"Federal law currently protects individuals who prefer not to provide abortion services," Lowey said in a statement. 

"This draft regulation would significantly expand the definition of abortion to include birth control for the purpose of conscience clause exemptions. By trumping state laws that guarantee women's access to prescription contraceptives, this policy would encourage health care institutions seeking to limit access to birth control," she added.

Under the proposal, to receive funding under any program administered by HHS, researchers, clinics, medical schools and hospitals would have to sign "written certifications" that they will not discriminate against people who object to abortion -- however it might be defined. The certification also would be required of state and local governments when allocating grants to hospitals and other institutions that have policies against providing abortions (Daily Women's Health Policy Report, 7/16).

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) in a statement said that if the Bush administration "goes through with this draft proposal, it will launch a dangerous assault on women's health." She added, "The majority of Americans oppose this out-of-touch position that redefines contraception as abortion and represents a sustained pattern of the Bush administration to reject medical and sound science in favor of a misguided ideology that has no place in our government. I urge the president to reject this policy and join with Democrats to focus on preventing unintended pregnancies and reducing the need for abortion through increasing access to family planning services and access to affordable birth control" (Pelosi release, 7/16).

Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) and Patty Murray (D-Wash.) in a letter to HHS Secretary Mike Leavitt wrote that the "most troubling aspect of the proposed rules is the overly broad definition of 'abortion,'" which would allow medical providers to classify common contraception as abortion and be allowed to refuse to provide it. "As a consequence, these draft regulations could disrupt state laws securing women's access to birth control," endanger federal programs such as Medicaid and Title X, as well as "undermine state laws that ensure survivors of sexual assault and rape receive emergency contraception in hospital emergency rooms," Clinton and Murray wrote. They added, "We strongly urge you to reconsider these regulations before they are released. We are extremely concerned by this proposal's potential to affect millions of women's reproductive health" (Clinton/Murray release, 7/16).

[D]ocuments show the activities occurred from at least March 2005 to May 2006 and that officers used false names, which the documents referred to as "covert identities" - to open e-mail accounts to receive messages from the groups.  

Also included in the 46 pages of documents, obtained by the Maryland chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union through a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit, is an account of an activist's name being entered into a federally funded database designed to share information among state, local and federal law-enforcement agencies on terrorist and drug trafficking suspects.  

ACLU attorney David Rocah said state police violated federal laws prohibiting departments that receive federal funds from maintaining databases with information about political activities and affiliations.  

The activist was identified as Max Obuszewski. His "primary crime" was entered into the database as "terrorism - anti govern(ment)." His "secondary crime" was listed as "terrorism - anti-war protestors." The database is known as the Washington-Baltimore High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area, or HIDTA.  

"This is not supposed to happen in America," said Mr. Rocah. "In a free society, which relies on the engagement of citizens in debate and protest and political activity to maintain that freedom ... you should be able to attend a meeting about an issue you care about without having to worry that government spies are entering your name into a database used to track alleged terrorists and drug traffickers."  

Mr. Rocah called the surveillance "Kafka-esque insanity."  

State police Chief Col. Terrence B. Sheridan said the agency "does not inappropriately curtail the expression or demonstration of the civil liberties of protesters or organizations acting lawfully."  

The surveillance of Mr. Obuszewski, of Pledge of Resistance-Baltimore, and another person came to light during his trial for trespassing and disorderly conduct in a 2004 protest outside the National Security Agency's headquarters in Fort Meade, Md.  

Documents released by the prosecution revealed that the protesters had been under surveillance by an entity called the Baltimore Intelligence Unit.  

The Maryland ACLU sued last month, claiming the state police refused to release public documents about the surveillance of peace activists.  

The documents, which include intelligence reports and printouts from the database, show that several undercover officers from the state police's Homeland Security and Intelligence Division attended meetings of three groups: Mr. Obuszewski's group; the Coalition to End the Death Penalty; and the Committee to Save Vernon Evans, a convicted murderer who was slated for execution.  

The documents show at least 288 hours of surveillance over the 14-month period. The undercover officers attended at least 20 organizing meetings at community halls and churches and a dozen rallies against the death penalty, including several at the state's SuperMax jail in Baltimore.  

Included in the documents are references to a proposed sit-in at the offices of Baltimore County State's Attorney Sandra A. O'Connor. However, they show no trooper reports of violence or threats of violence. Organizers repeatedly stressed the importance of peaceful and orderly demonstrations, the documents show.  

"There were about 75-80 protestors at the rally and none participated in any type of civil disobedience or illegal acts," said one report of a demonstration against the death penalty at the SuperMax jail. "Protesters were even careful to move out of the way for Division of Correction employees who were going into the parking lot for work."  

Still, information about the protesters and their activities was sent to seven agencies, including the National Security Agency and an unnamed military intelligence official.  

"Americans have the right to peaceably assemble with others of a like mind and speak out about what they believe in," Mr. Rocah said. "For state agencies to spend hundreds of hours entering information about lawful and peaceful political activities into a criminal database is beyond unconscionable. It is a waste of taxpayer dollars, which does nothing to make us safer from actual terrorists or drug dealers."

While these events happened in 2005 and 2006 under the previous administration, the Maryland State Police, under the O'Malley-Brown Administration, does not and will not use public resources to target or monitor peaceful activities where Maryland citizens are exercising their First Amendment rights. The State Police and other law enforcement agencies have an obligation to take seriously and investigate all potential threats to public safety consistent with state and federal law. ... But where there is no evidence of a potential public threat, illegal activity or criminal wrongdoing, all investigatory or intelligence gathering activities shall cease."

 It is hardly news anymore that Californians disapprove of President George W. Bush’s performance in the White House. But these numbers—and the fact that he has slid lower than President Nixon who resigned in defeat as he was about to be removed from office by Democrats and Repubican Senators—is remarkable. 71% of California voters disapprove of the job Bush is doing while 24% approve, according to a California Field Poll Released today. 

This is the worst rating a President has received in the 60 plus year history of the Field Poll—barely eclipsing the 24% approval and 70% disapproval of Richard Nixon in August of 1974. And the President’s rating is far lower than the lowest rating (45% approval) Bill Clinton had in eight years in office and his father, George H.W. Bush’s 37% approval rating before we had a regime change in the 1992 election. 

On handling of the economy, Bush gets a 78% disapproval and an 18% approval and on “handling the situation in Iraq,” he gets 28% approval with 68% disapproval. Voters say the U.S. is “seriously off on the wrong track” by 75% to 15%. 

Bush’s rating is based on epic levels of disapproval by Democrats (90% to 6%) and non-partisan/others (83% to 14%) and rather tepid approval from the third of the electorate that are Republicans (54% to 38%). The only ideological group that approves of his performance are the self-identified “strongly conservative voters.” From even moderately conservative voters he is disapproved 60% to 35% and “middle-of-the-road” voters disapprove 79% to 15%. His disapproval by moderate and strong liberals is 94% with 4% approval. 

There is not a single region of the state, no matter how sliced and diced, that comes close to approving of his job performance. The closest is in the Central Valley, where he rises to 38% approval and has 55% disapproval.