of the Texas House of Representatives before redistricting. However, it is illegal to solicit or spend corporate funds on political campaigns in Texas. Continue reading “Tom DeLay and Congressional Ethics” →

Columns, Congress, Constitutional Law, Justice, Politics

The Bush Administration’s Unchecked Authority

June 19, 2006 Monday

HEADLINE: Constitutional Swag, Congressional Privilege

We are in the midst of a crisis with few parallels in our nation’s history, but you would never know it by speaking with most Members of Congress. As Congress blissfully occupies itself with bread-and-circus politics such as flag-burning and same-sex marriage amendments, existing constitutional principles are being eviscerated.

Over the past six years, the Bush administration has made unprecedented intrusions into Congressional authority without any significant response, or even inquiry, by Congress.

The framers anticipated that each branch jealously would covet each other’s power. Accordingly, the Separation of Powers doctrine is based on the Madisonian principle that “ambition must be made to counteract ambition.” Continue reading “The Bush Administration’s Unchecked Authority” →

Columns, Congress, Justice, Politics

The Page Protection Act: The Path to Saving A Historic Program

October 5, 2006 Thursday

Immortalized in movies such as “Mr. Smith Goes to Washington,” Congressional pages always have represented the youthful idealism of the country. Perhaps it is that very image that attracts people like former Rep. Mark Foley (R-Fla.), who resigned after admitting he sent improper e-mails to a House page.

For those of us who served as pages, our greatest concern is not with Members like Foley (who likely will be brought to account), but with the future of this unique institution. Whatever we learn about these allegations, one thing should be clear: The system failed, yet again, to protect pages from the Members they serve. It is time to pass a Page Protection Act that creates an independent body to oversee, maintain and protect the page service. Continue reading “The Page Protection Act: The Path to Saving A Historic Program” →

Columns, Congress, Constitutional Law, Politics

Too Clever by Hafl: The D.C. Vote in Congress

January 25, 2007 Thursday

One of the most anticipated pieces of holdover legislation for the 110th Congress is the D.C. Fair and Equal House Voting Rights Act, giving the District of Columbia a single vote in the House of Representatives and balancing that Democratic vote with a fourth district for Utah. While heralded as a historic and long-overdue reform for the District’s non-voting citizens, the legislation is a constitutional and practical nightmare. It is an example of being too clever by half – trying to do the right thing without doing it in the right way. Continue reading “Too Clever by Hafl: The D.C. Vote in Congress” →

Columns, Congress, Constitutional Law, Politics

The Return of the Equal Rights Amendment

April 16, 2007 Monday

HEADLINE: The Revival of The Equal Rights Amendment

For decades, the dream of cryonics has been to freeze clinically dead people for long periods so that they can be brought back to life in the future when a cure for their fatal ailment has been found. This month, the first successful cryonic experiment occurred in Congress with the sudden resuscitation of the long-dead Equal Rights Amendment, now called the Women’s Equality Amendment. Continue reading “The Return of the Equal Rights Amendment” →

Politics, Supreme Court

Roberts the Elder

John Roberts has an understated personality, but his record will be all torpedo.

Published: September 13th, 2005

As John Roberts sits down before the Senate Judiciary Committee this week, its members will be searching to better understand the man who would become the 17th chief justice of the United States. If history is any guide, they will learn little about who John Roberts is and even less about who John Roberts will become. The problem with confirmation hearings is that, even with a forthcoming nominee, they offer only a snapshot of a jurist before he or sheenters the rarified and mind-altering world of the country’s highest court.
Senators have learned that a strange metamorphosis can occur in the walk over the east Capitol lawn to the Supreme Court building. In that short expanse, reliable conservatives have been known to transform into raging liberals, and vice versa.

Senators will, therefore, struggle with the need to know the unknowable: To paraphrase the Beatles, “Will you still need me, will you still please me, when you are 64?” Continue reading “Roberts the Elder” →

Constitutional Law, Justice, Politics

Polygamy and Hypocrisy

Posted 10/3/2004

Polygamy laws expose our own hypocrisy
By Jonathan Turley
Tom Green is an American polygamist. This month, he will appeal his conviction in Utah for that offense to the United States Supreme Court, in a case that could redefine the limits of marriage, privacy and religious freedom.
If the court agrees to take the case, it would be forced to confront a 126-year-old decision allowing states to criminalize polygamy that few would find credible today, even as they reject the practice. And it could be forced to address glaring contradictions created in recent decisions of constitutional law.

For polygamists, it is simply a matter of unequal treatment under the law.

Individuals have a recognized constitutional right to engage in any form of consensual sexual relationship with any number of partners. Thus, a person can live with multiple partners and even sire children from different partners so long as they do not marry. However, when that same person accepts a legal commitment for those partners “as a spouse,” we jail them.

Likewise, someone such as singer Britney Spears can have multiple husbands so long as they are consecutive, not concurrent. Thus, Spears can marry and divorce men in quick succession and become the maven of tabloid covers. Yet if she marries two of the men for life, she will become the matron of a state prison.

Religion defines the issue

The difference between a polygamist and the follower of an “alternative lifestyle” is often religion. In addition to protecting privacy, the Constitution is supposed to protect the free exercise of religion unless the religious practice injures a third party or causes some public danger.

However, in its 1878 opinion in Reynolds vs. United States, the court refused to recognize polygamy as a legitimate religious practice, dismissing it in racist and anti-Mormon terms as “almost exclusively a feature of the life of Asiatic and African people.” In later decisions, the court declared polygamy to be “a blot on our civilization” and compared it to human sacrifice and “a return to barbarism.” Most tellingly, the court found that the practice is “contrary to the spirit of Christianity and of the civilization which Christianity has produced in the Western World.”

Contrary to the court’s statements, the practice of polygamy is actually one of the common threads between Christians, Jews and Muslims.

Deuteronomy contains a rule for the division of property in polygamist marriages. Old Testament figures such as Abraham, David, Jacob and Solomon were all favored by God and were all polygamists. Solomon truly put the “poly” to polygamy with 700 wives and 300 concubines. Mohammed had 10 wives, though the Koran limits multiple wives to four. Martin Luther at one time accepted polygamy as a practical necessity. Polygamy is still present among Jews in Israel, Yemen and the Mediterranean.

Indeed, studies have found polygamy present in 78% of the world’s cultures, including some Native American tribes. (While most are polygynists — with one man and multiple women — there are polyandrists in Nepal and Tibet in which one woman has multiple male spouses.) As many as 50,000 polygamists live in the United States.

Given this history and the long religious traditions, it cannot be seriously denied that polygamy is a legitimate religious belief. Since polygamy is a criminal offense, polygamists do not seek marriage licenses. However, even living as married can send you to prison. Prosecutors have asked courts to declare a person as married under common law and then convicted them of polygamy.

The Green case

This is what happened in the case of Green, who was sentenced to five years to life in prison. In his case, the state first used the common law to classify Green and four women as constructively married — even though they never sought a license. Green was then convicted of polygamy.

While the justifications have changed over the years, the most common argument today in favor of a criminal ban is that underage girls have been coerced into polygamist marriages. There are indeed such cases. However, banning polygamy is no more a solution to child abuse than banning marriage would be a solution to spousal abuse. The country has laws to punish pedophiles and there is no religious exception to those laws.

In Green’s case, he was shown to have “married” a 13-year-old girl. If Green had relations with her, he is a pedophile and was properly prosecuted for a child sex crime — just as a person in a monogamous marriage would be prosecuted.

The First Amendment was designed to protect the least popular and least powerful among us. When the high court struck down anti-sodomy laws in Lawrence vs. Texas, we ended decades of the use of criminal laws to persecute gays. However, this recent change was brought about in part by the greater acceptance of gay men and lesbians into society, including openly gay politicians and popular TV characters.

Such a day of social acceptance will never come for polygamists. It is unlikely that any network is going to air The Polygamist Eye for the Monogamist Guy or add a polygamist twist to Everyone Loves Raymond. No matter. The rights of polygamists should not be based on popularity, but principle.

I personally detest polygamy. Yet if we yield to our impulse and single out one hated minority, the First Amendment becomes little more than hype and we become little more than hypocrites. For my part, I would rather have a neighbor with different spouses than a country with different standards for its citizens.

I know I can educate my three sons about the importance of monogamy, but hypocrisy can leave a more lasting impression.

Justice, Politics

Microscopic Humans and Stem Cell Politics

USA TODAY
July 18, 2006 Tuesday

HEADLINE: The case for macroscopic humans;
The stem cell debate this time may be settled quickly with President Bush’s first veto. In doing so, he effectively will choose to protect microscopic masses of cells instead of actual living, breathing human beings. And that’s a travesty.

BYLINE: Jonathan Turley

BODY:

Once again, the nation has returned to the all-consuming debate over the fate of the embryonic stem cell. With the expected passage of a federal stem cell bill lifting President Bush’s harsh restrictions on federal funding, the White House has announced that he will veto the bill despite its overwhelming support among citizens and Republicans and Democrats in Congress. It will be the first veto of Bush’s presidency. All for the protection of the beguiling embryonic stem cell: a microscopic cell taken from a microscopic part of a barely perceptible mass of cells called a blastocyst, or early stage human embryo.

To get an idea of the size of the object of this controversy, consider the dot over the “i” in embryonic. I am told by Tim McCaffrey, a leading researcher of adult stem cells at George Washington University, that the dot would hold hundreds of stem cells, dozens of which would be suitable for research. It would also hold at least one blastocyst that contains the cells.

While imperceptibly small, the blastocyst is undeniably a step in the creation of life. This has turned the blastocyst into the poster (pre-)child for the movement to outlaw abortion. Abortion foes have taken the most extreme possible position in opposing any use of the blastocyst for research — converting the blastocyst into a type of “holy dot.”

Watchful eye is needed

Despite my long support for stem cell research, I am not in favor of unrestricted use of human embryonic material. There are dangers of a slippery slope if researchers could use in vitro fertilization for the sole purpose of “harvesting” such material. But the federal bill would not create such a limitless environment. Rather, it would focus on thousands of stem cells that are the byproduct of genuine in vitro procedures — used with the permission of each donor couple. These stem cell lines are routinely discarded by clinics but could be used for important scientific research.

Stem cell research could ultimately produce cures or treatments for diseases and injuries affecting an estimated 130 million citizens, including people suffering from such ailments as juvenile diabetes, Parkinson’s, ALS and spinal cord injuries. Most treatments remain years away, but stem cell treatment has already begun in Europe for people with heart and nervous system ailments. Clinical tests with animals have shown astonishing success. For example, just last month, it was reported that stem cell treatment can not only repair damaged spinal cords but also regrow them to allow paralyzed animals to walk again.

Given such proven potential, most Americans oppose the president’s restrictions on research. Seven out of 10 Americans support fully funded stem cell research. Even ultraconservative leaders such as Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, and conservative celebrities such as former first lady Nancy Reagan have opposed Bush’s ban.

Nevertheless, the president opposes even the use of discarded stem cells with the express consent of the couples. It is a position that is comprehensible only to the most extreme activists: Throw the blastocysts out but do not degrade them by extracting the cells for medical research or cures.

Treating these discarded blastocysts as if they’re some microscopic underclass is lost on millions of families with macroscopic loved ones suffering from fatal or crippling diseases. In 2004, I wrote an article on the personal costs of Bush’s policy for families such as my own. At the time, my father, Jack Turley, was fighting the rapidly advancing effects of Parkinson’s disease. On Feb. 19, 2005, time ran out for my father.

This debate is not about abstractions for millions of Americans. For me, it is about my dad. So I will not claim objectivity, nor would I want to. Once you go through the death of a loved one from one of these vicious diseases, you lose patience with the endless debate over the fate of discarded blastocysts.

A real life ended

My father was no abstraction of life. He was my best friend and the man whom I most admired in this world. With my mom and my oldest brother, Dominic, I held Dad as he died in a Chicago hospital room. In the end, he had lost so much weight that we had to bury him in one of my suits and shirts. It was the suit that I was married in — the day that we first suspected something was wrong with Dad, who suddenly could not tie his own tie. As my bride waited downstairs for the ceremony, I remember being slightly embarrassed for my proud father as I knotted his tie. It would be only the first of many increasingly degrading moments for this intensely private person.

Having gone through this nightmare, I cannot work up much sympathy for the holy-dot theory. Nor do I have much patience for the self-described “compromise” of Sen. Rick Santorum, R-Pa., an unflagging opponent to embryonic stem cell research. Facing a tough re-election campaign, Santorum has proposed a bill that calls for more study into the use of non-embryonic cells or ways to remove cells without harming the embryos — which, in the case of the clinic embryos, would then presumably be thrown into the trash “unharmed.”

I know that the loss of five years under Bush would not have made a difference for my dad. But what made me angry — what still makes me angry — is that the president and his allies make the blastocyst, not my father or other ailing citizens, the object of their obsession. They are simply immaterial to the president’s faith-based politics. But these citizens were not some vague potential for life. They lived and, what should concern the White House, they left millions of newly minted single-issue voters.

Politics

Stem Cell Politics

May 18, 2004, Tuesday, FINAL EDITION

HEADLINE: Bush’s stem-cell politics leaves Dad to wither

BYLINE: Jonathan Turley

BODY:
My father is dying from an American political disease. In a nation divided evenly between red and blue states, governmental policies have long been distorted by the gravitational pull of the extremes of the two parties.

For President Bush, policies often have been shaped by his fundamentalist and conservative religious base. While controversial, many of these policies are largely symbolic, such as his unheeded call for an amendment to ban gay marriage. The president’s policy opposing stem-cell research, however, presents a far more deadly concession — one that might secure votes, but at a prohibitive cost of human life.

Stem-cell research is back in the news after former first lady Nancy Reagan’s call this month for Bush to drop his opposition to fully funded research. Former president Ronald Reagan has advanced Alzheimer’s disease and may benefit from stem-cell research. More than 200 members of Congress (including nearly three dozen abortion-rights opponents) responded to the call and asked Bush to lift his extreme limitations on federal funding in some instances. Former presidents Gerald Ford, Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton have also joined the chorus.

Such a change may come too late for my father. The immediate threat to him is an advanced-stage Parkinson’s disease that is sapping his strength, reducing his mobility and robbing his mind. However, it is not Parkinson’s, but politics, that has proved the greatest burden in our fight for his life.

In his self-described “compromise,” Bush said stem cells (microscopic clusters of cells often discarded by hospitals) must be protected as potential human life. The White House recently reaffirmed that Bush would not allow research to “cross a fundamental moral line.” Bush has yielded to groups such as the American Life League, which sees such research as a “deadly use of . . . human beings who are currently in their embryonic stage of development.”

The president has restricted federally funded researchers to using a small number of existing “stem-cell lines,” created before Aug. 9, 2001. From the outset, the compromise was a bit odd, because if the microscopic cells are “human beings . . . in their embryonic stage,” Bush adopted the ultimate split-the-baby solution.

If they are embryonic humans, it should hardly matter whether they were created before or after August 2001. If Bush accepts that they are not human lives, as some abortion-rights opponents accept, then the restriction is a callous political decision at the potential cost of 130 million Americans with cancer, heart disease, diabetes, Parkinson’s, Alzheimer’s, multiple sclerosis and other diseases potentially treatable — even curable — by advances from stem-cell research.

At the time of his compromise, Bush said there was an ample pool of stem-cell lines for research demands. He insisted that there were about 70 such cell lines, even though many researchers immediately denounced that number as overstated. They have been proved correct. The National Institutes of Health reported last week that there are only 11.

Bush’s policies have proved disastrous for American research that once led the world in this field. Vital federal stem-cell funding has been reduced to $ 17 million a year, forcing states to take the lead in funding research. (In comparison, the Senate has approved $ 50 million to build an indoor rain forest in Iowa.) The loss of federal support has forced some states to try to make up the difference despite crushing debts. Now, top researchers in the USA are moving abroad, where they can fully pursue their research, find breakthroughs and let European companies reap the profits.

In the end, however, the economics and the politics are matters for presidents to ponder. Most of us are left as the ultimate single-issue voters. My single issue has a name: Jack Turley.

An accomplished architect and one of a handful of students trained by the famed Ludwig Mies van der Rohe, he now struggles to maintain his dignity against a disease that first robs you of every ounce of dignity and only then takes your life.

As my father sits in Chicago, 400,000 spare embryos sit in freezers across the country. They could be used to radically speed up research in Parkinson’s and other diseases, but because of the president’s policies, these embryos are likely to be destroyed — a perverse result of protecting “embryonic humans” by discarding them.

Ultimately, every person can elect to accept or reject drugs based on this research. However, the effective bar on federally funded research imposes the president’s religious views on all of us.

I have become blind to Iraq, environmental laws, civil liberties and taxes. I have the myopia that comes with desperation. I cannot see beyond a chair in Chicago where a man sits who once carried me on his shoulders and protected me against every danger.

Part of me resents that suddenly politicians are scrambling for a change in policy because Ronald Reagan has Alzheimer’s and needs help. My dad is one of millions of towering historical figures known primarily to their families. They didn’t beat communism; they did something far more incredible and important: They raised families. They now sit, like Dad, helplessly monitoring not the progress but the politics of disease.

***

Justice, Politics

Kevin Kelly and the Victimization of a Greiving Family

June 9, 2002 Sunday

HEADLINE: A Tragedy, Not a Crime

BODY:

By all accounts, Kevin Kelly is a loving father who works hard to support his large family in Manassas. The father of 13 children, Kelly was doing sole duty last week when his youngest, a 19-month-old girl, was accidentally left in the family van. She later died.

When most families would be attempting to cope with such a horrific loss, the Kelly family was hit this week with another unimaginable blow. Commonwealth Attorney Paul B. Ebert has announced that he intends to charge Kelly with involuntary manslaughter, a charge that could send him to prison for 15 years. Ebert stated that he wanted to send a message to all parents. Indeed he did. Kelly’s prosecution sends a chilling message of prosecutorial over-reach and abuse. Unfortunately, it is not unique. Increasingly, prosecutors appear to be expressing their outrage over parental negligence through criminal charges, leaving terrible consequences in their wake.

The disaster that struck the family occurred last week when Kelly was watching the children while his wife and one daughter were taking a vacation in Ireland. When the family returned home in their 15-seat van, Kelly enlisted his oldest teenagers to help get all 12 kids into the house. One of the teenagers removed the family’s 3-year-old daughter but forgot the youngest in the van. Kelly assumed that everyone was in the house as he did chores and got pizza for dinner (in another family car). Seven hours later, the child was found dead in the closed van.

This was not the first time that Kelly has lost track of one of his kids. Previously, he left one of his sons at a video store and did not realize that the boy was missing until the store contacted him hours later. But no one has suggested that Kelly knowingly left his daughter in the van, and both parents are described as deeply religious and supportive. This is a case of negligence but not a crime. Criminal cases have long been confined to parents who knowingly put their children at obvious risk, physically abused their children, engaged in drug or criminal activities or showed a history of child neglect.

Ebert does not allege such criminal elements. Nevertheless, Ebert insists that “this case is bigger than Mr. Kelly.” Ebert says that a prosecution of the father is necessary so that “other people will get the message that gross negligence . . . is something that can be prosecuted.” To that end, Ebert stated that he has not decided whether to also criminally charge the teenage daughter as part of his “family learning through prosecution” policy.

Criminal justice is generally based on one of two objectives: retribution or deterrence. Neither objective will be achieved by prosecuting this grieving father. In terms of retribution, no penalty can possibly extract the costs of losing a child due to personal negligence. As for deterrence, Ebert’s belief that prosecution will “send a message” is bizarre. Ebert’s lingering threat is not going to cause parents to be more attentive or less forgetful. You send a message to criminals who act deliberately. Parents are not going to begin to put fail-safe protections into effect because, in addition to losing the most valuable thing in their lives, they risk being served with Ebert’s own brand of punishment.

Ebert is not the first prosecutor to use criminal law to punish parental negligence. In 2000, Paul Wayment was charged criminally after he left his sleeping son in his truck while he hunted. The boy wandered away and was later found dead in the forest. Even the prosecutors admitted that Wayment was not simply a good father but a father totally engrossed in his son. He took his son everywhere and was devastated by the loss. The prosecutors decided to charge but specifically asked the judge not to send the man to jail. However, Utah’s Judge Robert Hilder decided that he had not suffered enough. Hilder told Wayment that he would be sent to jail to consider what he had done. Wayment left the court, went to the spot in the mountains where his son was found and committed suicide. I remain convinced that it was not the prospect of jail but the suggestion that he lacked remorse that proved too much for him. Neither a judge nor a prosecutor was needed to get Wayment to consider what he had done. It would be the defining moment of his life, an agony that only a parent can appreciate. Wayment was certainly guilty of a thoughtless, if not moronic, act in leaving that child in his truck. However, in doing so, he imposed a sentence on himself that was absolute and unappealable.

Our society seems incapable of expressing its most fundamental values without a criminal charge. Prosecution has become a type of exclamation point for social judgments. However, in the Wayment and the Kelly cases, such prosecutions only victimize the grieving to satisfy the vengeful. It is the prosecutorial version of ambulance chasing. Faced with a high-profile death, prosecutors yield to a temptation to express their own views of the parental negligence, as if such a view was in doubt or needed.

Ebert clearly believes that if he hoists a wretch, he can improve child care in Virginia. There is something to this logic that reminds one of the Vietnam War technique of destroying a village to save it. Here, the state will respond to the tragic loss of this child by destroying the family. It will first drain what little funds are available to this large family and then, if successful, it will send the family’s only breadwinner to jail. Ebert insists that “this is bigger than Mr. Kelly.” Not to his family, Mr. Ebert. Before the state victimizes this family in our name, the public needs to send its own message to those who cannot distinguish between true justice and gratuitous punishment.