Subscribe | UPI Odd Newsletter Subscribe GAY ADOPTIONS The American Academy of Pediatrics says it believes gay men and lesbians should be allowed to adopt children. Advertisement The pediatricians' policy was released Monday in the organization's journal, Pediatrics. "There is a considerable body of literature that children with parents who are homosexual have the same advantages and the same expectations for health, adjustment and development as children whose parents are heterosexual," the policy states. The announcement has heated up the debate over the issue in Florida, which has the strictest law against gay adoptions in the country. Florida's 1977 law -- which bans all gay and lesbian adoptions -- has been upheld by U.S. District Judge James Lawrence King and that decision has been appealed to the 11th U.S. Circuit Court in Atlanta. Similar laws in Mississippi and Utah apply just to couples. Elizabeth Schwartz, a Miami attorney who is a member of the legal team working on the appeal, said she was confident homosexual adoption forces would prevail in Florida -- whether it's in the legislature or in the courts -- but it might take a while. Advertisement But Ken Connor, president of the Family Research Council in Washington, said the policy ignores current research into the matter. He said studies have shown that when children have homosexual parents, there is a greater incidence of suicide, depression and domestic violence. He said there is a shorter life expectancy for the parents who frequently do not outlive the children. "I think Judge King was right when he said Florida had rational objections to gay adoption," Connor said. -- Does sexual orientation affect a person's ability to be a good parent? Why or why not? Should homosexuals be allowed to adopt children? FETAL RIGHTS Last week's announcement by HHS Secretary Tommy Thompson that a fetus is now considered an unborn child by the federal government sparked surprisingly little conversation at the 29th annual Conservative Political Action Conference. Most conferees at the meeting in Arlington, Va., voiced support for the move, though they seemed more focused on the moral and health implications of the proposal rather than the politics. On Thursday, Thompson told CPAC that the Bush administration would issue a new regulation that would authorize the State Children's Health Insurance Program to cover children from conception to the age of 19. By clarifying the program's definition of a child to include the pre-born, the federal government tangibly endorsed the idea that life begins at conception. Advertisement Julia Page, an 18-year-old Virginia Tech sophomore attending the conference, thought the new regulation was "a good idea." "Prenatal care is important to the child and to the mother and it is also a good argument to have in the abortion debate," said Page, who added that she's not for an outright ban on abortion. Nonetheless, she said Thompson's announcement means that, "the unborn child isn't just a group of cells; it means it is a human life." Phyllis Schlafly, head of the conservative Eagle Forum organization and a leader in the pro-life community, called Thompson's announcement "wonderful" and acknowledged that the decision to view life as beginning at conception for the purpose of providing health care will change the terms of the public debate on abortion. In announcing the policy, Thompson highlighted the importance of health care in the first months of life. "Prenatal services can be a vital, lifelong determinant of health," he said, "and we should do everything we can to make this care available for all pregnant women." On a number of controversial abortion-related issues like partial birth abortion, the "health of the mother" caveat has been used by abortion-rights supports to derail efforts to curtail the practice. Advertisement The move is certain to ratchet the American abortion debate up another notch. By adding a government service that takes into account "the health of the mother" rather than trying to institute a ban, the Bush administration has thrown a moral curve ball to an abortion-rights movement that bases much of its philosophy on the belief that life, for practical purposes, does not begin at conception. -- What do you think? (Thanks to UPI National Political Analyst Peter Roff in Washington) CHUCK AND CAMILLA The British people would be happy to see Prince Charles marry Camilla Parker Bowles. They just don't want her to become Queen Camilla. That's according to a survey by the You-Gov organization for The Daily Telegraph, which found 55 percent of the more than 3,000 people polled thought Charles, the heir-apparent to the throne, should wed Bowles. This is seen as a major triumph for the prince, who has pushed for greater public acceptance of his relationship. Where they draw the line, however, is over the prospect of her wearing the crown. Only 16 percent thought she should become queen in due course. Some 34 percent thought she should be given another title, and 46 percent opposed any title at all. Advertisement Bowles generally has been unpopular with the public, stemming from her being identified by the late Princess Diana as a "third party" in her marriage to Charles. The royal couple divorced in 1996 and Diana was killed a year later in a car crash in Paris. Charles's popularity plunged following Diana's death, and the public opinion at the time was that he be bypassed in the line of succession to the throne in favor of his and Diana's older son, Prince William. But the poll in The Daily Telegraph indicated Charles has made major progress in restoring his reputation. Some 65 percent of those surveyed said he should succeed to the throne on the death of his mother, Queen Elizabeth II, while only 25 percent favored skipping a generation to Prince William. This week marks the 50th anniversary of Elizabeth's accession to the throne on the death of her father, King George VI. -- Should Charles marry Camilla? Why or why not? When and if he becomes King, should she be crowned Queen?
