Cellphones can now get AMBER Alerts

Cellphones can now get AMBER Alerts

By Donna Leinwand, USA TODAY
Tue May 17, 6:27 AM ET

AMBER Alert, the public notification system that has helped return 201 abducted children safely since 1997, will be expanded today so that most people with a cell phone or other wireless device can get alerts in their area.

"The best way to find children who are at the greatest risk is to mobilize the eyes and ears of the public," says Ernie Allen, president of the National Center for Missing & Exploited Children in Alexandria, Va., which worked with the wireless telephone industry to expand alerts to wireless customers.


More than 182 million people use cell phones or other wireless devices, such as BlackBerrys. About 90% of the users in the country, those who subscribe to big carriers, can get an alert on an abducted child free by signing up at www.wirelessamberalerts.org. They can select the areas for which they want notification.


Subscribers to smaller phone services will be able to sign up in about two months, says Steve Largent, president of CTIA-The Wireless Association.


The cell phone alert builds on the existing AMBER Alert system that broadcasts descriptions of the missing children and the suspects who may have taken them in all 50 states and Washington, D.C. Under the system, law enforcement officials work with local radio and television broadcasters to issue emergency messages when a child is missing and thought to be in danger. Some states issue the alerts on electronic highway signs.


The highway text messages are similar to what cell phone users would receive. The missing child center will issue text messages when notified by law enforcement. The messages will be routed to participating carriers, such as Verizon or Sprint. The companies then send the messages to subscribers. The process can be completed in minutes, Allen says.


"Time is the enemy in the search for a missing child," Allen says. "You have to move fast." In 74% of abduction cases, Allen says, the child is killed within the first three hours.


AMBER stands for America's Missing: Broadcast Emergency Response. The alert system was created after Amber Hagerman, 9, was abducted in 1996 from her neighborhood in Arlington, Texas, and killed. Allen credits the system with the rescue of 201 children. Last year, the center tracked 252 alerts.


Last week, police issued a nationwide AMBER Alert for a New Mexico toddler reported missing on Mother's Day. The child was found unharmed Friday in Mexico.

Source: Ill. Governor's Office Subpoenaed

Source: Ill. Governor's Office Subpoenaed

By MAURA KELLY LANNAN, Associated Press Writer
Tue May 17, 7:46 AM ET

CHICAGO - Gov. Rod Blagojevich's office has received subpoenas from a grand jury investigating allegations that his chief fundraiser traded jobs for campaign contributions, a source close to the investigation said Monday.

The governor refused to say if he had been subpoenaed, insisting it would be illegal to discuss the matter while it is before a grand jury.

Subpoenas were also sent to Blagojevich's major fundraisers, his political committees and some agency heads, seeking records related to hiring, contracts and appointments, the source told The Associated Press, speaking on the condition of anonymity.

The list of people receiving subpoenas included the governor's chief fundraiser, Christopher Kelly, and a political committee of Chicago Alderman Richard Mell, Blagojevich's father-in-law, the source said.

Another source close to the governor's office confirmed that the office received a subpoena for documents such as e-mails and other correspondence related to hiring but said Blagojevich had not been asked to testify before a grand jury.

Blagojevich, speaking Monday at a news conference on education in Chicago, said it would be illegal to discuss whether he received a subpoena.

"As a former prosecutor, it's very clear that when there's a grand jury, you don't talk about any specifics of it, that it is a violation of the law," Blagojevich said. "We're going to cooperate, and we look forward to full vindication."

The investigation by Attorney General Lisa Madigan and Cook County State's Attorney Richard Devine was announced in January after Mell alleged that Kelly was trading jobs for contributions. He made the accusations following the governor's decision to shut down a landfill operated by a distant relative. Mell later retracted the allegations.

At the news conference, the governor was asked about the importance of the public knowing whether a governor has been subpoenaed, given the pending corruption case against former Gov. George Ryan. Blagojevich said he was not simply looking the other way when family members were involved.

Blagojevich said the investigation is "the result of me making a hard decision to protect the environment because my father-in-law was involved in a landfill that was operating illegally. Knowing the way he operates and what he's likely to do, I put my head down and did the right thing for the environment."

Mell has denied having a financial interest in the landfill.

Neither he nor Kelly returned phone calls seeking comment Monday.

Fox, UPN Announce Fall Schedules

Fox, UPN Announce Fall Schedules

By DAVID BAUDER, AP Television Writer
Thu May 19, 3:15 PM ET

NEW YORK - Fox is adding five new dramas and two comedies to a nearly reality-free schedule next fall, while UPN said Thursday it wants to start a new Thursday comedy tradition with Chris Rock.

They were the last of the broadcast networks to announce their fall schedules to advertisers this week.

Riding its annual "American Idol" high and benefiting from NBC's collapse, Fox will finish this season No. 1 among the 18-to-49-year-old viewers craved by advertisers for the first time in its 17-year-history.

"We have no doubt we have a big target on our back," said Fox Entertainment President Peter Liguori. "We don't know what it's like to be No. 1 but we know people will be gunning for us."

Fox is taking big chances with two of its most-praised shows. The medical drama "House" became a hit on Tuesdays this spring among viewers who stayed with Fox after "American Idol" and liked what they saw. Fox keeps it on Tuesday in the fall and moves it to Monday alongside "24" in January — testing the loyalty of those new viewers.

There was some question whether Fox would even renew the Emmy-winning comedy "Arrested Development," given that few viewers have made it a habit. Not only did Fox bring it back, it moved the show to Monday, alongside two new series.

"I recognize that putting it on at 8 o'clock is a bold, audacious move," Liguori said. "But we have confidence in the show."

When "Idol" begins again in January, Fox dramatically changes its lineup on Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday nights. Fox traditionally has trouble establishing shows in the fall because its prime-time schedule is pre-empted for baseball much of October, but Liguori said he hoped to start a handful of shows early to give them a head start. He's also running some shows, like "24" and "Arrested Development," straight through without repeats.

Its new series feature a down-on-their-luck lawyer and chef, a forensic anthropologist and a San Francisco detective.

Except for the Saturday staples of "COPS" and "America's Most Wanted," the network that largely pioneered the reality genre had no reality on either its fall or spring schedules.

Liguori said it was a reflection of strong scripted series development and not resistance to the genre. He said new episodes of "Trading Spouses," "Nanny 911" and "The Simple Life" had been ordered; odds are in the television business that some of the new series will fail and Fox will need quick replacements.

There's no word on whether Nicole Richie, rumored to feuding with co-star Paris Hilton, will be back for another season of "The Simple Life." Both stars are under contract for two more seasons.

Fox has canceled "Life on a Stick" and "Quintuplets."

Fox's new fall series:

_ "Prison Break," a drama about a man on death row. His brother is convinced he's innocent and robs a bank to get in the same prison, where he comes armed with an elaborate escape plan.

_ "Bones," a sort of "CSI" for REALLY dead people, is a drama about a team of forensic anthropologists who study bones to solve crimes.

_ "Head Cases" stars Chris O'Donnell as a lawyer who gets kicked out by his wife and suffers a nervous breakdown. He meets Rachel Leigh Cook to help him get on his feet again.

_ "Reunion," sort of the inverse of "24," the series follows six friends over the course of 20 years. Each episode is set in a different year.

_ "The Gate," set in San Francisco, is a drama about a detective in the police department's deviant crime unit.

_ "The War at Home" is a comedy about once-rebellious parents of now-rebellious kids.

_ "Kitchen Confidential" is a comedy about a once-hot cook stuck slinging pasta at a restaurant chain because of his boozing lifestyle. He's given one chance at a job at a top restaurant but has 48 hours to impress 300 people — including the food critic at The New York Times, a jilted ex.

UPN, which already has a comedy based on the life of Will Smith, will add another based on the childhood of Rock. UPN is moving "WWE Smackdown!" to Friday nights to make way for "Everybody Hates Chris" and three other comedies.

"`Everybody Loves Raymond,' `Everybody Hates Chris,'" Rock said. "White man out, black man in. See how it works?"

UPN executives believe it can be a landmark series for the network. Obviously thinking little of NBC's "Joey," UPN President Dawn Ostroff said there's a void of television comedy on Thursday nights.

UPN is seeking an audience of teenage girls and young women on the nights it doesn't air wrestling, aggressively going after an audience its competitor the WB once owned. It continually flashed the slogan "Where the Girls Are" in a presentation to advertisers.

Its two other new series are "Sex, Lies & Secrets," with Denise Richards heading a group of twentysomething friends, and "Love, Inc., starring Shannen Doherty and Holly Robinson Peete as dating consultants.

The Taye Diggs drama "Kevin Hill" was canceled, as was "Second Time Around."

NBC Hopes for Rebound, Releases Schedule

NBC Hopes for Rebound, Releases Schedule

By DAVID BAUDER, AP Television Writer
Mon May 16, 1:59 PM ET

NEW YORK - Seeking to climb out of the ratings cellar, NBC will have Martha Stewart picking a protege and singer Amy Grant making wishes come true when the new season begins this fall.

NBC said Monday that it will introduce six new series in September, including only one comedy: "My Name is Earl," featuring Jason Lee ("Chasing Amy") as a downtrodden lottery winner.

NBC is canceling the fourth installment of the "Law & Order" series, "Trial By Jury," which lost star Jerry Orbach shortly after production began. The Mark Burnett/Sylvester Stallone boxing series "The Contender," "American Dreams" and "Third Watch" are also not returning.

Illustrating how television schedules are constantly in flux, NBC promised two other new comedies would come on the air sometime next season. Two shows not on the September schedule, "Scrubs" and "Fear Factor," will also return at some point, NBC said.

NBC is moving the political drama "The West Wing" to Sunday nights, with the campaign to replace Martin Sheen as the mythical president continuing.

All the broadcast networks release their fall schedules this week, and NBC was first in line. The network is finishing up a miserable season, slipping to fourth among the 18-to-49-year-old viewers its advertisers want. NBC failed to replace the departed "Friends" and "Frasier" with any new hits.

Despite losing ground to CBS on what was once its most popular night, NBC said it is returning its Thursday schedule intact: including the troubled "Friends" spinoff "Joey."

Stewart's starring role in "The Apprentice" will give NBC two versions of the boardroom game running this fall. The home improvement queen's show will air Wednesday night, with Donald Trump keeping his Thursday time slot.

Gospel singer Grant stars in "Three Wishes," a reality show where she travels across the country trying to transform lives by paying medical bills, making dreams come true and the like. It's a nod to the popularity of makeover shows like ABC's "Extreme Makeover: Home Edition."

NBC will air three new dramas: "E-Ring," a Jerry Bruckheimer production with Dennis Hopper and Benjamin Bratt, about life in the Pentagon; "Fathom," about a creepy new form of sea life; and "Inconceivable," a medical show set in a fertility clinic.

Document: Reagan wouldn't back Nancy; Draft executive order shows opposition to embryo research

To view this item online, visit http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=38992

Posted: June 17, 2004
1:00 a.m. Eastern

While Nancy Reagan is urging the Bush administration to reverse its opposition to federal funding of embryonic stem-cell research, a document has surfaced indicating President Reagan would not have supported his wife's campaign.

The issue has gathered more attention in the wake of Reagan's death June 5 after suffering for 10 years from Alzheimer's, a disease some researchers hope can be addressed through breakthroughs in the use of stem cells.

President Bush opposes government support of the embryonic research because it involves the destruction of human life, and a draft executive order Reagan worked on shortly before he left office indicates his policy would have been the same.

The order was to "continue and broaden the [1988] moratorium on NIH [National Institute of Health] grants for certain types of fetal experimentation," according to Charles Colson, the former Nixon aide who now leads a Christian ministry, Prison Fellowship.


Colson, in his daily radio commentary, said he received the document from William Clark, Reagan's national security adviser and close personal friend.

"Reagan took a clear stand against research that would harm or destroy 'any living child in utero,' in all stages of development in which scientists were then able to experiment on them," Colson said.

Clark insists Reagan clearly was opposed to funding embryo research.

Writing recently in the New York Times, he said, "After the charter expired for the Departments of Health, Education and Welfare’s ethical advisory board – which in the 1970s supported destructive research on human embryos – [Reagan] began a de facto ban on federal financing of embryo research that he held to throughout his presidency."

The presidential adviser also noted Reagan, in his 1993 speech known for it's "evil empire" reference, "spoke strongly against the denegration of innocent human life."

"And [Reagan] favored bills in Congress that would have given every human being – at all stages of development – protection as a person under the 14th Amendment," Clark said.

Reagan also favored a Human Life Amendment defining life as beginning at conception.

In addition, Clark notes, Reagan "would have asked the marketplace question: If human embryonic research is so clearly promising as the researchers assert, why aren't private investors putting [their] money into it, as they are in adult stem-cell research?"

Researchers, according to an Insight magazine report published by WND, are engaged in a "stem-cell war," a deliberate effort to downplay the proven value of adult stem cells to attract more attention to the potential of embryonic stem cells.

Insight says while activists such as spinally injured actor Christopher Reeve argue that if not for Bush administration and congressional restrictions on embyonic stem-cell funding he might be walking in a few years, there are no approved treatments – and no human trials – involving embryonic stem cells.

Each of the promising therapies and experiments to date has involved adult stem cells, which include cells found in nonadult tissue such as umbilical cords, placentas and amniotic fluid.

Prior to Reagan's death, Colson notes, 58 U.S. senators signed a letter asking Bush to remove restrictions he implemented last year on federal funding of the embryo research. Now many, including Republican Orrin Hatch of Utah, are pointing to Reagan's long illness and death as justification. "It's certainly understandable that Nancy Reagan, after the terrible ordeal she's been through, might look with favor on any possibility of defeating Alzheimer’s," Colson said in his commentary.

"It's even understandable that others, misled by extravagant promises and blind to what's really going on, are grasping at the same straw," he continued. "But they ought to argue their case on its merits – what few merits it has – and not enlist in their cause the name of Ronald Reagan, who stood foursquare against the exploitation and destruction of human life in any stage.

"That is one legacy he would have never wanted to leave."

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
© 2004 WorldNetDaily.com

For Reagan, All Life Was Sacred

By WILLIAM P. CLARK
Published: June 11, 2004

ASO ROBLES, Calif.

Ronald Reagan had not passed from this life for 48 hours before proponents of human embryonic stem-cell research began to suggest that such ethically questionable scientific work should be promoted under his name. But this cannot honestly be done without ignoring President Reagan's own words and actions.

Ronald Reagan's record reveals that no issue was of greater importance to him than the dignity and sanctity of all human life. "My administration is dedicated to the preservation of America as a free land," he said in 1983. "And there is no cause more important for preserving that freedom than affirming the transcendent right to life of all human beings, the right without which no other rights have any meaning." One of the things he regretted most at the completion of his presidency in 1989, he told me, was that politics and circumstances had prevented him from making more progress in restoring protection for unborn human life.

Still, he did what he could. To criticize the Roe v. Wade decision on its 10th anniversary in 1983, he published his famous essay "Abortion and the Conscience of the Nation" in The Human Life Review. "We cannot diminish the value of one category of human life — the unborn — without diminishing the value of all human life," he wrote. He went on to emphasize "the truth of human dignity under God" and "respect for the sacred value of human life." Because modern science has revealed the wonder of human development, and modern medicine treats "the developing human as a patient," he declared, "the real question today is not when human life begins, but, What is the value of human life?"

In that essay, he expressly encouraged continued support for the "sanctity of life ethic" and rejection of the "quality of life ethic." Writing about the value of all human life, he quoted the British writer Malcolm Muggeridge's statement that "however low it flickers or fiercely burns, it is still a divine flame which no man dare presume to put out, be his motives ever so humane and enlightened." And in the Roe v. Wade decision, he insisted, the Supreme Court "did not explicitly reject the traditional American idea of intrinsic worth and value in all human life; it simply dodged the issue."

Likewise, in his famous "Evil Empire" speech of March 1983 — which most recall as solely an indictment of the Soviet Union — Ronald Reagan spoke strongly against the denigration of innocent human life. "Abortion on demand now takes the lives of up to one and a half million unborn children a year," he said. "Unless and until it can be proven that the unborn child is not a living entity, then its right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness must be protected."

His actions were as clear as his words. He supported the Human Life Amendment, which would have inscribed in the Constitution "the paramount right to life is vested in each human being from the moment of fertilization without regard to age, health or condition of dependency." And he favored bills in Congress that would have given every human being — at all stages of development — protection as a person under the 14th Amendment.

Aside from the moral principle, President Reagan would also have questioned picking the people's pocket to support commercial research. He understood the significance of putting the imprimatur of the nation, through public financing, behind questionable research.

He consistently opposed federal support for the destruction of innocent human life. After the charter expired for the Department of Health, Education and Welfare's ethical advisory board — which in the 1970's supported destructive research on human embryos — he began a de facto ban on federal financing of embryo research that he held to throughout his presidency.

As for today's debate, as a defender of free people and free markets, he would have asked the marketplace question: if human embryonic research is so clearly promising as the researchers assert, why aren't private investors putting money into it, as they are in adult stem cell research?

Mr. Reagan's suffering under Alzheimer's disease was tragic, and we should do everything we can that is ethically proper to help others afflicted with it. But I have no doubt that he would have urged our nation to look to adult stem cell research — which has yielded many clinical successes — and away from the destruction of developing human lives, which has yielded none. Those who would trade on Ronald Reagan's legacy should first consider his own words.


William P. Clark was national security adviser and secretary of the interior under President Ronald Reagan.

Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2004/06/11/opinion/11CLAR.html

United Nations Bans ALL Human Cloning

3/8/2005 http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2005/ga10333.doc.htm

Press Release
GA/10333


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Fifty-Ninth General Assembly

Plenary

82nd Meeting (AM)


GENERAL ASSEMBLY ADOPTS UNITED NATIONS DECLARATION

ON HUMAN CLONING BY VOTE OF 84-34-37


The General Assembly this morning adopted the United Nations Declaration on Human Cloning, by which Member States were called on to adopt all measures necessary to prohibit all forms of human cloning inasmuch as they are incompatible with human dignity and the protection of human life.


Acting on the recommendation of the Sixth Committee (Legal), contained in its report A/59/516/Add.1, the Assembly adopted the text by a vote of 84 in favour to 34 against, with 37 abstentions (See Annex).


By further terms of the Declaration, Member States were also called on to protect adequately human life in the application of life sciences; to prohibit the application of genetic engineering techniques that may be contrary to human dignity; to prevent the exploitation of women in the application of life sciences; and to adopt and implement national legislation in that connection.


The Declaration adopted today was the product of a Working Group established by the Assembly to finalize the text of a United Nations declaration on human cloning, which met in New York last month. Last November, the Sixth Committee averted a divisive vote on the question of an international convention against human reproductive cloning by deciding to take up the issue as a declaration.


Regretting the failure to achieve consensus, several delegations said they had voted against the text today because the reference to “human life” could be interpreted as a call for a total ban on all forms of human cloning. The Assembly had missed an opportunity to adopt a convention prohibiting reproductive cloning, said the United Kingdom representative, because of the intransigence of those who were not prepared to recognize that other sovereign States might decide to permit strictly controlled applications of therapeutic cloning. Echoing the views of a number of speakers, he said the Declaration was a non-binding political statement, which would not affect his country’s position on the issue.


Those in favour of the Declaration welcomed its adoption, saying it constituted an important step in the protection of human dignity and the promotion of human rights, as well as a stepping stone in the process towards a complete ban on human cloning. The text, noted Costa Rica’s representative, sought to advance science in a clear framework of ethical norms. The text, added Ethiopia’s representative, sent a clear message against unethical research which made human life the object of experimentation.


Also this morning, the Assembly conveyed its deepest condolences to the families of the nine United Nations peacekeepers from Bangladesh who were killed in the Democratic Republic of the Congo on Friday, 25 February.


In addition, the Assembly was informed that Afghanistan, Cape Verde, Côte d’Ivoire, the Dominican Republic, Palau and the Solomon Islands had made the necessary payments to reduce their arrears below the amount specified in Article 19 of the Charter.


The next meeting of the Assembly will be announced in the Journal.


Explanations after Vote


The representative of Mexico, speaking in explanation of position after the vote, said that those negotiating the Declaration had had to take into account uncertainty over new scientific advances, as well as its ethical, cultural and religious implications. There was a dichotomy between reproductive and therapeutic cloning and, during the entire process,Mexico had focused on seeking a consensus, first on the negotiation of a mandate and subsequently on the text itself.


Regretfully, it had not been possible to achieve a consensus that would facilitate a universal norm, he said. Despite the fact that some delegations had decided not to yield in their original positions, many of their concerns had, in fact, been included in the final text just adopted. The text had the fundamental concern of guaranteeing human dignity and it reflected a realistic form of compromise. Hopefully, the National Parliament would take the necessary action, as the letter and spirit of the Declaration were in step with Mexican legislation and jurisprudence.


The representative of China, also speaking in explanation after the vote, said that different countries varied in their understanding of the text’s inherent moral, ethical and religious aspects, and it was regrettable that the Declaration failed to give effect to the concerns of those countries. The prohibitions contained in the text could be misunderstood as covering all forms of cloning. Having voted against the Declaration, the Chinese Government would continue to adhere to its position against reproductive human cloning, while maintaining strict controls over therapeutic cloning.


The representative of India expressed deep regret that the Sixth Committee had been unable to recommend to the plenary a text that was acceptable to all Member States on a matter of such paramount importance as an international convention against the reproductive cloning of human beings. India had voted against the political Declaration, as some of the provisions of the Declaration could be interpreted as a call for a total ban on all forms of human cloning.


India remained totally opposed to reproductive cloning owing to the doubtful nature of its safety, success, utility and ethical acceptability, he said. However, the merits of therapeutic cloning were considered on a case-by-case basis within the bioethical guidelines laid down with the approval of the National Bioethical Committee. The Declaration voted upon today was non-binding and did not reflect agreement among the wider membership of the General Assembly. India’s approach to therapeutic cloning, thus, remained unchanged.


Belgium’s representative regretted that it was not possible to find agreement on a Declaration that could have found consensus in the Assembly. Today’s vote reflected the wide divergence in the international community on the text. Rather than bringing States together, it had divided them. It was essential that reproductive human cloning be prohibited. However, it was reasonable to preserve, at the national level, the possibility of carrying out therapeutic cloning.


The representative of the United Kingdom said he voted against the Declaration, because the reference to “human life” could be interpreted as a call for a total ban on all forms of human cloning. He could not accept such an ambiguous Declaration, which might sow confusion about the acceptability of that important field of research. The Assembly had missed an opportunity to adopt a convention prohibiting reproductive cloning because of the intransigence of those who were not prepared to recognize that other sovereign States might decide to permit strictly controlled applications of therapeutic cloning. The Declaration voted on today was a weak, non-binding political statement that did not reflect anything approaching consensus within the Assembly, and would not affect the United Kingdom’s strong support of stem cell research.


Hungary’s representative said he voted in favour of the Declaration because it attached the utmost importance to sending a strong message that the birth of cloned human beings was not acceptable. Furthermore, during the conduct of life sciences, there was a need for a delicate balance between the freedom of research and the adequate protection of human life and dignity. Also, the Declaration was in line with the existing obligations of Hungary under international law. He hoped the Declaration was only one step in the consideration of human cloning, and not the final stage. Hungary was open for further discussions in the international community at the appropriate time.


The representative of the Republic of Korea said his country had voted against the political Declaration, which had not achieved a political consensus. It was not binding and would not affect the Republic of Korea’s future position on therapeutic cloning, which would reaffirm human dignity by relieving pain and suffering.


The representative Thailand expressed regret that the General Assembly and the Sixth Committee had been unable to adopt a consensus Declaration. The Declaration just adopted was not binding and the text was ambiguous. In light of that, Thailand had voted against the Declaration and felt that it should be left to Member States to use their own interpretation as to whether or not to prohibit therapeutic cloning.


The representative of Spain said that the term “human life” contained in the text was confusing and should be replaced by the term “human being” as used in scientific texts. The Declaration did not cover the well known fundamental differences between the two types of cloning. The fact that there had been no consensus on the issue after four years of discussion showed just how precarious the text was as adopted. Spain was opposed to reproductive cloning, but favoured therapeutic cloning, which was looked upon positively by the scientific community. The issue would now be passed on to the National Parliament.


Japan’s representative said he had voted against the resolution. The Declaration was difficult to interpret and did not respect the various views of Member States. The adopted text would not affect Japan’s domestic legislation on the issue.


The representative of Brazil regretted the lack of consensus on the text adopted, which highlighted the deep division in the international community on the issue. He also regretted that the Sixth Committee had deviated from its original mandate to elaborate an international convention on human cloning. He had voted against the text, which did not contain language consistent with his country’s position on the issue.


Singapore’s representative said he had voted against the resolution because it did not capture the diversity of views on the issue. Four years ago, the Assembly endorsed an initiative to begin work on an international convention on human cloning. There was still unanimity that reproductive cloning should be banned. It was unfortunate that that initiative was hijacked, and culminated today in the adoption of a text which sought to impose a single set of regulations on States regarding all forms of human cloning.


The representative of the United States, welcoming the adoption of the Declaration, recalled that his delegation had explained its position in the Sixth Committee and would not give a further explanation today. The full text of that explanation was on the web site of the Permanent Mission of the United States.


The representative of Poland said his delegation had voted in favour of the Declaration and unequivocally opposed the cloning of human embryos. Any use of human stem cells should be permitted only when the stem cells or stem cell lines were obtained from supernumerary cells, or when donors had expressed their willingness to permit it.


The representative of South Africa said his delegation had abstained from the vote and found that the language of the text was deliberately ambiguous so as not to infringe on the rights of those who wished to continue with research in their own jurisdictions. South Africa was against reproductive human cloning and would continue with the strict regulation of therapeutic cloning. South Africa considered therapeutic cloning to be aimed at protecting human life and, as such, it was not inconsistent with the Declaration just adopted.


The representative of Canada, emphasizing that his country’s position was clear, said reproductive cloning was illegal in Canada in whatever form. The ambiguity of the Declaration might give rise to certain political and other concerns.


Norway’s representative said that his Government opposed both reproductive human cloning and therapeutic cloning, as reflected in its domestic legislation. It had sought to contribute to the elaboration of an international convention on the issue. At the same time, it had been willing to go along with a declaration, as long as it enjoyed consensus. He had voted against the Declaration, since it did not reflect the views of all States and did not enjoy consensus.


The representative of Costa Rica said the adoption of the Declaration today constituted a historic step to promote human rights and guarantee human dignity in all circumstances. The text urged the scientific community to advance, bearing in mind the value of human dignity and human life. It was impossible to reach a consensus because a small group of States had rejected all reference to human life in the text. The Declaration sought to advance science in a clear framework of ethical norms. It was of concern that some delegations had undermined the value of the Declaration, which had received majority support.


France’s representative said she regretted the failure to find consensus. She was convinced that there was a clear consensus regarding the prohibition of reproductive human cloning. Also, given the threat of dangerous experimentation, it was essential to prohibit reproductive human cloning. However, she could not agree on prohibiting all forms of cloning. France had voted against the Declaration, and regretted the inability of the Assembly to send a universal message on such a vital issue.


The representative of Nigeria regretted that he was not in the room when the voting took place. He was fully in favour of the Declaration. His country supported the Declaration because there was no alternative to it, for the time being. Human life was sacrosanct, and there was no reason for its violation. It was an inconceivable paradox that proponents of therapeutic cloning would sacrifice the life of one in order to serve another. He stressed that human cloning was unethical and a direct assault on human dignity. Today’s Declaration was only a stepping stone in the process towards a convention on a complete ban on human cloning.


The representative of Mali said, had his delegation been present, it would have abstained from the vote, in accordance with the common position of the Organization of the Islamic Conference.


The representative of the Russian Federation said that the question involved complex scientific and ethical issues and that his country had always been in favour of consensus. Regrettably, there had been no consensus. But, the Russian Federation had voted in favour of the Declaration, in order to send a message to the international community about the impermissibility of reproductive human cloning.


The representative of Uganda said that her country had voted in favour of the Declaration because it opposed the destruction of human embryos and believed in the protection of human dignity. The Declaration was consistent with humanity’s responsibility to protect the sanctity of human life.


The representatives of the Netherlands said his country had opposed the Declaration because it could be interpreted as a total ban on all forms of cloning. There was a need for strict oversight, but not a total ban. The Declaration just adopted was not binding.


The representative of Ethiopia said he had voted in favour of the Declaration, which sent a clear message against unethical research, that made human life the object of experimentation. He hoped the funding for research into human cloning could be redirected towards research and development to find cures for those affected by HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria.


The representative of Antigua and Barbuda said that, had she been in the room during the vote, she would have voted in favour of the text.


Kyrgyzstan’s representative also said that, had he been in the room, he would have voted in favour.


Libya’s representative congratulated the international community for adopting the Declaration, which was a step forward in the process towards a future convention to ban all forms of human cloning. The Declaration was a starting point in the protection of human dignity. He had voted in favour of the Declaration.


ANNEX


Vote on Declaration on Human Cloning


The United Nations Declaration on Human Cloning (document A/59/516/Add.1) was adopted by a recorded vote of 84 in favour to 34 against, with 37 abstentions, as follows:


In favour: Afghanistan, Albania, Andorra, Australia, Austria, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Belize, Benin, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Brunei Darussalam, Burundi, Chile, Comoros, Costa Rica, Côte d’Ivoire, Croatia, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Djibouti, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Georgia, Germany, Grenada, Guatemala, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Hungary, Iraq, Ireland, Italy, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kuwait, Lesotho, Liberia, Liechtenstein, Madagascar, Malta, Marshall Islands, Mauritius, Mexico, Federated States of Micronesia, Monaco, Morocco, Nicaragua, Palau, Panama, Paraguay, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, San Marino, Sao Tome and Principe, Saudi Arabia, Sierra Leone, Slovakia, Slovenia, Solomon Islands, Sudan, Suriname, Switzerland, Tajikistan, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Timor-Leste, Trinidad and Tobago, Uganda, United Arab Emirates, United Republic of Tanzania, United States, Uzbekistan, Zambia.


Against: Belarus, Belgium, Brazil, Bulgaria, Cambodia, Canada, China, Cuba, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Gabon, Iceland, India, Jamaica, Japan, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Republic of Korea, Singapore, Spain, Sweden, Thailand, Tonga, United Kingdom.


Abstain: Algeria, Angola, Argentina, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Barbados, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Cape Verde, Colombia, Egypt, Indonesia, Iran, Israel, Jordan, Lebanon, Malaysia, Maldives, Mongolia, Myanmar, Namibia, Nepal, Oman, Pakistan, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Serbia and Montenegro, Somalia, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Syria, Tunisia, Turkey, Ukraine, Uruguay, Yemen, Zimbabwe.


Absent: Antigua and Barbuda, Armenia, Bhutan, Botswana, Central African Republic, Chad, Congo, Dominica, Fiji, Gambia, Ghana, Greece, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Kiribati, Kyrgyzstan, Libya, Malawi, Mali, Mauritania, Mozambique, Nauru, Niger, Nigeria, Papua New Guinea, Peru, Russian Federation, Senegal, Seychelles, Swaziland, Togo, Turkmenistan, Tuvalu, Vanuatu, Venezuela, Vietnam.

National Extortion Association (NEA)

Source: http://www.coe.uga.edu/coenews/1995/95021301.htm

Anchor's move from Fox to MSNBC a two-sided tale

Posted on Mon, May. 16, 2005
http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/news/magazine/daily/11656002.htm

By Gail Shister
Inquirer Columnist


Who's spinning whom?

This much is beyond dispute: Former Fox News Channel weekender Rita Cosby will join MSNBC in mid-June to anchor a daily evening program, MSNBC said Friday.

Where it gets hinky is the scenario of Cosby's departure from FNC on Thursday.

Cosby says FNC made her "several" contract offers, but she chose to split. FNC says it didn't renew her contract and no offers were made.

We report. You decide.

"This was 110 percent my decision," Cosby, 40, says. "They offered me several contracts, and I chose not to accept them. I think they would have loved for me to stay. I know they're disappointed I didn't."

Cosby will serve as a special correspondent until her show - no title yet - premieres in the fourth quarter, MSNBC says.

No time slot, but look for her weeknights at 11, bumping reruns of that day's 7 p.m. Hardball, with Chris Matthews.

The rest of the lineup - Keith Olbermann at 8, Tucker Carlson (eventually) at 9, Joe Scarborough at 10 - is expected to stay. MSNBC is stuck in third in the cable news ratings, behind CNN and prime-time leader FNC.

Cosby, who anchored FNC programs at 9 p.m. Saturdays and 6 p.m. Sundays, wanted to break into weeknights. Its powerful lineup, including Bill O'Reilly and Shepard Smith, wasn't going anywhere.

"I wasn't unhappy," Cosby insists. "I totally understood. Fox is doing terrific in prime time. The chance of turnover is fairly minimal. They have a lineup that works."

Leaving FNC "was a gut-wrenching decision. I loved Fox News. I was there from the very beginning. I was their first on-air hire," in July '95. FNC launched in October '96.

Not true, FNC says. Its first on-air hire was Lauren Green, on Aug. 5, '96. She's now a regular on the morning show, Fox & Friends.

Actually, Cosby was part of the old Fox News Affiliate Service, which distributed stories to broadcast affiliates, says FNC. She was among those absorbed by the cable news network, it adds.

While at FNC, Cosby "secured a host of exclusive interviews with world leaders," according to MSNBC, "including former Serbian President Slobodan Milosevic from The Hague."

She was also "the first journalist to report the identities of the Washington, D.C.-area snipers," MSNBC says.

Cosby says she was contacted by MSNBC "several months ago." Contractually, the timing was "within my legal rights to speak to the competition."

No word when Cosby's contract was up, but a Fox executive, speaking on condition of anonymity, says it expired in November.

Fox had the right to match MSNBC's offer, Cosby says. FNC confirms this, adding that it didn't make a counteroffer. Cosby says she "basically told them I was ready to go."

Competing with her old shop "is going to be interesting," says Cosby, who'll be up against O'Reilly reruns at 11 p.m. "I've always believed that you just work your heart out and do the best you can, and not think about the other guys."




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Contact TV columnist Gail Shister at 215-854-2224 or gshister@phillynews.com. Read her recent work at http://go.philly.com/gailshister