Category: Fall 2003 Newswire
Visa Pinch Felt in Granite State, UNH Official Tells Senate
WASHINGTON – Having just completed his master’s degree in economics, a University of New Hampshire student returned home to Turkey last spring to visit his family. With a student visa valid through the end of this year, he had every intention of returning to the United States this fall to begin work on his Ph.D.
He wasn’t allowed to. The graduate shares a name with a known criminal, and his application to enter the United States triggered an FBI investigation. His visa and doctorate are on hold, and UNH officials are withholding his name to protect his privacy.
Cases like that illustrate how a new visa screening system intended to prevent terrorists from entering the United States could bar smart foreign students and scholars from American campuses and imperil the $12 billion a year that they bring to the United States, according to John Aber, vice president for research and public service at UNH.
Aber told a Senate Foreign Relations subcommittee Thursday that the more difficult the United States makes it for international students and scholars to come to America, the more likely they are to take their money and expertise elsewhere.
“A number of our most productive faculty spend a considerable amount of their working life abroad,” Aber told the Subcommittee on International Relations and Terrorism, which is investigating implementation of new checks used to sift through visa applicants and root out terrorists. Other witnesses said the new procedures, adopted by Congress last year, also are hurting tourism.
“The optimum management of our research enterprise requires free and open accessáto the pool of aspiring students and scholars who hold citizenship in other countries,” Aber said. He added that UNH typically processes about 800 international applications a year.
While he said UNH has not seen a noticeable increase in the number of students whose visa applications have been rejected under the new laws, Aber said the added time and hassle have discouraged some students from applying in the first place. Universities in Canada and Australia are taking advantage of the situation to actively promote hassle-free visa applications, he said.
Foreign applications to most of UNH’s degree programs have not declined, but applications to the shorter English language programs have dropped by about 20 percent, Aber said. Many foreign students apply to the English programs before entering degree programs, and Aber predicted the drop eventually would resonate throughout the university.
Foreign-born students earn 33 percent of Ph.D.s in science and engineering and 40 percent of those in computer science in the United States each year, Aber said.
Visa screeners from the State Department, the FBI and the Department of Homeland Security also consider an applicant’s country of origin and any intention to work with sensitive technology. Those restrictions are particularly problematic for UNH, which conducts a significant amount of research in the space sciences, Aber said.
“Right now it’s a guessing game when we cannot guarantee anybody’s quick return to the U.S.,” said Leila Paje-Manelo, director of the Office of International Students and Scholars at UNH.
Several senators cautioned witnesses from the federal agencies charged with implementing the new rules that they must maintain a delicate balance between ensuring security and smothering the already struggling economy.
“The visa and border-crossing process must be, and must be seen to be, convenient,” Sen. John Sununu, R-NH, the subcommittee’s chairman, said in a statement. “If not, potential visitors – businessmen and women, tourists, students, scholars and scientists – will go elsewhere at great cost to our economy, our lead in science and technology and foreign understanding of our country.”
Sen. Richard Lugar, D-Ind., added, “[The economy] may be more secure, but it may be dead by the time we’re finished.”
Smith Senate Bid Unlikely
WASHINGTON - Former U.S. Sen. Bob Smith, who lost his seat to fellow New Hampshire Republican John Sununu last fall, has not been actively raising money for a bid to return to the Senate, according to federal campaign finance records.
The records seem to put an end to speculation that Smith, a controversial two-term senator, three-term House member and presidential candidate, would make a run at Sen. Judd Gregg's seat next fall. Nevertheless, Smith declined to say Wednesday whether he would run.
"I'd rather not comment on that," Smith said when reached by telephone in Florida, where he is currently selling pricey oceanfront real estate.
Smith seemed to be more certain earlier this year. Last January, Smith's spokeswoman, Lisa Harrison, told The Union Leader that Smith laughed at the notion that he might take on Gregg in 2004.
While many consider a bid by Smith unlikely, his political past indicates that just about anything is possible. Smith ran as a Republican for president in 2000, but then abandoned his party and declared himself an independent after it became clear he would not get the GOP nomination.
Though Smith's main campaign committee has received nearly $4 million in campaign contributions this year, it has only $2,733.93 in the bank, millions short of what it would take to mount a successful run against Gregg, a popular two-term incumbent. Gregg, a Republican, wields significant power as chairman of the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee.
Smith spent $4.5 million when he lost the primary to then-House member Sununu last fall. Sununu spent $3.7 million.
Smith formed a second committee, the Smith Team Exploratory Committee, just weeks after his 2002 primary loss to "seriously explore a future run for the United States Senate in New Hampshire," according a cover letter bearing his signature. Papers filed with the Federal Election Commission, which oversees campaign fundraising and expenditures, say Smith intends to run in 2008, when Sununu will face re-election.
Smith's spokeswoman told The Union Leader in January that the exploratory committee was created solely to handle the money left over from his failed campaign, as the FEC requires. The committee was officially terminated in April.
Despite being technically defunct, the committee filed a report last week with the FEC to account for a $3,000 refund it received, according to an FEC spokesperson. That money immediately was shifted to Smith's main committee, Bob Smith for U.S. Senate.
At least one long-time New Hampshire Republican, former state Attorney General Thomas Rath, said another Smith campaign was unlikely. Dan Allen, spokesman for the National Republican Senatorial Committee, said he saw no signs Smith would run.
"I see absolutely no indication" that he intends to run, said Rath, who helped run Gregg's first campaign in 1992. "I would be very surprised if he did that," Rath said. "He's moved on to other things."
Fear That The Medicare Bill Will Not Be Passed This Year Increases
WASHINGTON - The Oct. 17 target date set by congressional leaders to present President Bush with a Medicare prescription drug bill has passed and so, many fear, will the chance to reform the massive health-care system before lawmakers go home for the year in November.
"Some modest progress is being made but there is no broad agreement," said Dan Mendelson, president of the Health Strategies Consultancy. "They want people to think that they're making progress because there is very little time left."
The House and Senate have passed separate plans to overhaul Medicare and provide a prescription drug benefit to senior citizens, but negotiators have been struggling to iron out the differences in the two bills.
Supporters of prescription drug benefits consider it critical for Congress to reach a compromise this year to avoid dragging the issue into an election year, when controversial bills often die.
U.S. Rep. Nancy L. Johnson (R-5) is one of a handful of Congress members on the conference committee that is negotiating the legislation. In an interview Wednesday, she discounted speculation that the issue would extend into next year.
"The bill will pass this year," Johnson said. "If it goes into next year, it may not make it, and it would be very serious if the bill didn't pass."
Johnson said House and Senate negotiators met Wednesday afternoon and had meetings scheduled for the rest of the week to discuss such major issues as what kind of drug benefit to provide and how it would be delivered.
Johnson insisted that the conference committee has been making progress. But Mendelson said the conferees are "still at the drawing board." He said that while House and Senate negotiators have reached agreement on many small issues, they have not settled on a number of overarching issues, including details of the prescription drug benefit and rules for the importation of drugs.
"They don't have anything yet," said Norman Ornstein, a congressional expert at the American Enterprise Institute, a Washington-based think tank. He said that the conferees have done little to resolve the stark differences between the House and Senate bills.
Ornstein added that dragging the issue into next year would hurt Congress members as they seek re-election. "This will cause many more problems for Republicans than Democrats because they're in charge," he said. Senior citizens are particularly frustrated that the final bill hasn't passed, said Arnold Schwartz, a member of AARP's state leadership council.
"They have the feeling that nothing's going to happen this year," he said. "And the feeling is getting to be that nothing is ever going to happen."
Brenda Kelley, the state director of AARP Connecticut, said the senior citizens' lobby is focused on getting a bill out of the conference committee that it can support. "The bill will remain a top priority whether they pass it or not" this year, Kelley said.
Schwartz said the battle has turned into a "partisan fight."
The Senate bill received bipartisan support, while the Republican-crafted House bill passed by a single vote.
Child Medication Safety Act
WASHINGTON - Three years ago, when Sheila Matthews' son was seven, his school psychiatrist diagnosed him with Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder and called her to discuss treatment options. Officials at the New Canaan school told her the boy would not be allowed to attend class unless he was medicated.
"They provided me with only pro-drug material. They never told me of the dangers," Matthews said. . "I was fighting to get my son an education, and basically my school said there was nothing else that they could offer him."
Soon afterward, Matthews watched on television as Patricia Weathers, another mother, testified before the House Committee on Government Reform. She contacted Weathers, and the two decided to launch a national fight to stop school from requiring students to take medication.
"We decided that we would fight, and then we found several other parents who were pressured and coerced and only given partial information [about medication], and their children died," Matthews said.
Fearful for their children's lives, Matthews and Weathers started AbleChild: Parents for Label and Drug Free Education, a national, non-profit grassroots organization that is pressing for a federal law that would make it illegal for schools to require students to be on medication.
The group has singled out Senator Christopher Dodd (D-Conn.) for criticism because, AbleChild said, he won't co-sponsor the bill despite numerous requests that he do so.
Connecticut set a precedent for the rest of the country in 2001 by enacting a law similar to the federal bill the group is currently pushing. Six other states followed suit.
But Matthews said the states aren't enforcing the laws. She said federal legislation could be more effective because it could cut off funds for states that don't comply.
Matthews said Dodd should sign on as a co-sponsor to support what his state began. "Other states have looked at Connecticut's state law as being model legislation," she said.
"We have parents' signatures who are from states which have, in fact, passed legislation prohibiting schools from coerced drugging, yet the pressure continues because there is no set accountability for violations of these laws," Matthews said. "There must be financial penalties for federally funded agencies, namely schools, that completely disregard a parent's right to raise their child drug free."
Dodd's press secretary, Ryan McGinn, said, "Senator Dodd does not support the coerced medication of children and believes that medical decisions concerning children should be made by their parents in consultation with their doctors." McGinn did not say whether Dodd would vote for the bill.
AbleChild organizers, however, said Dodd is making no effort to get the bill out of the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, on which he serves.
"How can you stand by when 400 parents have come forward across the country and said, 'Please do this'?" Matthews asked. "We're relying on our senator to protect our children."
The group is also targeting Dodd, she said, because of his recent announcement that Norwalk would receive federal grant money to stop drug trafficking to children.
"If he's giving grants out on drug trafficking, these drugs that we're asking to prohibit are controlled substances. Ritalin, all these other drugs, are in the same class as what he's talking about stopping the abuse of, and that's a clear conflict of interest," Matthews said.
Matthews also has been in touch with Rep. Chris Shays (R-Norwalk) over the past two years to garner his support. The House passed its version of the bill in May, 425 to1, and Shays voted for it.
"In recent years, there has been an increase in diagnoses of attention deficit disorder and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. This is largely because school personnel freely offer diagnoses and urge parents to obtain drug treatment for their children," Shays said in a statement. "In some cases, schools are even requiring certain students to take pharmaceuticals to attend schools.
"In my judgment, this is dangerous. Advice about whether to take medication should be given by a physician or licensed medical professional, and no one should coerce a student into taking medication by threatening their ability to attend school -- especially if the 'medical advice' is coming from an educator."
The Association of School Psychiatrists opposes the legislation. The American Federation of Teachers has not taken a stand on the issue. Neither the National Education Association nor the Connecticut Education Association, which represent teachers, returned phone calls.
Norwalk school Superintendent Salvatore Corda said he does not think the state law, which allows students to remain in classrooms without medication, has created any serious problems.
Meanwhile, AbleChild has contacted Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.), and every senator on the health committee. But Dodd is still its main focus.
"It's frustrating as a Connecticut resident to see our senator fail to hear our cries for reform," Matthews said.
Senate Approves Ban on Partial Birth Abortions
By David Tamasi
WASHINGTON - The Senate voted Tuesday to ban what opponents call partial-birth abortions, clearing the way for the first ban on a type of abortion since the Supreme Court legalized abortions in its seminal Roe v. Wade decision 30 years ago.
President Bush has said he will sign the bill, which the House passed three weeks ago. But opponents are prepared to challenge the constitutionality of the legislation in court as soon as the president signs it, according to an attorney with the Center for Reproductive Rights, which won a similar lawsuit three years ago.
The Senate voted 64-34 to approve the ban. New Hampshire Republican Senators Judd Gregg and John Sununu voted in support of the ban, while Massachusetts Democrats Edward M. Kennedy and John Kerry voted against it. Kerry, a candidate for president, was campaigning in New Hampshire and flew back to Washington for the vote.
Kennedy decried the Bush administration for "constantly attempting to undermine" Roe v. Wade.
"Proposals such as the partial-birth abortion bill are blatantly unconstitutional," he said in a statement. "Women have a constitutional right to choose, and Congress should respect that right."
Senators Gregg, Sununu and Kerry did not return phone calls seeking comment on their vote.
Partial-birth abortion is not a medical term, but refers to a controversial procedure that opponents say is generally performed late in a pregnancy on a partially delivered fetus. Abortion-rights advocates argue that the procedure is extremely rare, and that the legislation passed by Congress is so vaguely worded that it will outlaw other, more common procedures performed as early as 12 weeks into a pregnancy.
In 2000, there were 2,200 partial-birth abortions out of 1.3 million abortions performed nationally, according to the Alan Guttmacher Institute, a non-profit organization that conducts reproductive health research. Figures were not available by state for partial-birth abortions. But in Massachusetts, 30,410 women obtained abortions in 2000, equal to the national average, while 3,010 women in New Hampshire had abortions, 10% below the national average, the Guttmacher Institute reported.
Passage of the legislation has long been a goal of social conservatives, who expressed renewed hope when Republican's took control of the Senate last year. President Clinton twice vetoed similar bills, in 1996 and 1997, because they did not include exceptions to protect the health of the woman. Abortion-rights supporters argue the latest bill also does not offer a health exception.
As the battle shifts from Congress to the courts, abortion-rights advocates are rallying around a 5-4 Supreme Court decision in 2000 that struck down a Nebraska state law that also banned partial-birth abortions. The court ruled that the Nebraska law was unconstitutional because it did not clearly define what procedure was prohibited and did not provide a health exception for the woman.
Supporters of the ban say they have addressed the legal issues raised in the Nebraska case by tightening definitions and offering findings that show the procedure has not been used to protect women's health.
Priscilla Smith, director of the Domestic Legal Program at the Center for Reproductive Rights, said the issues before the Supreme Court in the Nebraska case were identical to the bill that is headed to Bush. The bill is slated to become law the day after Bush signs it.
Rowland Supports First-Responder Funding Changes
By Kevin Joy
WASHINGTON - Gov. John G. Rowland on Tuesday criticized the way the Bush administration has doled out homeland security money and threw his support behind legislation that would funnel more money to parts of the country that are likelier terrorism targets.
Rowland told the House Select Homeland Security Committee that the money for first responders was not reaching states quickly enough, the application process was complicated and the distribution of money was inconsistent among the states. He said he supported a bill that would consolidate a number of grants for first responders-firefighters, police officers and paramedics-and apply new criteria for awarding them.
"We're past the sense of urgency, and now we should be talking about standards," said Rowland, a member of an advisory council to the president on homeland security. "It's time to avoid an entitlement program and make states prove what they need based on logical thoughts."
In the fiscal year that ended Sept. 30, each state received about $15 million for first responders plus an additional amount based on population. States were required to give at least 80 percent of the money to local governments.
Under a bill introduced this month by Christopher Cox, R-Calif., federal money would be distributed according to a location's risk of attack. In addition, regions, not just individual states, would be eligible to apply for grants.
Rowland said the bill would make it more likely that areas bordering Connecticut, including New York City and Long Island Sound, would receive a greater share of the funds. Some states and rural areas would receive less money, while such high-risk regions as Washington and Los Angeles would get more.
Rowland said the federal government should allocate homeland security grants to state governments, not directly to individual towns or regions. The money then would be distributed as necessary to Connecticut's 169 communities based on need, he said.
"Governors clearly understand the importance of regional cooperation and mutual aid," he said. "Comprehensive plans cannot be created if funding goes to municipalities without the involvement of a state."
To ensure that first responder grants reach the local level, the proposed bill would give states only 45 days to pass the money on to municipalities.
Not all local officials agree that the federal money should go first to the states..
Richard Brown, New London's city engineer, said in an interview the city has received "very little" in first responder grants, but he didn't have a dollar figure. One of the biggest grants, $130,000, went to the New London Fire Department for a decontamination trailer and other equipment. In the event of a chemical attack, it can treat 100 people an hour, said Fire Chief Ron Samul.
New London has the only decontamination trailer in the eastern half of Connecticut and shares it with the entire region, Samul said. He said the city still needs blankets and heated tents for victims of a chemical attack. And most of his employees have not received official preparation for handling a radiological or biological attack, Samul said in an interview.
"I feel pretty confident that we have good training based on our generic emergency plan" used in the event of a blizzard, hurricane or flood, Samul said. "But we're the first ones to be called upon, no matter what happens."
Even though New London lacks a major airport, Brown said, the city should get a significant amount of first-responder money because of its close proximity to the Millstone Power Station, a nuclear power plant, as well as to Interstate 95, the Goldstar Bridge, Amtrak rails and the Electric Boat submarine shipyard.
"We've always known that New London was a high threat area," Brown said. "There's a definite need for more funding and a greater sharing of information among regions. And everyone's safety rests on [first responders'] ability to do their job."
Senate Passes Abortion Ban
WASHINGTON - The Senate voted Tuesday to ban a rarely used abortion procedure and sent the bill to President Bush for his promised signature.
Abortion-rights advocates have promised to pursue an immediate injunction. to block the legislation from taking effect. It would be the first ban on a specific abortion procedure since the Supreme Court's 1973 Roe v. Wade ruling that a woman has a constitutional right to have an abortion.
The Senate voted 64-34 on the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban of 2003, which the House approved three weeks ago. Both New Hampshire senators, Republicans Judd Gregg and John Sununu, voted for the ban, while both Maine senators, Republicans Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe, voted against it.
"We cannot put women's health and lives at risk by substituting the judgment of politicians for the judgment of medical doctors," Snowe said.
The bill's sponsors said it would outlaw a procedure performed late in a pregnancy in which a fetus is partially delivered before being aborted. Abortion-rights advocates argue that procedure is extremely rare, but add that the bill could also prohibit some safe and common abortion procedures performed as early as 12 weeks into a pregnancy.
Three years ago, the Supreme Court struck down a Nebraska law banning so-called partial-birth abortions because it did not contain an exception for the woman's health and because the procedure might be the safest way of terminating a pregnancy.
Officials from the Center for Reproductive Rights, which successfully argued that case on behalf of Dr. LeRoy Carhart, a physician who challenged the Nebraska law, said they plan to challenge the federal law, in part because it also contains no health exceptions.
"We're basically seeking to defend our precedent and our victory and Dr. Carhart's victory," said Priscilla Smith, the director of the center's domestic legal program. The Planned Parenthood Federation of American, on behalf of its affiliates nationwide, and the American Civil Liberties Union, representing the National Abortion Federation, also are expected to take the issue to court.
The Center for Reproductive Rights will also seek an injunction to keep the law from going into effect immediately after the President signs it.
"You go in for immediate injunctive relief," Smith said. She said the center wanted to ensure the law "won't stop physicians from providing safe procedures and won't require them to impose risks on their patients."
Senate Approves Federal Abortion Ban
by Becky Evans
WASHINGTON - The U.S. Senate voted 64-34 on Tuesday in favor of legislation that would prevent doctors from performing an uncommon abortion procedure that opponents call "partial birth.". In early October, the House passed the ban by a vote of 281-142.
If President Bush signs the bill as promised, it will mark the first federal restriction on an abortion procedure since the Supreme Court guaranteed a woman's right to have an abortion in its Roe v. Wade ruling 30 years ago.
Several abortion-rights groups, including the Planned Parenthood Federation of America, the National Abortion Federation and the Center for Reproductive Rights, said they would seek an immediate injunction to block the law from taking effect.
Carol Rose, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Massachusetts, called the bill a "dangerous and deceptive" measure that would "criminalize safe and needed abortion procedures, hindering a woman's right to choose and have privacy and control of her body that U.S. Supreme Court and Constitution says she has a right to have.
"We are concerned about the impact it would have on all women throughout the country," she said.
Abortion opponents, meanwhile, cheered the Senate's approval of the ban, calling it a boon for future anti-abortion legislation.
"We are all excited here," said Marie Sturgis, executive and legislative director of the Massachusetts Citizens for Life, an affiliate of the National Right to Life Committee. "The bottom line is that it will restore the sanctity and protection of human life known as the right to life."
Abortion foes said the ban would end the "heinous procedure" known as intact dilation and extraction, which is sometimes performed during the final trimester of a pregnancy. But opponents of the bill say that its "vague wording" could also prevent doctors from performing many second-trimester abortions, which are protected under Roe v. Wade.
"The bill is terrible, from our point of view. It would criminalize safe medical procedures and have a chilling effect on doctors," said Melissa Kogut, executive director of NARAL Pro-Choice Massachusetts, which lobbies for abortion rights. "If doctors read the language, which describes many common and safe procedures used in the second and third trimesters, we fear they might start pulling away from performing earlier-term abortions."
Both Massachusetts senators voted against the bill. Sen. John F. Kerry took a break from his campaign for the Democratic presidential nomination and flew from New Hampshire to Washington to oppose the ban. His Senate office failed to return phone calls seeking comment on his vote.
Democratic Sen. Edward M. Kennedy called the ban "blatantly unconstitutional.
"Women have a constitutional right to choose, and Congress should respect that right," Sen. Kennedy said in a statement.
Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., also voted against the measure in the House. According to the legislation, doctors that perform "partial birth" abortions would be subject to fines and prison terms of up to two years.
"We already have a problem with enough physicians being trained and not wanting their lives to be at risk," said Dianne Luby, president of the Planned Parenthood League of Massachusetts.
Abortion-rights groups also contend that the ban is dangerous because it does not include an exemption to allow for late-term abortions that would protect the health of the woman.
Massachusetts law prohibits any abortion following the 23rd week of pregnancy unless it would "save the woman's life" or "eliminate a substantial risk of grave impairment to her physical or mental health."
In 2000, the Supreme Court struck down a Nebraska law that banned partial-birth abortions, ruling it was unconstitutional because it did not adequately define the prohibited procedure and did not allow it to preserve a woman's health. Abortion-rights advocates say the legislation passed by Congress is similar to the Nebraska law, but abortion opponents say there are critical differences.
"I believe [legislators] have worked very carefully to draft language that will pass muster with the courts," said Dr. Ron Crews, president of the Massachusetts Family Institute, a nonprofit public policy organization that opposes abortion.
In 1996 and 1997, then-President Bill Clinton vetoed similar "partial birth" abortion bills because they did not include exceptions for a woman's health.
"We are cautiously optimistic this time that we are going to get a bill signed into law," said Dr. Crews.
Child Medication Safety Act
WASHINGTON - Three years ago, when Sheila Matthews' son was seven, his school psychiatrist diagnosed him with Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder and called her to discuss treatment options. Officials at the New Canaan school told her the boy would not be allowed to attend class unless he was medicated.
"They provided me with only pro-drug material. They never told me of the dangers," Matthews said. . "I was fighting to get my son an education, and basically my school said there was nothing else that they could offer him."
Soon afterward, Matthews watched on television as Patricia Weathers, another mother, testified before the House Committee on Government Reform. She contacted Weathers, and the two decided to launch a national fight to stop school from requiring students to take medication.
"We decided that we would fight, and then we found several other parents who were pressured and coerced and only given partial information [about medication], and their children died," Matthews said.
Fearful for their children's lives, Matthews and Weathers started AbleChild: Parents for Label and Drug Free Education, a national, non-profit grassroots organization that is pressing for a federal law that would make it illegal for schools to require students to be on medication.
The group has singled out Senator Christopher Dodd (D-Conn.) for criticism because, AbleChild said, he won't co-sponsor the bill despite numerous requests that he do so.
Connecticut set a precedent for the rest of the country in 2001 by enacting a law similar to the federal bill the group is currently pushing. Six other states followed suit.
But Matthews said the states aren't enforcing the laws. She said federal legislation could be more effective because it could cut off funds for states that don't comply.
Matthews said Dodd should sign on as a co-sponsor to support what his state began. "Other states have looked at Connecticut's state law as being model legislation," she said.
"We have parents' signatures who are from states which have, in fact, passed legislation prohibiting schools from coerced drugging, yet the pressure continues because there is no set accountability for violations of these laws," Matthews said. "There must be financial penalties for federally funded agencies, namely schools, that completely disregard a parent's right to raise their child drug free."
Dodd's press secretary, Ryan McGinn, said, "Senator Dodd does not support the coerced medication of children and believes that medical decisions concerning children should be made by their parents in consultation with their doctors." McGinn did not say whether Dodd would vote for the bill.
AbleChild organizers, however, said Dodd is making no effort to get the bill out of the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, on which he serves.
"How can you stand by when 400 parents have come forward across the country and said, 'Please do this'?" Matthews asked. "We're relying on our senator to protect our children."
The group is also targeting Dodd, she said, because of his recent announcement that Norwalk would receive federal grant money to stop drug trafficking to children.
"If he's giving grants out on drug trafficking, these drugs that we're asking to prohibit are controlled substances. Ritalin, all these other drugs, are in the same class as what he's talking about stopping the abuse of, and that's a clear conflict of interest," Matthews said.
Matthews also has been in touch with Rep. Chris Shays (R-Norwalk) over the past two years to garner his support. The House passed its version of the bill in May, 425 to1, and Shays voted for it.
"In recent years, there has been an increase in diagnoses of attention deficit disorder and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. This is largely because school personnel freely offer diagnoses and urge parents to obtain drug treatment for their children," Shays said in a statement. "In some cases, schools are even requiring certain students to take pharmaceuticals to attend schools.
"In my judgment, this is dangerous. Advice about whether to take medication should be given by a physician or licensed medical professional, and no one should coerce a student into taking medication by threatening their ability to attend school -- especially if the 'medical advice' is coming from an educator."
The Association of School Psychiatrists opposes the legislation. The American Federation of Teachers has not taken a stand on the issue. Neither the National Education Association nor the Connecticut Education Association, which represent teachers, returned phone calls.
Norwalk school Superintendent Salvatore Corda said he does not think the state law, which allows students to remain in classrooms without medication, has created any serious problems.
Meanwhile, AbleChild has contacted Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.), and every senator on the health committee. But Dodd is still its main focus.
"It's frustrating as a Connecticut resident to see our senator fail to hear our cries for reform," Matthews said.
Dean Campaign Gains Momentum From College Students, Internet
By Kevin Joy
WASHINGTON - When Greg Morin's friends try to talk to him on the computer, they come face to face with his latest obsession: Democratic presidential hopeful Howard Dean. The Trinity College senior attaches a pop-up photo of Dean to every instant message he sends.
The unusual campaign technique might seem foreign to most voters, but it could be the key to unlocking a potential new political force: Generation Y.
With their funny lingo and their high-tech methods, college students and their under-30 peers are swarming to the Dean campaign in numbers that belie their reputation for apathy. Their grassroots support has become a major element of what campaign officials have dubbed "Generation Dean"-the largest youth outreach by any of the nine Democratic contenders.
Dean boasts 725 youth-run coalitions-called GenDean groups for short. In Connecticut, clubs at six colleges, three law schools and seven high schools have registered with the organizing website, generationdean.com.
Yale sophomore Beth France is a regular at New Haven's monthly Dean rallies, called "meetups," and chronicles the experiences by "blogging" in her LiveJournal-a public Internet diary service with 1.3 million registered users.
University of Connecticut sophomore Taylor Woods spreads the word on Dean campaign events and college rallies via her automatic e-mail address book, or "listserv," which she uses to communicate with hundreds of other Dean supporters. She rarely uses the phone anymore, let alone pen and paper.
They're young and idealistic, but unlike college students of decades past, this new generation is more likely to express its political views through on-line journals than by marching on city hall. Tech-smart and pop-culture savvy, they're highly resistant to patronizing political types and slick media marketing.
Still, Dean has broken through, in part, by meeting the students on their own turf: the Internet.
The former Vermont governor has used unorthodox "e-campaigning" - to reach out to young people. His campaign speaks the fickle language of twentysomethings raised on the Simpsons, the Clintons and Madonna. Top Dean staffers publicize their Instant Messenger screen names, allowing viewers to contact them day or night. Yahoo! Groups has 659 different Internet bulletin boards that focus on the candidate. And three electronic greeting cards are available on generationdean.com, a site which boasts more than 13,000 young members.
Dean's lead among Democrats in campaign contributions comes, to a great extent, from on-line donations. During the second quarter of this year, he raised $3.6 million of his $7.6 million total through the Internet.
At least as unusual: one-fourth of Dean's 83,041 financial contributors that quarter were students.
"It's amazing that other politicians haven't taken the same advantage" of Internet campaigning, said Morin, 20, coordinator for Connecticut GenDean groups and president of the College Democrats chapter at Trinity. "Young people are so plugged into technology, and this allows them to get involved through a medium where they already feel comfortable."
Young people aren't the only ones who connect to Dean on-line. Senior citizens, Mormons, even some Republicans - and a host of little-known individuals - post dozens of blogs for his campaign. More than half of the visitors to the Connecticut for Dean web page are over 30, said Aldon Hynes, the site's webmaster.
But Dean made a special effort to reach out to young people during his recent seven-city "Raise the 'Roots" tour, which attracted about 10,000 people. He appeals to youth with his anti-war rhetoric, his fiscal conservatism and his support, as Vermont's governor, for the nation's first bill recognizing gay civil unions.
"People see him as the rebel," said Caroline Conway, president of the College Democrats of Connecticut and a senior at Fairfield University. "He gives off a much better sense of being in touch with young people than the other candidates."
Generation Dean spokesman Michael Whitney said Dean is paying particular attention to potential new voters, even among the generation that traditionally votes least. A record-low 30 percent of registered voters under 30 turned out for the 2000 presidential election "He isn't looking at his supporters as free labor-they're driving this campaign," Whitney said. "They have a lot of stake in the next election."
But if history is a guide, Dean should not stake his campaign too heavily on youth. Some political scientists draw comparisons to the failed campaigns of Democrats Eugene McCarthy in 1968 and George McGovern in 1972-both anti-war candidates with large student support.
"He is an ideal candidate for disaffected young people," Dorothy James, a Connecticut College government professor, said of Dean. "They're mad as hell and they're anti-incumbent."
But some of the same qualities that appeal to students might alienate other voters, said John Hollay, president of the College Democrats chapter at UConn.
"The size of student support is impressive, but if he focuses only on the angry college leftist, he's going to run into trouble," said Hollay, a supporter of Sen. John Kerry, of Massachusetts. "Howard Dean speaks a lot of good rhetoric, but he needs to expand his appeal to more moderate voters."
Likewise, Internet politicking has little influence outside college campuses and activist groups, said Tobe Berkovitz, an expert in Internet marketing and associate dean of Boston University's College of Communication.
"This is not a great way to reach suburbia," Berkovitz said. He said the number of serious political bloggers and web-surfers pales in comparison to the much larger and more reliable voting bloc of middle-aged adults and senior citizens.
But following Dean's early Internet success, nearly every one of his opponents is utilizing technology to reach potential voters. Kerry and retired Gen. Wesley Clark now hold meetups, which are organized on-line. Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman of Connecticut keeps a web diary and a bizarre photo collection, titled "Dogs for Joe," which displays his supporters' pets. Even President Bush has joined the blogging world.
"Candidates in prior elections had web sites before, but now they're realizing the Internet is a mobilization tool," said George Edwards, head of the Center for Presidential Studies at Texas A&M University. While Edwards said it is highly unlikely young people will swing the 2004 vote, he said they are the largest untapped political resource.
"I still dream of seeing student movements rise again," said France, 19. Last month, she distributed free brownies on Yale's Cross Campus lawn that read "The Doctor Is In," a reference to Dean's profession, and sold T-shirts that said, "Put A Different Yalie In The White House." Dean and Bush are Yale alumni.
Despite the large number of button-hawking, sign-painting "Deaniacs" and "Deanyboppers," many college students said they feel removed from the political process and are not ready to settle on a candidate just yet-not even one with an Instant Messenger account.
UConn sophomore Shawn Logue said he supports Dean. But he hasn't been moved to write a blog or join a GenDean group. In fact, the 19-year-old said he is still formulating his political opinions. "It takes quite a while to figure out what politicians stand for," Logue said. "And at this point, it's still possible for me to change my mind."
