Wow, how did this one slip through:

President Bush signed into law a bill to create electronic monitoring programs to prevent the abuse of prescription drugs in all 50 states.

The new law creates a grant program for states to create databases and enhance existing ones in hopes of ending the practice of "doctor shopping" by drug abusers seeking multiple prescriptions. It would authorize $60 million for the program through fiscal 2010.

The bill, signed late Thursday at the president's Crawford, Texas, ranch, was sponsored by Rep. Ed Whitfield, a Republican representing Kentucky's 1st District.

Now we know what the President meant by a "working vacation" - working hard at eviscerating more of our privacy rights.

The American Bar Association, at its annual meeting in Chicago Tuesday, backed a federal shield law for reporters.

"Our action today acknowledges the important role of journalists and the media to providing the public with significant information to ensure an informed democracy, and reporters' need to be able to protect sources in order to get that information," said Michael S. Greco of Boston, ABA's president. "It also recognizes reasonable standards for compelling journalists to name sources or disclose information gleaned in gathering news," he said.

The ABA declined 30 years ago to back a reporter shield law, but lawyers reconsidered the proposal after New York Times reporter Judith Miller was jailed a month ago for refusing to testify to a grand jury investigating the leak of the identity of undercover CIA officer Valerie Plame.

The ABA endorsement has exceptions:

Silja J.A. Talvi at Alternet has an excellent article on the reauthorization of the Patriot Act and what it means. It's all but certain Congress will approve the bill, although there are important differences between the House and Senate version, and the Senate version is far preferable.

Talvi describes the provisions that are of greatest concern to those who care about freedom and civil liberties. Here are just a few:

• Sneak and Peeks:

Under the PATRIOT Act, law enforcement agents do not have to prove they are suspicious of domestic terrorism to obtain the right to conduct such searches. They are allowed to utilize such sneak-and-peeks for regular criminal investigations as well. Once granted, a sneak-and-peek visit can include the taking of photos or of physical objects. As the law is currently written, the subject of the search is likely to never know the search has even taken place.

Before the House voted to extend the Patriot Act, Henry Hyde slipped in a little-noticed new drug provision:

Offered by Rep. Henry Hyde (R-IL), the successful amendment would make manufacture, sale, possession with the intent to sell Schedule I and II drugs, or conspiracy to do any of the above "narco-terrorism" if it "directly or indirectly, aids, or provides support, resources or anything of value to: (a) a foreign terrorist organization; or (b) any person or group involved in the planning, preparation for, or carrying out of a terrorist offense."

A "narco-terrorism" conviction would draw a mandatory minimum 20-year prison sentence, with the possibility of a life sentence. Under the provision, "the government need not prove that the defendant knew that an organization is a designated foreign terrorist organization,'" according to the House floor summary.

Who comes under the provision? It's not entirely clear, but it could be your corner street dealer who has no ties at all to terrorism.

A Press Release from Colorado Congresswoman Diana DeGette, co-author of the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act (H.R. 810) today condems Focus on the Family's James Dobson's likening of stem cell research to Nazi experiments in World War II. (received by e-mail.)

James Dobson's remarks were extremely ignorant and insulting. While it's sad that they warrant a response, his comments diminish the enormity of the Nazis' atrocities and are an appalling distortion of the debate," said Rep. DeGette. "In a perfect world, everyone would ignore such inflammatory rhetoric. Barring that, it must be condemned by all rational people. I hope my Republican colleagues express the same outrage with Dobson that they have expressed for partisan purposes in the past."

Dobson's comments, delivered on the August 3 broadcast of the Focus on the Family radio show, were first reported by Media Matters. They can be heard online here . On the show, Dobson said:

The ACLU says it could have been worse.

The New York Times reports:

The bill approved Friday by the Senate makes permanent 14 of the 16 antiterrorism provisions of the Patriot Act that were set to expire at the end of the year. The two remaining sections - particularly controversial provisions that allow the government to conduct roving wiretaps and to demand records from institutions like libraries - are to expire in four years unless Congress acts to reauthorize them.

The legislation also puts in place several new restrictions on the government's powers, including a higher standard of proof for the government in demanding library and business records, greater judicial oversight and increased reporting to Congress on antiterrorism operations, time restrictions on the use of secret searches, and limits on roving wiretaps. Civil rights advocates saw the new limits as welcome steps.

Received from my terrific Congresswoman, Diana DeGette:

U.S. Rep. Diana DeGette (D-CO), co-author of H.R. 810, the Castle-DeGette Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act that passed the House in May and is now awaiting consideration in the Senate, released the following statement on Senator Bill Frist's (R-TN) announcement this morning that he supports expansion of federal funding for embryonic stem cell research:

"Until today, there had been an ideological logjam in the Senate preventing stem cell research from coming up for a vote. Senator Frist's speech this morning gives new hope for everyone who supports medical research. He is a welcome ally in our bipartisan effort to change the current policy. The ideas and concerns he raised today about H.R. 810 are all minor. I believe they can be worked out to everyone's satisfaction."

You go, Diana. If anyone can get this bill passed, you can.

by TChris

Kristie's Law would prohibit high speed police pursuits in California unless the fleeing driver is suspected of involvement in a violent felony. Kristie was the innocent victim of a high speed chase. Her mom complains that "[l]aw enforcement's meaningless alternative to Kristie's Law, Senate Bill 719, is sailing through the Legislature."

SB719 would require law enforcement to adopt a pursuit policy, but this reform is mostly symbolic. Police departments must already adopt a pursuit policy to receive blanket immunity from civil liability. Romero's bill retains California's unique injustice of immunity even when the policy is not followed. It states only that departments must adopt, distribute and have officers read the policy. This reform implies that officers are not even reading their policy! Where is the accountability? Can you think of any other public-safety priority where thoughtful policy is developed, adopted, and then legally ignored?

Sentencing Law and Policy reports on a new bill in Alabama that seeks mandatory castration for certain sex offenders. Here's the AP article.

The House passed a bill Thursday that would require mandatory castration of persons convicted of violent sex crimes against children under 12 and would require them to wear electronic monitoring devices for the rest of their lives after release from prison.

...A milder version of the legislation passed the Senate 35-0. The Senate version provides stiffer penalties for sex offenders, provides for electronic monitoring for at least 10 years and toughens requirements for them to report their location to police, but does not include the castration requirement or other tougher language added in the House.

....Either the House or Senate version must pass in the other chamber before the legislation can become law.

How did your Congressperson vote? Here's the tally.

My congresswoman, the terrific Diana DeGette, voted against it. So did my other local favorite, Mark Udall.

The House of Representatives stands ready to reauthorize the Patriot Act.

The ACLU reports that last night, the House Rules Committee refused to adopt reforms that were needed to bring the Patriot Act in line with the Constitution.

Last week, the House Judiciary Committee approved a seriously flawed bill that makes all but two of of the controversial expiring provisions of the Patriot Act permanent. It also puts an excessively long ten-year sunset on those two provisions and includes only minimal changes that the Justice Department has already conceded but that do not reform the excessive reach of these powers into the medical, library, financial and other records of ordinary, law abiding Americans.

In a disappointing development last night, the House Rules Committee rejected allowing a fair, up-or-down vote on series of amendments that would correct these flaws based on no apparent principle other than the fact that these amendments likely have majority support if allowed a vote in the House of Representatives.

The House Education and Workforce Committee will be voting today on an amendment by Rep. Rob Andrews (D-NJ) to completely repeal the Higher Education Act Drug Provision. The Andrews amendment would reinstate financial aid to all of the more than 160,500 students who have been affected by this misguided law.

Contact your legislators and tell them to support the Andrews amendment to scrap the Drug Provision once and for all. Click here to take action now.

This will be the first time Congress has revisited the Drug Provision since it was slipped into the Higher Education Act Reauthorization as an amendment in 1998. Since then, more than 160,000 students with drug convictions have been blocked access to federal financial aid.

In 1998, this amendment quietly became law without debate or recorded vote. Now, seven years later, we finally have a chance to get members on the record about whether or not they truly want to help at-risk young people get the education they need to live productive lives and be responsible citizens.

Editorials in the New York Times and Minneapolis Star Tribune today explain how cutting student aid will foster crime and why we need to make it easier, not harder, for drug offenders to get an education.

[Via Students for a Sensible Drug Policy.]