|
CNN TALKBACK LIVE
Who Should Get Smallpox Vaccine?; Should Trent Lott Resign?
Aired December 12, 2002 - 15:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
ARTHEL NEVILLE, HOST: Welcome to TALKBACK LIVE, everyone. I'm Arthel Neville.
The White House wants to make sure Americans are protected against the bioterror threat of smallpox. We'll tell you about the president's plan to begin vaccinations and find out whether you'll be in line to get yours.
And then stay tuned. President Bush declares an end to a legacy of discrimination against religious groups. So, why do some say his faith-based initiative will promote discrimination based on religion?
And later: The president jumps into the fray over Trent Lott. We'll tell you what he said and find out if Lott can dig himself out of the hole he's in.
But first, let's get the facts about the smallpox vaccine, who should get it and who should not, from CNN medical correspondent Dr. Sanjay Gupta.
Hello, Doctor.
DR. SANJAY GUPTA, CNN MEDICAL CORRESPONDENT: Good afternoon. How are you?
NEVILLE: How are you? Nice to see you.
First of all, before we go any further, tell us about the disease itself. How deadly is it. And what does it do to the body? I've seen horrible pictures.
GUPTA: Yes.
Well, this is a virus, first of all. And this a virus that is very contagious. The World Health Organization really ranks this very high as a possible virus of bioterrorism. This is a virus that if it's contagious, spread around, could actually kill about 30 percent of the people that it infects, a pretty high percentage of people.
And the people, you've seen the pictures, Arthel. And I think everyone probably has now, the pictures of the people who do survive, often are left with these very disfiguring scars all over their body, their faces, things like that. That is even if they do survive. So, this is a very problematic virus. The good news is, 22 years ago, this virus was officially declared eradicated, gone. It doesn't exist in human beings today. NEVILLE: But, then, I understand that the vaccine itself carries risks?
GUPTA: So, this vaccine is a live virus vaccine. It's not the actual smallpox virus, but it's a virus very similar to smallpox. And this virus does carry risk, unlike a lot of the other vaccines that we're so used to, the measles, mumps, rubella, DTP, all those, pretty safe. This one can actually cause a very severe illness.
One out of one million people will actually dies from this; 15 out of one million or so will have life-threatening illnesses such as brain swelling, such as these severe rashes. Again, you've seen the pictures. A lot of people, a third of people will just be left way with a sore arm and a low-grade fever for a few days. But it can be a very potentially dangerous vaccine.
NEVILLE: But, then, who is at risk?
GUPTA: Well, that's the sort of interesting part, because we're hearing so much now about who can get the vaccine. There's a long list of people who should not get the vaccine as well.
Interestingly, I'll just the say one that's most interesting is people who have eczema, have ever had eczema, or live with someone who has eczema.
NEVILLE: That's a lot of people.
GUPTA: I know. And they say it's maybe 28, 30 million people, about 10 percent of the population.
NEVILLE: So, why is that? If you have eczema, why can't you get this vaccine?
GUPTA: Well, this is sort of an interesting thing.
With eczema, basically, you have a disruption of your skin lining and some of mucosa lining in your mouth and some of the other mucosa. This particular virus likes to hang out in the skin. That's why you get these bad rashes. That's why you get these bad scars. If you have eczema, you're more likely to get these very devastating reactions, something called eczema vaccinatum.
The name is not that important, but this thing is really ugly and it could potentially lead to someone dying from it, if they've had a previous history of eczema. There's other people that shouldn't get it as well, people who have weakened immune systems because of HIV, because they're getting chemotherapy for cancer, because they have anti-inflammatory problems, things like that.
Pregnant woman should probably not get this. And children under the age of 1 should probably not get this vaccine.
NEVILLE: And, then, I understand that certain people with certain conditions shouldn't be around someone who has had the vaccination? GUPTA: I know. And that makes it even that much more confusing. So, if it wasn't confusing enough, with your list who people who shouldn't get it, people who live with those people can also be a problem.
For instance, if you live with someone who had a very weakened immune system and you went and got the vaccine, could you be potentially be contagious to that person and cause them to actually get sick? Possibly.
NEVILLE: But why is that? Is it because it's subcutaneous?
GUPTA: Well, for the most part, people who get vaccinated are -- and they keep their little bandage on the skin where they get poked -- we all have see those little marks on there -- you're not going to be contagious.
But if you get sick, you could potentially spread that disease to someone else. The people who are most at risk of getting it spread to them, again, are people with weakened immune systems. So, they've gone as far as to say, listen, even if you live with someone who has eczema, you should probably not get the vaccine, because if you spread it to that person, they're going to get really sick. So, it's a large percentage of people that should not get this vaccine.
And, Arthel, I think it's worth pointing out, we are expecting the president to actually talk about who should get this vaccine tomorrow. For most of us, for most Americans, this vaccine really isn't going to be something they need to worry about for some time, primarily because there's really not -- in order to get the vaccine for the general American public, you're going to need to sign up for a clinical trial. It's going to be a lot of time before that actually happens.
NEVILLE: Now, what about those people who had the vaccine, the vaccinations, before 1972? Are they partially immune still?
GUPTA: Right.
So, I just meet that criteria. I got the vaccination. And, basically, what we're hearing is that you may have still a little bit of protection, but probably not enough.
Here's the interesting thing, though. If you did get the vaccine before they stopped giving it, you probably will better tolerate another vaccine if you choose to get it. Your body's already seen this vaccine once. It will probably tolerate another dose a little bit better. That's probably the only advantage you have of having previously had the vaccination.
NEVILLE: Interesting.
Getting back to the president's plan, do you have any specifics that you could expand on that for us?
GUPTA: Right. What we're hearing, basically, is that about 500,000 military personnel will be directed to take this vaccine. These are military personnel that, for the most part, may be going overseas, may be involved with foreign operations, things like that. In addition to that, about 500,000 health care professionals and what we call first- responders, people that actually go to the scene of a potential smallpox outbreak, will also be offered the vaccine.
That's what we're hearing will probably happen tomorrow.
NEVILLE: And then the general population.
GUPTA: Now, the general public -- now, let's say somebody here just says that: You know what? I'm really concerned about this. I want to go get protected. It's going to be sort of a long process.
First of all, it won't be really until 2004 that there's enough vaccine for everybody in the country. The second thing is, you're going to be part of a clinical trial, meaning, you're going to say: I know that this is potentially a dangerous vaccine, but I'm got to doing it anyway. You're going to sign all these papers. They're going to ask if you live with someone who has eczema, if you live with someone who has HIV, all these questions, before you actually can be a candidate for this vaccine.
Everything changes, of course, if we see smallpox in this country. But as far as prophylactically speaking, that's going to be a lot of red tape.
NEVILLE: Now, here is something that's a scary thought. Is there any way that terrorists could alter the virus to where the vaccine doesn't even matter, it won't even work?
GUPTA: You're right. It is a very scary thought. And we've done some reporting on this, some research on this.
There is ways of -- quote, unquote -- weaponizing smallpox, actually adding certain molecules that make it a super smallpox, if you will. There haven't been reports of weaponized smallpox that we've ever heard of, like we had heard about weaponized anthrax, sort of different apples and oranges there. But it is possible in theory, which may render our vaccines not as useful.
NEVILLE: Listen, if you could take this question for us now, we have Sheri (ph) on the phone calling in from California.
Go ahead, Sheri.
CALLER: Yes.
I was born in 1964. And I received the vaccine. My question to you is: How come there wasn't such a big threat of people dying and getting sick then like you hear now?
GUPTA: That is an excellent question. There's a glaring irony in all this, that we might potentially actually reintroduce this virus that's been eradicated. But the answer to the question is, first of all, a couple things have changed. We see more cases of HIV. We see more patients with chemotherapy, more patients that could potentially get sick or die from this particular vaccine.
And the flip side of it, of course, is that, back in 1964, the virus still existed. So it made sense. It was a risk-benefit analysis, but you said: You know what? We're going to go ahead and take the risk to get the vaccine, because the virus still exists in 1964. Now it doesn't exist. So, the fact that we may actually be taking this vaccine, it could kill some people. It could make some people seriously sick.
And the irony would be that maybe it never again reared its ugly head.
NEVILLE: Wow. Dr. Sanjay Gupta, thank you so much.
GUPTA: Thank you.
NEVILLE: Always nice to see you on TALKBACK LIVE.
GUPTA: Good seeing you. Take care.
NEVILLE: Thank you.
Listen, well, you've heard the benefits and the risks of getting vaccinated.
So, our "Question of the Day" is: Would you get a smallpox vaccination? Go ahead and give me a call at 1-800-310-4CNN. Or, of course, you can e-mail me and I'll get to your answers later in the show.
And coming up: Is the president allowing religious favoritism in the federal government? A new executive order has some people shouting mad about the separation of church and state.
We'll talk about that when we come back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
NEVILLE (voice-over): Coming up: The president says religious organizations do good work and should be allowed to compete for federal dollars. But does this faith-based initiative violate the constitutional separation of church and state?
And later, the cry for Cardinal Law's resignation hits a favor pitch.
FATHER ROBERT NEE, BOSTON CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL: Well, I've been asking Cardinal Law to resign since January 26. So, signing the letter was not something new.
NEVILLE: A new subpoena could add to Law's legal entanglement.
That and more when TALKBACK LIVE returns.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
NEVILLE: And welcome back, everyone. I'm Arthel Neville.
President Bush is pushing his faith-based initiative. It directs federal agencies to let churches and religious charities compete for federal grant money. But it also bypasses Congress on the very touchy issue of the separation of church and state. The president says the plan will help religious groups tap into the Treasury to address social ills.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: I recognize that government has no business endorsing a religious creed or directly funding religious worship or religious teaching. That is not the business of the government. Yet government can and should support social services provided by religious people as long as those services can go to anyone in need, regardless of their faith.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
NEVILLE: OK, now, some congressional leaders say the plan is essentially taxpayer support for religious discrimination. Is it creating too cozy a relationship between the federal government and the church?
Let's open up the debate right now. Amy Goodman is the host of the national news program "Democracy Now" on the Pacifica Radio Network.
And, Amy, the president couldn't get his faith-based initiative through Congress. Well, now he's doing it by executive decision. Now, one critic calls it an end-run around the democratic process. Is he right?
AMY GOODMAN, RADIO TALK SHOW HOST: Well, I do think so.
I believe in democracy. And I believe that this should be a congressional decision. I think that religious organizations themselves should be protected from the state, that the state should not be funding or intervening in them.
NEVILLE: OK, let's bring in Dom Giordano right now, a radio talk show host at WDVT in Philadelphia. He's a former education correspondent.
And, Dom, the president says religious groups are often more effective in helping the needy, so they deserve to compete for federal dollars. Do you agree?
DOM GIORDANO, RADIO TALK SHOW HOST: Arthel, welcome. Thanks for having me.
Yes, I do agree. And I think the president's right. There is ample studies that, when you put spirituality, not a particular religion, into this, they do very, very well. And I also might add, what the president is trying to do is say -- there was one group, Arthel, that was kicked out just because the word Jewish was in the name of their outfit. They couldn't work with federal people.
And that's the type of thing that, if done properly, that this will really affect.
NEVILLE: OK, Dom, I'm going to bring in my next guest right now.
Marc Bernier is the host of his own radio show heard in Florida, Virginia and Tennessee.
Hello, Marc.
MARC BERNIER, RADIO TALK SHOW HOST: Hi, Arthel. Thank you.
NEVILLE: Great.
Listen, the executive order does say groups getting federal funds can't preach a particular faith or provide religious instruction. Does that make it OK, in your view?
BERNIER: This is fine.
And, you know, Dom was absolutely right. All this does is take things from the far right and bring them to the middle. The president is going to look for these organizations that are faith-based to pick up some of the slack on helping the homeless, to feed the needy, to do some of the things that we've created government programs for.
Arthel, you remember that, when you were small, churches used to do the work of a lot of these government organizations. They're not going to be preaching the Gospel. They're not going to be doing any of that. They're just looking to the private sector to these organizations that are based in helping people to do some of this work. So, they're going to reward them by also allowing them to compete with the private sector for some of these government contracts.
NEVILLE: OK, let's see Marcellus McRae has to say. He's a Los Angeles attorney who handles business and labor cases.
And critics charge that Bush's executive order allows religious organizations that discriminate in hiring people of different faiths to win government contracts. How do you see it, Marcellus?
MARCELLUS MCRAE, FORMER ASST. U.S. ATTORNEY: I think it's a very grave concern, quite frankly. I think, any time you're injecting federal programs and federal monies to anyone, what you're basically saying it's that the voice of the people that are speaking, in this case for dollars. And I don't think that religious organizations should be exempt, any more than any other organizations, with complying with what we regard as fundamental and sacrosanct principles in this country, which is, we do not countenance discrimination.
Therefore, if these organizations are going to receive federal monies, they should have to abide by laws which don't allow religious groups and shouldn't allow religious groups, or anyone else, for that matter, to discriminate in hiring.
GOODMAN: Arthel, I was just thinking about a woman named Alicia Pedreira, who worked at the Kentucky Baptist Homes for Children. She had a sterling reputation among her colleagues, never had any problem.
Then someone saw a photograph of her at a gay rights demonstration. She was fired from her job. A number of her peers quit over this. This is an organization that should not receive federal funding, should not receive the sanction of the state. And I think that religion and state should be very separate.
And I think that these social organizations that help people, we need to have them supported by the state. They don't have to be religious. That's a different sector. And they can help without having the support of the state.
GIORDANO: Arthel, I would answer Amy by saying that nobody wants to practice discrimination here or do any of that. All that these organizations are doing, we're talking soup kitchens. We're talking helping the homeless. We're talking things that the federal government either screws up, there are scandals, they're inefficient, they can't do, and they are not loving and compassionate to these people.
And that's what the tradeoff is. These groups will now be allowed to reach out and do God's work in a good way.
BERNIER: Exactly.
And, if people who are working for an organization don't reflect the values of that organization that deals with people, they have a right to make changes. But it's not just a willy-nilly cutting of staff.
(CROSSTALK)
GOODMAN: I think Alicia represented the values of her organization, as her superiors had always said.
The problem was, when they found out that she was a lesbian, they said that, according to their religious creed, she would not be able to work there anymore. That should not be. That kind of discrimination should not be funded by the state. And I don't think religious groups want the state to intervene. When they start giving money, that happens.
MCRAE: But getting back to the question of whether these groups should be allowed to discriminate in hiring, on a higher, more abstract bases, I think the point is this. I don't think that we can afford to allow the end to justify the means.
No one questions that it's laudable to have these organizations involved in charitable purposes. The fact is, we do not do that at a sacrifice of a basic point. No one should be allowed, whether it's on a pretextual basis or otherwise, to discriminate in hiring, if they are receiving federal monies. They all have to be subject to the same standards and they all have to comply.
(CROSSTALK)
GIORDANO: I would come back to, this is a greater good.
And I would argue, for example, African-American churches are more than churches in the African-American community. They are the hub of the community. And I think this just frees them up and allows them to do the great work they're already doing.
BERNIER: Yes, and there's another thing, too. They want to bring them back into the middle.
This country has gotten to a point where we are now being prejudiced against groups that have any type of religion or faith- based initiative. We put them to the side and say, no, you can't participate. All the president's trying to do is bring them back into the inner circle.
MCRAE: But it's not an absolute zero-sum game of either you can or can't participate.
It's simply a point that, if you are going to participate, you have to conduct yourself like everyone else. And I don't think that the good works of religious organizations are necessarily endemic or limited to the African-American community. You can cite examples across the board.
But what we have to tell people is, if you are going to receive these monies, the state is essentially funding you with the money of the electorate, with the money of the people, then you have to comply.
GIORDANO: And I would answer you, you know what the resentment is?
It seems to be, whatever is done to try to bring religion back into the public square, some technical grounds will be brought up to thwart that, because there are some out there who just don't like to see religion have a place in our society. That's what this is about.
GOODMAN: No one is saying that.
(CROSSTALK)
NEVILLE: That is the final word. I do appreciate the conversation on this, but I do have to move on.
And coming up next: more trouble for Senate Republican Leader Trent Lott, as the president weighs in on the controversy. What did the president say about Lott's remarks and what could it mean for the senator's future with the party?
The debate heats up when TALKBACK LIVE continues after this break.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
NEVILLE: And welcome back, everyone.
President Bush is weighing in on the growing controversy surrounding the Republican leader in the Senate.
You will recall the uproar began after Senator Trent Lott paid tribute to retiring Senator Strom Thurmond, telling him that he should have won the presidency in 1948. Thurmond ran on a platform promoting segregation. Well, today, President Bush had harsh words.
And those words are -- he says, the president says that: "Recent comments by Senator Lott do not express the spirit of our country. He has apologized, and rightfully so. Every day that America was segregated violated our founding ideals, equal dignity and equal rights of every American. This is the principle that guides my administration."
So, Dom, the president had strong words today, but he still says that Lott shouldn't resign. But, after the president's criticism today, can Lott still be an effective leader?
GIORDANO: I think not. And I hope he resigns, Arthel.
The Republican Party is trying to reach out to Latinos and African-Americans. And Trent Lott being the face of the Republican is like Bill Clinton being the face of a used car salesman. It doesn't work. This is not the type of guy that we want to be welcoming to people. I had a personal incident with Mr. Lott where he used I thought inappropriate language also.
So, I think this is part and parcel of this guy's mentality.
NEVILLE: Marcellus, can Lott still be an effective leader?
MCRAE: I would concur that I think there are serious questions about his ability to be effective, because you have someone in such a position of national prominence.
And, unfortunately, this isn't the only incident. Of course, we have reports that, in 1980, he made similar comments with respect to Mr. Thurmond. We also have his advocacy with respect to Bob Jones University. We also have his admissions, in fact, that he was at one time against integration. So, I don't think that this is an isolated matter. I think this really constitutes a profile. And I think, if you pose this question, whether someone with such unreconstructed views, if, in fact, these are his views -- I know he's apologized for them -- but, if they are his views, can we as a nation continue to have patience for that type of mentality in that position of leadership? It's not only at a national level that we have that concern.
The Republican Party certainly has to have that concern, because, if they don't address it, perhaps the electorate will in the next election. And, as Americans, we want to move forward. And I think we want to have unanimity that this type of attitude is simply unacceptable.
NEVILLE: Go ahead, Marc.
BERNIER: I don't think so.
NEVILLE: Yes, go ahead.
BERNIER: I got to tell you, this is awful.
First, Trent Lott is not a racist. No. 2, I listened to criticism from Al Gore, John Kerry and others. This is like a scene from the movie "Attack of the Pinheads."
These people said nothing about Robert Byrd, who was a member of the Ku Klux Klan, and never apologized for that. Now, granted, it was years ago. But this guy gets a pass for using the N-word on another network on a program. He later apologized for that. He got virtually a pass by the press. Byrd was a member of the KKK. Nobody ever talks about that. He show no regret to having been a member. People say, well, that was then.
NEVILLE: So, then, why are Lott's remarks being highlighted so much?
BERNIER: That's what I'd like -- you tell me. I think this is all about distraction, because I don't hear any of these people who criticized Lott coming out for a better plan.
By having what Dom said come true, it is true he a distraction, look to Bill Frist or Don Nickles to take the lead if this thing stays in the press another three days.
GOODMAN: Let's be clear.
There's no question that Trent Lott should resign. And what he said now, what he said last week in praising Strom Thurmond, who, when he ran in 1948 for president, his motto was segregation forever. What were other of Strom Thurmond's words?
He said, "All the laws of Washington and all the bayonets of the Army cannot force the Negro into our homes, our schools, our churches."
GIORDANO: Right. GOODMAN: And this is something that Trent Lott is applauding? There's no question that these comments that he made now fit right in with his record, his voting record.
(CROSSTALK)
NEVILLE: Meralyn (ph) here from California, do you think Trent Lott should resign?
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I think he should either resign or the Republican leadership needs to remove him, because, clearly, it's not just a slip of the tongue. This is truly what he believes, I think. It's a glimpse into a lot of what the Republican Party believes. And you don't slip and make a comment like that unless it's something you truly believe.
(CROSSTALK)
NEVILLE: Go ahead, Dom. Go ahead, Dom. Go ahead.
GIORDANO: To the person you have there, that's exactly the wrong perception. This is not what the majority of the new Republican Party, not what I think at all, not what a lot of conservatives think.
Trent Lott is a throwback. And he is most problematic for the Republican Party. And the thing about this that's serious, where I disagree a little bit with Marc, this is a tape going off in this guy's head. He said it 22 years ago and he said it almost the exact same way the other night. I agree that Robert Byrd is also a national disgrace. But he's 87 years old and he's off to the side. Trent Lott is right there in focus. We don't want this guy.
NEVILLE: Listen, last night, Senator Lott was "LARRY KING LIVE" right here on CNN. Let's take a look at his remarks.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP, "LARRY KING LIVE")
SEN. TRENT LOTT (R-MS), MINORITY LEADER: We're way beyond those policies of the past, Larry. They were bad at the time; we've made huge progress since then. My state has more African-American elected officials than any other state.
We need to come together, we need to be uniters not dividers.
You know, this was a mistake of the head or of the mouth, not of the heart, and that's--you know, I've asked for forgiveness and now I want to, you know, do the right thing in the future.
LARRY KING, HOST: And you will remain majority leader.
LOTT: Yes.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
NEVILLE: OK. Well, listen, Marc, I want to talk to you about this. Now, you just heard Senator Lott apologize using words that Jesse Jackson used after his anti-Semitic remarks in, what, 1984? Was that an inappropriate choice of words.
BERNIER: It wasn't. To refer to New York City as "Hymietown" was a disgrace. And he got a relevant pass.
I love it when people are so disingenuous, after they do this, that they call for other people to step down. Lott will probably be forced to step aside, Arthel, if this thing stays in the news another three days, because it will be what the panel is saying, a distraction.
But is he a racist? No. Did he make a mistake? Yes. For the good of the party, should someone else step in? Probably yes.
NEVILLE: OK, should someone else step in, Lewis?
LEWIS: It's not the issue that someone else should step in. It's the position of what he's in. It's not that he's racist. The problem is, he apologized because he didn't remember the history that he was taught about the events of racism. He made a mistake when he made...
NEVILLE: You don't think he remembers from 1948?
LEWIS: To be honest with you, no, because our educational system wasn't doing a good job.
NEVILLE: He's a senator. I think he knows.
(CROSSTALK)
NEVILLE: Listen, we have to take a break right now.
Coming up: Did the Catholic Church break the law trying to protect priests accused of sexual abuse? Boston's Cardinal Law, he's just one of the church leaders facing new subpoenas. Can he weather the storm? Don't go anywhere. More TALKBACK LIVE on the way.
(APPLAUSE)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(NEWS ALERT)
NEVILLE: And welcome back, everyone. Is the time up for Boston Archbishop Cardinal Bernard Law? The Massachusetts attorney general's office says it will exhaust every avenue needed to find out if church officials who supervised priests accused of sexual abuse violated the law. Of course, Cardinal Law has been at the heart of the debate and is now reportedly facing a grand jury subpoena, along with seven of his bishops.
CNN's Bill Delaney brings us the latest facts in this case. And Bill, this seems to be reaching a fever pitch. What do we expect to come out of these subpoenas?
BILL DELANEY, CNN BOSTON BUREAU CHIEF: Well, exhausting all means necessary does seem to include the subpoenas. Although Attorney General of Massachusetts Thomas Reilly didn't confirm that. It's being widely reported and widely believed that, indeed, unbelievably, the archbishop of the Roman Catholic Diocese of Boston, where two million Catholics live, has been subpoenaed for criminal charges with the possibility that he would be indicted criminally for -- on any of a number of possible charges, but most likely as accessory to these alleged acts of sexual abuse of the young by priests.
Now, this is what Attorney General Thomas Reilly had to say at a press conference just an hour or so ago about what he now openly describes as years of cover up in the Boston Archdiocese.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
THOMAS REILLY, ATTORNEY GENERAL: There was a cover-up, there was an elaborate scheme to keep it away from law enforcement and to keep it quiet. The Church or the leadership of the Church -- and this is a leadership problem, this a management problem, this is not a faith problem -- thought it was more important to protect the Church then children. And, as a result of that, needless numbers, countless numbers of children were harmed. And tremendous pain and anguish that they have suffered over years.
They're the victims in this case, because the Church cared more about itself than about kids. And that's wrong.
DELANEY: Arthel, important to point out that, under the laws of Massachusetts, it is considered very unlikely that they actually could have criminal indictments here, because they'd have to prove that Archbishop Law, and the others who have apparently been subpoenaed, had intended to really assist to enable these alleged perpetrators of sexual abuse to have done that. That's considered to be very unlikely to prove that intent. Statute of limitations problems as well, but it speaks for itself. Criminal indictments, even as a possibility against an archbishop, extraordinary development here.
NEVILLE: Let's talk about, Bill, this new recent occurrence that this Catholic group, a very influential Catholic group, is calling for Law's resignation. Will that have any impact on this case?
DELANEY: Well, it has an impact. Voice of the Faithful, they seemed to emerge out of the earth almost several months ago as this crisis deepened. Some now 25,000 lay Catholics around the country, but centered here in Boston ,who have criticized Cardinal Law for many months now and demanded a larger voice for the laity. But it's very significant they finally did step up last night, and in an overwhelming vote in a suburban Boston Catholic Church, vote to call for the resignation of Cardinal Law.
They had been hesitant to do that in the past, but things have reached such a fever pitch here that now that's happened. Having said that, whether that will influence Cardinal Law, let alone the hierarchy in the Vatican is another thing. One of the big problems here is the laity even listened to by the hierarchy in the Boston Archdiocese and in the Vatican -- Arthel.
NEVILLE: Interesting question. Bill Delaney, thank you so much for that report.
I want to get some thoughts from Marc Bernier right now. There are some recent documentss that have been released that contain allegations of anything ranging from molestation to drug abuse to illicit affairs. And, so I ask you, even if it is difficult to bring about such a case, do you think that Cardinal Law should be held criminally liable for this?
BERNIER: No. At best, he was winking a blind surveillance eye. He knew, I think, what was happening in many instances. He simply chose not to do anything. This, Arthel, is the most egregious lack of leadership I've ever seen in any faith.
You know, as a former Catholic, I've got to tell you, I'm horrified. As a child growing up in Massachusetts and Rhode Island, I was hearing this type of stuff was going on. And when folks would raise questions about it, it was always that thing nobody talked about. I mean, they knew it was there, but only in the last few years have we really learned the problems.
Cardinal Law has a problem, because he's got it on two fronts. They're about to go bankrupt. And what they want to do is stave (ph) off liquidation of all the assets the church may have in the region. So he needs to get out of the way for the church's sake, beforehand, and then they have to deal with this bankruptcy issue.
The fact of the matter is, the church is having a dwindling attendance because of this. You know some folks are just so disillusioned, they're not coming back to church. Particularly with the young. In an important faith, its major base is still the elderly now. And they've got to look at where the church is going in the future. He's going to have to get out of the way.
NEVILLE: OK. Let me ask Vickie (ph), should Cardinal Law get out of the way?
VICKIE: Yes, I do believe he should resign. Number one, I feel as though him being a leader within the Catholic Church, he had a responsibility not only to the church, but also to his parishioners. And if he allowed priests to behave in such a manner to molest children and be child abusers and then cover it up and send these priests elsewhere to continue to do the same thing, I think it was egregious, and he was an accessory. If you hold the door open to a bank robber, letting him go out and know that the bank robber is there, you are a part of that crime. So I feel that he is a part of that crime and he should resign.
NEVILLE: Thank you very much, Vickie (ph). Thank you very much.
And coming up next, a burning issue for the Supreme Court forces one of its more conservative members to speak out. Will one justice's experience and anger change a ruling? We'll get into that when TALKBACK LIVE returns. (APPLAUSE)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
NEVILLE: The Supreme Court is considering the hot button issue of cross burning. The case centers on whether burning a cross is a form of free speech. It has touched a nerve with the usually quiet Justice Clarence Thomas. He condemned the practice from the bench saying, "There's no other purpose, no communication, no particular message. It was intended to cause fear and to terrorize a population."
And, Marcellus, Judge Clarence Thomas made a moving and rare commentary from the bench during arguments yesterday. Do you think his argument was convincing?
MCRAE: I think his argument was very convincing. I think that the ban in Virginia should be upheld. I think that, while there may be a right to free speech, there isn't a right to intimidate.
The law bans burning a cross with intent to intimidate. Its content, neutral. It doesn't apply to any specific group, and it doesn't matter what group you're trying to target. You just can't do it.
And given the history and the association of this symbol with terror -- which it was associated with a reign of terror; I concur with the judge on that -- I think there's no question that it should be banned.
NEVILLE: Amy, I want to hear your thoughts. First of all, were you surprised that the usually quiet Judge Thomas -- Justice Thomas was actually speaking out on this issue?
GOODMAN: Considering his record and decisions when it comes to issues of civil rights, yes. But when it comes to this issue, it is a very difficult one. Cross burning represents everything that is heinous and must be condemned in this society. But I also believe that it is the community that must stand up and seek out against cross burning or neo Nazis marching.
I don't think they should be stopped from doing it, but I think we have to all stand up and condemn it. That shows the strength of a democracy.
NEVILLE: So Amy, is it free speech or intimidation?
GOODMAN: I think that people should be allowed to express their views, and others should be allowed to condemn those views ever so strongly.
GIORDANO: I agree with, Amy, Arthel. But I think this gives us an opportunity to stand up in this. And that's what we believe in America. And I think there might be countless symbols, swastikas and other things out there that people find reprehensible. But I disagree with Clarence Thomas. We're not in that age anymore. And Amy's right. This gives us an opportunity to speak out as a community.
MCRAE: I beg to differ. We still are in that age. Because the fact is, is that everything about that symbol and what it embodies is still very fresh, and it speaks in the same language and with the same volume as it did whether it's 10 year ago or 50 years ago. Now it might be a nice aspiration to say that we're beyond that, but we're not.
GIORDANO: We are beyond that in the sense that many more people are going to speak up, even in the south. The south is a new south. And you're not going to have this sort of thing where this is tolerated by people in a community.
(CROSSTALK)
MCRAE: Speaking out is not enough. You need to have the state say that it's not going to place its imprimatur on it. It's not enough to say people are going to speak out. It needs to be banned so the state clearly shows people it will not be accepted.
NEVILLE: Marcellus, do you think Justice Thomas' argument highlights the need for diversity on the high court?
MCRAE: Absolutely. Absolutely, because people have common sense, but they don't necessarily have common experiences. And I think that this is a case where singularly and in a judicious fashion he can bring to bear his experience to be able to have inter- subjectivity (ph) with the people who these symbols are designed to intimidate so that all people can understand how opprobrious this is.
And again, it's not a muzzle on speech. It's a muzzle on intimidation. There is no legal right to intimidate.
NEVILLE: OK. Ira (ph), should people be allowed to intimidate?
IRA: Well, yes, but I think once your rights infringe on others, it's, of course, wrong. But the court has already made a decision like this back in 1990 in Texas versus Johnson. I wanted to make an analogy to flag burning that it's OK to burn a flag, and it also should be OK to burn a cross.
NEVILLE: Thank you very much for your comment. Who said, I don't think so? I have to go to break. I just wanted to know who said it, who was that?
BERNIER: I did, Marc.
NEVILLE: All right, Marc, all right.
Coming up next, another hearing in the D.C.-area sniper case. We'll tell you if you'll be able to watch the trial on TV. That's after the break. TALKBACK LIVE continues in just a moment.
(APPLAUSE) (COMMERCIAL BREAK)
NEVILLE: Well a judge has pulled the plug on cameras in the court for the trial of sniper suspect John Muhammad, saying cameras could compromise his right to a fair trial. The ruling comes as the sniper's youngest victims appeared in public with first lady Laura Bush today. The 13-year-old was in the hospital for six weeks after becoming the sniper's eighth victim.
The sniper story captured national attention, of course. And Dom, do you agree with the judge's ruling? Could the sniper suspects get a fair trial if the proceedings were televised?
GIORDANO: Yes, absolutely, Arthel. And I think particularly when there are huge cases like this, with a lot things, people learn a lot by watching these trials. I'm very suspicious of a judge and others who just don't get it that the American public want access. I think this should be a no-brainer.
NEVILLE: OK. So Marcellus, the judge says, listen, putting this stuff on TV could affect the behavior of the witnesses and the attorneys. What do you say?
BERNIER: I agree. I think there's a certain performance that happens when these people do this. They know they're being on national television and they perform. I also don't want to give the people on trial the opportunity to make bigger celebrities of themselves than they already are.
I don't want to see clips on "Court TV" shown on every other network of this trial as filler for some of these other shows as part of their magazine, because we make stars out of them. Try them fairly in court. Have people there as witness to watch. Let the American public look at sketches. I don't want to see the pictures...
NEVILLE: Marcellus, you have 20 seconds. Go ahead.
MCRAE: Thank you. I actually disagree. I think that this is very simple. I think that typically you have a law that says that court proceedings are open, unless there's some overriding interest to have closure. I don't think there's an overriding interest here.
I think there is already high publicity with respect to these events. I think there's a diminishing return with respect to television. And I agree with the comments that Dom made that, in this instance, the television cameras should be allowed in the courtroom.
NEVILLE: OK. When we come back, I'll take your answers to our question of the day: Would you get the smallpox vaccination? Don't go anywhere. TALKBACK LIVE continues in a moment.
(APPLAUSE)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
NEVILLE: It is time for our question of the day. Would you get the smallpox vaccination? Going to California, Karen (ph), would you get the vaccination?
KAREN: Hi. My husband and I have both had the vaccine, but my sons haven't. And even though my husband has eczema, we're willing to hedge our bets in order to protect our children.
NEVILLE: OK. Thank you very much. (UNINTELLIGIBLE), would you get the vaccination?
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Yes, I actually would. As probably a first responder and a healthcare professional, I think it's very important that we at least give the people the opportunity to get the vaccine. And I for one probably would.
NEVILLE: OK. Amy Goodman, would you get the vaccination?
GOODMAN: No, I wouldn't. And I think we have to question why that special provision was put in the homeland security act, protecting Eli Lilly as manufacturer.
NEVILLE: Dom, would you get the vaccination?
GIORDANO: No, I would not. And I second Amy, and I question why if there is a quarantine you may not be allowed to be with your child.
NEVILLE: What about you, Marc?
BERNIER: Absolutely not. You know, with no outbreak in this country, the government is taking a far too aggressive stand. I would not get that shot.
NEVILLE: Marcellus.
MCRAE: At this time, no.
NEVILLE: OK. Thank you, Dom Giordano, Amy Goodman, Marc Bernier and Marcellus McRae. Thanks so much for joining me here today on TALKBACK LIVE.
I'm Arthel Neville. I'll see you again tomorrow for more TALKBACK LIVE.
TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com
Resign?>
|
